Having misrepresented US aid commitments to Pakistan (as noted previously), the Beeb found it convenient to do so again.
This report says that the aid effort has been ‘stepped up’, immediately following this with the statement that ‘In Balakot, close to the epicentre in Pakistan, US helicopters have been used for the first time to ferry supplies.’ This is a report dated today- I’m pretty confident it wasn’t around yesterday. What a decent news organisation might have pointed out here is some salient points from the following:
‘RAWALPINDI, PAKISTAN AND NEW DELHI – US military helicopters arrived Monday from neighboring Afghanistan, assigned to help out in the relief effort of a key US ally devastated by the Oct. 8 earthquake. But on arrival in Pakistan, severe thunderstorms and hail kept the choppers all but grounded Tuesday, a source of frustration here.
“Thunderstorms are preventing us from doing our job,” says Staff Sgt. Lance Albert, a member of a five-man chopper crew of the Oregon National Guard, aboard a Chinook helicopter.’
When put alongside the BBC’s eyewitness account (also reported as part of the main story intro) that “I have seen people eating grass…. People are dying of starvation.” , it can be seen that the slant of article suggests that the US response is somehow implicated in that situation. Very unfair, in context– dangerously so, given US-muslim relations.
John R
Classic!
Welcome back JiL good to see you writing again, and I trust you enjoyed the delights of the mysterious East. I’ve spent many a stoned day on Lake Pokhara – sheer heaven. Obviously Anonymous has it in for you, despite which you certainly do enhance the credibility of this site. I don’t know what he/she thought he was writing when after his/tirade he/she added “and that none of the above represents a threat that I will retread JiL’s path to personal attacks.”
😆
Thanks Big Mouth, and I agree with you about the ‘Elusive Peace’ documentary. Somebody at the Honest Reporting forum on the subject thought it was fair and balanced to which I wrote them the following:
Tim, I can understand that you felt this programme was fair, but have you considered how much your own understanding and knowledge of Israeli/Arab history filled in the gaps to make it appear so.
Otherwise, your understanding of events there must already be coloured to make it appear fair.
For example, there was no background to the events that led up to the 1967 war, that caused Israel to take the Golan Heights, and were reluctant to give them up.
No history to for any viewer to understand how Jerusalem was originally meant by the UN to have been shared by all faiths, but the Arabs sought to keep the Jews out. So it was ‘occupied territory’ by Arabs before Jews.
No clear explanation of why the Temple Mount was so important to Jews. No mention that the claim to the Al Aqsa mosque as being one of the holiest sites of Muslims has no link to any reference in their Koran, neither has Jerusalam. The Muslims decided to put it on top og the Temple Mount precisely because it was the holiest Jewish site, then claimed Mohammed saw it in a dream.
They also did not make clear the purpose of Sharons’ ‘walk’ that supposedly led up to the intifada, was cleared in advance with the Palestinians, but was used as the excuse to launch the intifada, which they had been planning for some time. Without this understanding, no viewer could really see how Arafats’ demands were so unacceptable to Israel.
Try to see this programme again from the perspective of what somebody who did not know the events there would understand, then you might question its fairness and balance.
Flashing though the channels just now I, unfortunatly for my blood presure, found my self on BBC news.,Thinking that It was safe as the story was about personal dog care, again unfortunatly watched on.
At the end of the item they showed just one comment from a supposedly normal member of the dog loving public who said.AND I QUOTE.
“I dont know what the goverment was doing when they got rid of the dog LICENSE It does not make sense to me.”
How many dog owners did they nead to interveiw to find one that actualy wanted to pay more tax? They just cant resist the temptation to promote themselves,whenever they can,anymore. Like mice when the cats away.
Or is it now that the BBC has blown its credibility so much I just cant stop seeing their bias everywhere.
But then just because your paranoid does NOT mean they are NOT out to get YOU.
….”and that none of the above represents a threat that I will retread JiL’s path to personal attacks.”
