Reading this article at BBConline one has to try to follow the tortuous logic of a journalist trying to justify after the event the BBC’s skewed approach to the news, in this case to ‘Questions of Murder’. As Dumbjon points out, the notion of challenging authority doesn’t apply when the BBC agrees with that authority- when, for example, the race-based news quota method is applied.
Anthony Walker died, and that’s sad, and I have a different feeling about what priorities should be employed concerning such cases from the floundering BBC journalist who drew the short straw of attempting a Beeb apologia. I feel that all cause celebre murder cases should be left to the few gutter press publications who can really thrive on them. There should be no Danielle Jones, no little Rorys, no Holly and Jessicas etc- and no Anthony Walkers- on the BBC, and thus less likely to be such a style of journalism in the rest of the media. Instead there should be some dedicated continuous coverage of murder cases on a daily basis- complete with court records, legal diaries, verdict analysis etc (I suspect this would really be the reintroduction of certain features of coverage which have been dropped over the years). If the BBC want their moral leadership role (which they pride themselves on in bringing ‘social value’ to the British people) to count for them in the debate over their future, that’s what they should do.
And meanwhile, they might consider fitting this kind of information somewhere into their grand moral compass:
‘these murders need to be set out one by one, in all their horror, describing their nature and affirming that which is too often forgotten: Saddam was one of the worst tyrants in history and it was urgent to rid the Iraqi people of him.’
ITV may be forced to scrap news channel
If the ITV News Channel is scrapped, critics will point to a damaging retreat from serious, public service programming.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1903308,00.html
When we are being forced to provide £3billion pa to a single organisation in the basis of being provided with public service programming, it is not surprising that an ITV news channel can’t compete.
Regarding that NewsWatch article, I was struck by something in the very first paragraph:
“And are some critics right to say that BBC News is shy of reporting the “racist” murders of white people?”
Why is the word “racist” in quotes? Why is it in quotes (i.e. open to doubt) when referring to murders of white people but is not in quotes when linked to the murder of Anthony Hamilton later in the article?
This ‘quoting’ of “racist” in relation to whites exposes the belief of the journalist – that no such murder of a white person is racist, even if the court finds it as such. Whites are the “oppressors”, and as such the “victims” are absolved of blame for any act they may commit.
Who thuthfully expected the brutal murders of Anthony Walker and Christopher Yates to be reported equally and unbiasly when one fits the government propaganda of nasty racist whiteys and the other shows the Marxist multicultual experiment for what it is – Dangerous and Doomed.
Why did BBC News choose to make this their lead story? It smacks of the tabloid press, sensationalism and popularism. I always understood that newspapers sold on the basis of “DEATH, SHOCK AND HORROR”. Fair enough, but the BBC does not have to SELL News, or does it? Is this their way of (hopefully) staying ahead in the ratings war? The BBC is laughingly called a “Public Service Provider” not a purveyor of the equivalent of the Victorian “Police Stories” hand bill sheets. Yes, many people do have a morbid interest in murder and detective stories, tales of corruption and greed, but what we, the TV Tax payers want is NEWSWORTHY NEWS! Some people are still fascinated by “Jack the Ripper”, this Franchise still sells books today and makes money for the authors. Also anything with “Hitler” in the title usually flies off the shelves. Maybe this is why TV companies also show endless programmes of WW11.
The best part about watching BBC TV nowadays, after having a good read of the Daily Newspapers, is to see what they have left out. That gives me a good indication of what the liberal imperialists don’t approve of.
‘these murders need to be set out one by one, in all their horror, describing their nature and affirming that which is too often forgotten: Saddam was one of the worst tyrants in history and it was urgent to rid the Iraqi people of him.’
Which would be clear pro-war bias.
Please talk sense.
Not pro-war bias,
The truth.
Sorry, did Anthony Walker die in Iraq?
mrdgriff
No, but the BBC coverage of both stories are examples of the same selective reporting. Read the excellent article linked to by ed and ask yourself how much of the information it contains have you seen on the BBC. We get plenty of stories looking into the reasons why people feel the need to blow themselves up, or force their religious views on the rest of the world, but where is the in-depth analysis of conditions in Iraq under Saddam? Selective memories, selective reporting, selective propaganda: the BBC in a nutshell.
Ed Thomas, with his link to BBC Newswatch and thier mealy mouthed attempts at explaination and justification of thier bias has provided us all with a useful and practical definition of Bullshit.