Teddy Bear, I also scratched my head over that one. I mean, what do used tyres have to do with personal attacks?
Then I realised he meant that he would not do what he accuses JiL of doing in his post.
Yes Bry’ – just after he did it – DUH 😆
John R,
That’s hilarious! 😆
Been too busy on another part of the blog posting with Bryan to read the comments on this.
Got to say Andrew and Natelie have gone up in my estimation with their clear view on the earthquake, castigating those who just wnat to leave those poor unfortunates to suffer. Common humanity is not a left or right issue as Andrew and Natalie have admirably demonstrated.
There are those of us on the left (we are not all the demons you think we are) who castigated our fellow travellers for their sometime unsupressed glee at 9/11 – comments such as “it struck at the heart of capitalism” made me angry. Suire for a leftie those engaged in business in the twin towers were th epure agents of a bloated and uncontrollable capitalist system (as we might see it) but no way did those folk deserve to die. Any leftie who even suggested it was a good idea was doing their own cause no good.
And the same applies with the situation in Pakistan.
And sorry to the B-BBC folk for being one of the (occasional) contributers to the forum that goes OT – I think it’s inevitable tho.
Andrew, Natalie, et al keep up the good work. Despite not agreeing with everything you say this blog is a stimulating read. The narrow mindedness of some of the posts on the forum never fail to amaze me – but then again plenty of lefties are just teh bloody same, just spouting self serving statements with little or no attempt at a critique of their own postion.
Susan
I’m puzzled by the comemnts you make:
“And right on cue, the Beeb starts in with the Thatcher-bashing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po…ics/ 4335146.stm
“unapologetic class warrior””
I thought the pice was pretty balanced and toi be honest I think if you asked Mrs T, Norman Tebbit or other Tories from that era if the “unapologetic class warrior” was a fair one I think you might find that they would agree with it.
I read the “class warrior” bit to reflect the fact that a lot of her polcies, wider share ownership, selling off council houses etc aimed to remove class barries.
Her fight with the trade unions was a clear “warrior” like attack on the organised working classes. Some like you may see it as a good thing, other may see it as a bad thing, but it was an attack on the organised working class, so I think the “class warrior” comment is both fair and even something that those on the right might see as a compliment and acknowledgement of her policies.
A. Lurker writes:
“I thought the pice was pretty balanced and toi be honest I think if you asked Mrs T, Norman Tebbit or other Tories from that era if the “unapologetic class warrior” was a fair one I think you might find that they would agree with it.”
Codswallop!
Neither Margaret Thatcher nor Norman Tebbit were from even what might ordinarily be regared as ‘Middle Class’ backgrounds. Both were, if anything, transcendentally classless and their policies were designed to remove the idiotic caste system of class, which the Left seeks only to perpetuate.
Indeed, one of the things the Tory hierarchy (Hurd, Howe et al) most disliked about them was that they weren’t from the mumified ‘top drawer’.
To be a ‘class warrior’ (a term only a Leftist can use without irony) one has to be on one side, fighting the other. Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit were true radicals – former working class grammar school pupils, striving to give similar opportunities to those the Left would have rendered paralysed and properly in ‘their place’.
Which is why the BBC’s use of the term ‘class warrior’ is not just a lie but a typically distorting piece of tenth rate agitprop.
GCooper
>Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit were true radicals – former working class grammar school pupils, striving to give similar opportunities to those the Left would have rendered paralysed and properly in ‘their place’.< True indeed. And on the subject of paralysis, it's also worth remembering that a group of evil leftoid terrorists blew them both up at Brighton, along with many others, including Mr Tebbit' wife, Margaret, causing her to be crippled for life. And the two top 'representative' of the bombers now occupy an office in the Palace of Westminster, having been given succour and support of much of the MSM (particularly the BBC) throughout their 'campaign' for 'freedom'. Margaret Tebbit, nee Dane was the top girl in my class at primary school and like Norman, was a product of the working class.