OT:
Nice too see the BBC hasn’t lost its taste for good dog/bad dog labelling:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4497484.stm
So how come the other side aren’t the ‘restriction lobby’ ?
No one else will say it here so I will – mrdgriff demands the BBC provides “newsworthy news” and stays above the “sensationalism and popularism” of the tabloid press. Right. So if the BBC suddenly started ignoring the news being covered by the rest of the country’s news media, the likes of mrdgriff & everyone else on this blog wouldn’t be stamping up & down about how irrelevent the BBC was, out of touch with its listeners/ viewers/ readers and unworthy of the “telly tax”…?! Come on, get real.
mrjreith writes:
“..everyone else on this blog …”
Please don’t generalise – particularly without evidence. At best it renders arguments false – at worst, idiotic.
US Vietnam intelligence ‘flawed’
The US government is said to have fought the declassification of the documents over fears of comparisons with the handling of Iraq, says the BBC’s defence and security correspondent Rob Watson.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4492190.stm
Said by whom? Frei, Webb, Wilson?
Re above, but then it does stand comparison
But he (the NSA historian) clears President Johnson and his ministers of any blame. They were only shown intelligence supporting the claim of an attack, not a wealth of contradictory material, he says.
Instead, he blames the intelligence-gathers. “They walked alone in their counsels,” he wrote.
They must have said to LBJ, “It’s a slam dunk.”
There is a question that has to asked. If a news organisation persued a policy of highlighting reports of murders of white victims by members of minority communities whilst downplaying the converse would this be regarded as intentionally encouraging racial tensions? If the answer is yes, what is the BBC’s reporting rational?
O/T, but another chapter in the Beeb’s continuing ignorance of the US (so breathtakingly displayed during the Katrina coverage but by no means limited to Louisiana):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4492614.stm
A ridiculous, smugly condescending story about San Francisco’s precarious position on top of a major earthquake fault. These two paragraphs are the worst:
But I try to still them with a soothing balsam. Why not take a leaf, I ask, from the one country that has learned to live with earthquakes for the past 2,000 years and that, of course, is Japan?
And with the sudden realisation that it is, after all, entirely possible to come to terms with earthquakes and survive, everyone in the room begins to nod happily and sagely and promise that yes, they will mug up on how its done in Tokyo and Osaka and Kyoto.
This is absurd. After the Kobe earthquake in 1994, California DID send teams of earthquake specialists to Japan to study Japanese methods of engineering and building. (As Japan likewise sends teams over here to study our methods.) Most major public buildings in S.F. have been either rebuilt or are in the process of being rebuilt or retrofitted for earthquake safety. A new Bay Bridge is being built as the old one was deemed not earthquake safe. We have three new earthquake-retardant museums, an earthquake-retardant conservatory, and we are currently in the process of building an earthquake-retardant aquarium.
Why is the Beeb so lazy? It just assumes that we would do nothing about earthquake safety because, after all, we are just dumb Yanks and we need someone from overseas to tell us what to do.
I have a lot of friends in the engineering profession. There are two places in the world that are known centers of earthquake engineering expertise: California and Japan. Ask any engineer and they will tell you.
I remember in the 80s the BBC ran several under cover type programs to investigate racism in London. The premise and focus and was always on white racism. Never once were any cases of racism against white people ever considered. To the BBC even back then, their official position appeared to be that racial attacks against white people just did not happen. A far cry from the reality on the streets in places like Brixton, Clapham and Lewisham.
Another publicly funded organisation that has shown an astonishing lack of interest in racial attacks against white people is of course the Commission for Racial Equality, the very body set up to supposedly combat racism. For many in position of power in Britain, attacks against white people are simply a sort of acceptable collateral damage, a little by-product of the joys of multiculturalism, regrettable but nothing to make too much fuss over.
Toynbee hates it………………http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1657759,00.html
BBC ignore it except for this………..http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4470364.stm
and this…………………http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4481756.stm
With enemies like Polly Toynbee and The BBC I just know I`m going to love it!
I`ll try again
Toynbee
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1657759,00.html
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4470364.stm
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4481756.stm
This is just simply breathtaking. Read this and weep for the death of impartial news ‘reporting’.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4493102.stm
This delightfully balanced, neutral (!) piece about a possible new symbol for the Red Cross caught my eye.
“One country in particular, however, refuses to use either the red cross or the red crescent.”
Gee, I wonder why that is. And, surprisingly enough, there’s no mention of the religious/nationalistic connotations of the symbol of the Red Crescent.
Gee, I wonder why that is. And, surprisingly enough, there’s no mention of the religious/nationalistic connotations of the symbol of the Red Crescent.
Yes, and there’s more than that, better read this as background to this story:
The incident occurred in November 1999 in Geneva. Dr. Bernadine Healy, then head of the American Red Cross, had made a passionate speech questioning the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies for having denied entry to Israel for 50 years. Sommaruga confronted her in a private meeting shortly thereafter. Eyes bulging and furious, Sommaruga said to her, “If we’re going to have the Shield of David, why would we not have to accept the swastika?”
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer051002.asp
and this:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer032700.asp
Of course, from the bbc you’d learn that it is Israel that snubbed ICRC and not vice versa.
Knobbers.
Cobblers Max, read the article linked by Lizzie and it’s absolutely clear why the red Star of David isn’t accepted (it’s a national rather than international symbol), complete with quotes from those who oppose this policy. The whole article is based on an attempt to overcome this through a universal symbol.
The quotes from Jewish World Review serve to illustrate exactly why partisan news media should be treated with a pinch of salt. Healy is ‘passionate’ yet Sommaruga has ‘eyes bulging’. Presumably the article could equally have read ‘ eyes bulging and furious Dr. Bernadine Healy…demanded Israeli entry to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies……Sommaruga later made a passionate defence of the IFRCS policy’.
Susan –
The piece you linked to begins:
If you have written a book suggesting that San Francisco could soon be levelled by a massive earthquake, you may find Californians a little reluctant to accept your message. Author Simon Winchester’s idea that the US of the future could contain a number of ruined and abandoned cities has met a frosty reception.
The piece is written by … Simon Winchester. Aside from the fact that the BBC has given someone a platform for self-promotion on the taxpayers’ ticket the piece deserves a good ol’ fisking. The arrogance and hubris are something to behold.
Boy Blue –
The Commission for Racial Equality? Hah! I rang them last week to find out what they’ll be doing about the Avon & Somerset Police Force’s binning of 186 applications from white men in favour of ethnic minorities:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/29/npolice29.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/11/29/ixhome.html
Well what an eye opener that was. The fellow I spoke with regarded it as just fine. In fact it was good because ethnic minorities suffer from racism so descriminating against ol’ whitie is good. When I pointed out his racist and hypocritical position (not to mention the arrogance!) he told me there’s nothing I can do about any of it. Maybe he forgot that he’d given me his name but a complaint has been made and I won’t be letting it go.
The Commission for Racial Equality my arse.
Susan,
We have three new earthquake-retardant museums, an earthquake-retardant conservatory, and we are currently in the process of building an earthquake-retardant aquarium.
You forgot to mention earthquake-retardant oil refineries. You have those too.
Torrance Refinery is built to withstand pretty violent tremors. The main reactors all sit on concrete pads secured to the earth via a circular array of bolts, each able to withstand a slightly higher shearing force than its neighbour. When an earthquake hits, each will snap in sequence. So instead of falling over sideways, the whole thing simply screws itself into the ground.
Other structures are supported by concrete stanchions with coils of steel wire, like large springs, cast into them. An earthquake might cause them to crumble, but the the metal spring simply flexes and holds the structure together even if it’s fatally cracked.
So you have at least one refinery which post-‘quake might well be a constructive total loss, but is exceedingly unlikely either to blow up or otherwise add to the problems.
Pete_London
if the moderators will allow it, please keep us posted.
Cockney,
The crescent should be similarly banned from use, as it’s a symbol of the ummah, the nation of Islam.
Rob, I agree with you. Bring on the funny square thing.
Socialism is Necrotizing: Your claim the BBC is “ignoring” the Narnia film was rubbish and your story selections to prove your point hilariously selective. Among the stories you didn’t have room for above were…
This glowing feature: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4447090.stm
This “sneak peak” article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4408280.stm and picture gallery – both also glowing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4445442.stm
This on the child actors at a photocall: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4335068.stm
And, not directly related to the film, but another upbeat story about the Narnia phenomenon here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4426182.stm
And so on, all in the last month and all easily found via the site search. Does this mean you’re going to have to hate the film now?
er, no.
……….but its encouraging to see those articles for which, Thanks.