A Lurker said:
“Her fight with the trade unions was a clear “warrior” like attack on the organised working classes. Some like you may see it as a good thing, other may see it as a bad thing, but it was an attack on the organised working class, so I think the “class warrior” comment is both fair and even something that those on the right might see as a compliment and acknowledgement of her policies.”
A more accurate way to see it is not as an “attack on the organised working classes” but as a removal of the oppression of the said working class. Have you forgotten about mass meetings with a show of hands overseen by thugs armed with clubs?
Strikes were never worthwhile and when control of the unions was returned to the members such activity rapidly almost disappeared.
I think the unions have been much better for their members since the reforms and although the current union leaders want to return to the old ways even Tony Bliar has the sense not to countenance that.
A lurker
The trouble with you lefties you just dont get it do you. Try to get into your head that even after 45 years of brain controling BBC propergander some people still want and can think for themselves. They have grown up and no longer believe in Father Chrismas. Being left wing is not the same as caring for other people or being working class. Do you really think that all those people that voted Tory for 18years did so because they wanted to see more dead babies in the street,or miners with smashed heads. It has not escaped the free thinkers of the age that the people that talk most about stoping poverty cause the most. I beleive this for 2 simple reasons.
1. Succesfull human beings act in their own best interest. If a politician gets his votes from largly poor people, do not be supprised that instead of making the poor rich which would loose them voters. They keep them poor and reliant on them so keeping them in power.
This goverment have not only done this they have allowed the influx of large numbers of the worlds poor as well.
I care about this country and all its people rich and poor because both are neaded. I know that the day they dont both exist, freedom will have died. That means we will all be poor,powerless,and without hope.
2.Experiance: Read some George Orwell.Or just live a few more years. You might end up a Tory yet.
Also conservatives believe (in fact know) that NO goverments neither do or can create wealth which is what relieves poverty. Only human being acting in there own interest can do this. The more the goverment makes this difficult or impossible the more poverty is created.
It is human nature that people help there fellow human beings.(not …..isms) All those hospitals that the NHS even now uses exsisted well before 1947.
It is not capitalism that causes poverty in the third world. It is in fact the almost entire lack of any that causes so much suffering.
Thats the responsibility of BAD GOVERMENT.
Which is the true enemy of the people and always has been. Thats why the BBC is not just BAD it is EVIL for perpetulating the belief that the goverment is always the answer when it is in fact always the problem.
It is the answer for the BBC however. It is though goverment that the BBCs staff are doing so well for themselves.
Just learned from the World Service that Pakistan has accepted Israel’s offer of aid. Apparently the two counries will discuss the logistics tomorrow.
A week after the fact?! Bizarre.
the ft and sarkozy
the ft is very much like the bbc they have their prejudices and sarkozy of france is not one of their favourite people.they always add an unflattering description to his name.this morning the innocent ft labelled him the “hyper-ambitious sarkozy.”
they also ran a campaign against paul wolfowitz when he was nominated for the world bank.now they suck up to him.
If you listen to this week’s edition of The Moral Maze (Radio 4’s best program) repeated tonight at 22.00, you’ll hear some good ol’ Christian-bashing from one Prof. Steven Rose. Prof. Rose is one of the lowest and most despicable types of human being namely, a self-hater. He’s of jewish root, but hates Jews and Israel yet is openly supportive of islam as any listener will hear to-night.
The issue being debated is whether religions can be protected by ‘hate-speech’ laws.
Yes, I listened to Moral Maze as well. To listen to some of the panel (Rose and Claire Fox) you would think that the push for the Bill was coming from Christians – or “mad Christians” as Fox puts it.
The BBC slyly put up one of the few Christian extremists in the country, Steve Green from Christian Voice (the ones that had their bank account, er, suddenly closed down by the Coop Bank for hostile comments towards gays on their website} as though he represented (a) the voice of British Christianity and (b) Evangelical Christians were the people protected by this Bill.
That the Bill is specifically drafted to protect Muslims, not Christians, and the majority of Evangelical Christians are deeply disquieted by it does not discourage the BBC at all from taking the opportunity to rubbish them.
Oh, and did anyone else notice that on Any Answers, the BBC managed to slipstream a nasty dig at George Bush re the David Cameron “did he take drugs?” non-story?
They read out an email from “Concerned of Boston, USA” to the effect that many Americans were worried about the long term effects of his long-overcome alcohol problem.
Naturally that contributed a great deal to the debate. In the eyes of the Beeb.
Gary, I agree 100 %. The Democrats here in the States always try to appeal to the poor to get their votes. But all they do is make them more dependant on welfare, keeping them poor. Then the poor have no incentives to better themselves.
Speaking of Democrats, I know this is a bit off topic but it looks like Hillary Clinton is trying to get federal aid for illegal immigrants hit by Katrina. That will certainly encourage more to cross our borders. So much for caring about poor American citizens who are out of jobs. Here’s the link.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/2/143602.shtml
Fran,
You’re absolutely right on the “hate speech” thing. It isn’t for Christian protection, I’m sure. But it will be perfectly fine for everyone else, especially the beeb and Muslims, to bash us.
On the ‘Elusive Peace’ documentary, of which we in the UK have only seen one episode last week, and I posted somewhere my observations of BBC bias shown there. In the US they have seen all 3 episodes and someone has written an article about their observations of BBC bias. Here’s the article so any who are interested can confirm it for themselves.
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/10852
Teddy bear
The link’s been removed (damn those pesky beeboids) got an alternate IP
cheers
This perhaps:
http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2005/10/the_commission.php#more
(Tom, often with blog links that don’t work you can go to the main page and scroll down)
.
Thanks for your help Peter 🙂
More bias by ommission.
On seeing the headline Russia and US disagree over Iran
Ms Rice is trying to drum up support for US pressure on Iran
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has openly clashed with Russia over whether Iran can pursue a nuclear energy programme.
I had to read the article to see if the BBC would mention the fact that Russia has contracts with Iran to build several nuclear plants and provide nuclear material. They didn’t, neither did they even link to an article they have on the subject.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4299657.stm
Now why do you think they omitted this little detail?
BBC1 News seemed determined not to air any positive views by Iraqis over the referendum.
The Iraqis’ negative comments appear online
“I just voted ‘No’ because we Sunnis must show we have our say,” said a young voter in Falluja.
In the southern city of Basra, a man said he was voting “Yes” “to end the occupation” – a view shared on both sides of the sectarian divide, says the BBC’s Paul Wood there.
“This is all wrong. I said ‘No’ to a constitution written by the Americans,” one vote, Jilan Shaker, told the Associated Press news agency.
But the online report does manage to squeeze one positive comment
Another said: “It’s history here, making history here. That’s very good.”
Easy to miss in the written report & if it was aired, I missed it.
With millions voting, could the BBC have not broadcast any comment that made clear to the UK audience, the voter’s eagerness for the introduction of democracy into his/her country?
er dan, the BBC has a habit of favouring Authoritarian regimes over democracies.
Democracy, you see, tends to throw up candidates who may not hold the right views.
love the first line of this piece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1827433,00.html
I have looked at the government web page for the 2001 census and I noticed that muslims represented 0.002 per cent of the population now they represent almost 2%, my question is WHY?
SiN
Was that Times piece written by OUR Andrew Sullivan the one who posts here?
I wonder if the Beeb would ever, in a million years, post on their website or show on TV the sequence from Al Iraqia TV that Omar posted on Iraq the Model???
NOT!
Take a look at these guys dancing in the streets of Mosul… their sheer joy is totally infectuous!
Teddy Bear, your points about Elusive Peace are right on. I despair for the rest of the series, and I doubt if we’ll get anything like the following from the bbc anywhere in their vast network:
September 29, 2005 marked five years since the outbreak of the current violent confrontation with the Palestinians. Throughout the course of the confrontation, 26,159 terrorist attacks have been perpetrated against Israeli targets, leaving 1,060 Israelis dead and 6,089 wounded.
Was that Times piece written by OUR Andrew Sullivan the one who posts here?
Fran
He’s very important to post here, I think.
http://andrewsullivan.com/
Cameron is under pressure to reveal details of his media-stimulated-propaganda past. What a refreshingly novel idea. I hope both Tony and Cherie Blair come clean on their apparent cannabis abuse.
Will Labour stop the campaign once Cameron becomes leader of the Conservatives? They are obviously very worried.
OT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4346162.stm
great pic of Condoleezza
One thing which is noticeable on the debate progs is that although the panel is usually weighted 3 or 4 Left / 1 Right, the rightist usually blasts away the opposition quite easily. This occurred on Question Time when the issue of whether the UK owes the Iraqi ‘authorities’ an apology because the British Army’s CO didn’t allow them to kill two captive British soldiers. The supine Left (this includes David Cameron: a bellwether question!) all said ‘yes’ but Anne Leslie put in a ballistic ‘no’ and explained concisely why not. The BBC’s solution to this problem is not to have a right-winger at all as in the most recent Any Questions on Radio 4 where the conservative (??) was John Bercow. Bercow’s role in the Conservative Party is to ensure that conservative policies are done down from within – he is a political boll-weevil, and he’s not the only one.
The list of effective right-wing performers is not great but is good and comprises the following:
Melanie Phillips, Peter Hitchens, Bruce Anderson, Anne Leslie, Simon Heffer. Any others?
Note of alarm: No Tories – a shocking mess.
Happy Daze wrote:
“Cameron is under pressure to reveal details of his media-stimulated-propaganda past. What a refreshingly novel idea. I hope both Tony and Cherie Blair come clean on their apparent cannabis abuse.
Will Labour stop the campaign once Cameron becomes leader of the Conservatives? They are obviously very worried.”
Actually I think the real answer is that Cameron should not be hounded over his private life as long as it does not conflicty with his public postion. He has a very libertarian view on drugs – which of course many may disagree with – which is in line with any alledged indiscretions in the past and as such he should be free to keep his private life private. I would rather the press, the Tory party and the Labour Party attacked him on his policies. His policies are fair game for debate and investigation.
To me (and many of my leftie mates) the sex scandels of the Tory Party in the 80s and early 90s were needless trivia that should have been left alone other than where the private lives of the politicians conflicted with their public policies – and it did in a few cases but in most cases it didn’t. As I’ve said attacking politicans for their policies IS fair game and we should all leave it at that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/4343506.stm
Since Friday,(D)HYS has requested views on Clare Short’s proposal to stop Prime Ministers initiating military action.
To date nobody has posted any comments about this. Can it be that no one cares what Clare Short thinks?
Of more interest than the topic under discussion on the above mentioned (D)HYS is the pic that has been dug out to represent the Hon Member for Ladywood. Bearing in mind the great difficulty the Corporation’s photo archive has in producing even marginally pleasing representations of Tory politicians it has pulled out all the stops in discovering this historic (and I use the word in its literal sense ) snap of the intellectually challanged one. How little resemblance it bears to the decrepit bag-lady so regularly spotted on TV screens rolling her eyes and foaming at the mouth as she launches into another incoherent tirade agaist the Government that nurtured her.
Allan@Aberdeen
And others?
Janet Daley, Bernhard Ingram, Michael Gove
and Mark Steyn
Regarding the BBC omission of salient facts about why Russia is against sanctions on Iran, presumably because the BBC wishes to maintain its radio contracts with Iran, here’s an example of how the story would read if they were’nt biased:
Russia defies Washington over Iran ties
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 16/10/2005)
It is the new Great Game, and the stakes could not be higher. The more Washington puts pressure on Iran to come clean about its nuclear ambitions, the more determined Moscow becomes to ensure that there is no disruption to its lucrative contract to turn Iran into a nuclear power.
What is more, as The Sunday Telegraph reports today, former senior officers in the Russian armed forces are acting as go-betweens to help Iran to acquire missile technology from North Korea that will enable it to develop a missile system capable of reaching France.
The revelation will increase anger in Washington and London at Moscow’s support for what the West regards as one of the world’s most dangerous regimes, bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.
The official Russian line is that there is nothing wrong with helping an ally to develop its energy needs. Iran may be sitting on the world’s second largest known oil reserves, but the Russians fully support Teheran’s desire for alternative energy sources.
But trade is not the only motive for Moscow’s determination to maintain ties with Teheran. It sees the alliance as a bulwark against Washington’s military expansion into central Asia and the Middle East and the presence of large American troop formations in Iraq and Afghanistan has prompted closer links.
For more read the article linked.
Does the BBC deserve a rise?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1592962,00.html
David Elstein slaps down Will Hutton’s piss-poor defence of the BBC tv tax. Well said.
Has Mark Steyn ever appeared on any BBC debating program? Has he ever been invited?
Sorry Allan, I didn’t read the preceding post carefully enough. There is however Andrew Roberts, a historian that has appeared on Any Questions several times, and I was inspired to send him an e-mail complimenting him following one of his appearances.
Allan@Aberdeen
Mark Steyn addressed this question a few months ago on his own blog. He used to appear on UK TV, but he hasn’t recently, I think his sporadic availability was not conducive to regular invitations over here, if I remember correctly. If you read the transcripts of his discussions on radio, it seems to me that his eloquence is best expressed through his fingertips, anyway. Horses for courses. I’ll try to dig out the item on his website and get back to you. If what you’re suggesting is that his political stance would not suit the Beeb, you are probably correct. But then again, Peter Hitchens appears regularly as a token reactionary, so there may be other reasons that are less sinister (or sinistral even).
Allan@Aberdeen
as promised, the following is an extract from Mark’s Mailbox:
>STEYN NOT ON SCREEN
Why is it that (to my knowledge) the only radio show that you are on is the Hugh Hewitt show and no TV? Why is it that very few newspapers carry your column WHEN you are such a great wordsmith?
I happened to very much enjoy your columns and your brief minutes on the Hugh Hewitt Show, BUT why is it that no other shows will have you?
Is there something wrong with me for enjoying both your excellent word-smithing and your analysis? Or something wrong with those TV and radio shows that do not know what they are missing? OR?
Why do not more shows not have you, in particular FOX News Channel?
FYI, I read your columns in the newspapers in Canada, UK, and Australia.
Peter Rice
Sarasota, Florida
MARK REPLIES: Short answer: I did a lot of TV and radio when I was starting out and I enjoyed it immensely. But it’s a six-hour round-trip for me to do a short bit on a cable talk show and that’s a big chunk out of the day. Plus, as a general rule, I feel my geopolitical stuff is better in print. As I said to CanWest Global, when they wanted to impose a requirement to appear on their TV shows as part of my National Post contract, I’m happy to appear on TV singing, dancing, doing comedy sketches, but not just to repeat what I said in that morning’s column not quite as pithily. Likewise, I love doing radio if I can play Peggy Lee singing “Don’t Smoke In Bed”. I’m happy to make an exception for Hugh’s show.
As to why American newspapers don’t carry me, you’d have to ask them. Unlike Australia, Britain and even Canada, they don’t pay very much, though.
Neil, from your link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po…ics/ 4346162.stm
That must be the worst photo ever published of Condi. She looks like she’s auditioning for the female lead in a horror movie. Coincidental? Hardly, knowing the BBC’s subtle, slick propagandists. They excel at propaganda that you can’t quite call by its name without being accused of paranoia.
Strange. I thought Condi was doing everything right – strong on support for the Palestinians, indifferent to the Israelis, weak against Iran, and spouting every PC cliche in the book.
So what can the BBC possibly have against her??
Er… let’s try that link again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po…ics/ 4346162.stm
One more time guys, let’s take it from the top!
One,two,three,four….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po…ics/4346162.stm