Susan,
What I loved about Mr. Winchester’s article was his smug statement that European and Asian cities were built in ‘safe’ places, only a young country would be silly enough to build cities wherever they liked.
Lisbon? Venice? Naples? Assorted Chinese cities along the Yangtze River???
Such ignorance is a supposed ‘Expert’!
SiN,
I expect to enjoy the Narnia movie very much, just as I enjoy the book.
I am a non-Christian but the Christian subtext – which I missed entirely as a thirteen year old – bothers me not at all. On the other hand ‘magic’ seemed to me a perfectly reasonable explanation for Aslan’s resurrection. However I did sense his numinous nature, very different from your standard ‘magical’ being.
Funny isn’t it how non-Christians are much less threatened by Christian ideas than post-Christians? Obviously Toynbee et-al are shivering with fear that children might actually be ‘tricked’ into believing the Ressurection of Christ. I can only assure them that C.S. Lewis’ books had no such effect on me, much as I enjoyed them.
And, of course, Songs of Praise this Sunday was completely Narnia-themed, including an interview with Doug Gresham (Jack Lewis’s stepson), an executive producer of the film …
I think they might rather be accused of “shilling” for Disney – though I don’t think that would be fair.
By all accounts it is going to be a fantastic film of my favourite book – I can’t wait!
mrjreith,
Only one of the articles you cite speaks approvingly of the Christian subtext, (the ‘glowing’ review)
The ‘sneak peek’ subtly denigrates Narnia as being mostly for children, as opposed to Harry Potter and LotR which have adult fans.
The picture gallery announces the religious subtext will be de-emphasized.
And the other two articles are less about the book or movie than the young actors and the boy intended to read it.
Apart from “those buddhists” and their state worshiping friends no-one will frankly give a sh1t about any sub-context as long as the Narnia film is any good.
Pete – remember that the “Commission for Racial Equality” is in fact a pressure group for ethnic minorities. Their aim is to promote the interests of these minorities. The idea of “equality” is a cynical sham and is no more accurate than the “German Democratic Republic” was an accurate description of East Germany.
As for “positive discrimination”, there is no such thing. If you see society as individuals, “positive discrimination” is anathema as someone is ALWAYS discriminated against, by definition. If you see society solely in terms of competing interest groups then positive discrimination is a good thing if it promotes “your” group at the expense of others. Truly does the phrase “the end justifies the means” apply to those who favour positive discrimination.
“positive discrimination” = pc/Left wing racism
Good luck to the Narnia films !
Let that miserable atheist git PP squeal with horror !
“Rob, I agree with you. Bring on the funny square thing.”
Cockney | 05.12.05 – 12:28 pm
So… that will make them what? The Red Square? 😀
“With enemies like Polly Toynbee and The BBC I just know I`m going to love it!”
Socialism is Necrotizing | 05.12.05 – 2:50 am
I fully agree. There are certain movie critics in Hollywood and New York who are absolutely dependable in their reviews. If they like it, I know it’s going to be a crashing bore :). If they hate it, I’ll probably love it. These are the same clowns who hated the original Star Wars, dismissing it as a 2-dimensional comic book. I happen to like 2-dimensional comic books, so I made a point of seeing it :D.
“Whites are the “oppressors”, and as such the “victims” are absolved of blame for any act they may commit.”
Rob | 04.12.05 – 4:23 pm
I wonder if these clowns have any concept of just how racist that point of view is? It’s just a new-fangled way of saying, “You can’t expect those people to behave in a civilized manner!”
But if the word “racist” is being resisted, try “bigot”. If certain individuals want to claim ownership of the definition of “racism”, let them. “Bigotry” is a better term, since it doesn’t necessarily refer to race, but is a generic term for hatred of virtually any specific set of concepts. Racists and bigots are birds of a feather… both equally ugly… but a bigot is an equal-opportunity hater; they might hate anything for any arbitrary reason.
Rob
If the CRe was just a pressure I’d ignore them or – if I was in that kind of mood, which is increasingly likely – ring up to heap scorn on someone. I’ve long though that the CRE has some kind official status, maybe that it was created by statute to monitor laws.
OFF TOPIC
All this has today become irrelivant. Tony Blair 2 has been elected the next elected leader of this country. The game is up. The ruling classes are now tottaly in charge. The BBC will now never change. Look forward to having the P..S.taken out of you for as long as you are silly enough to live here.
Melanie Philips links to an extremely disturbing article by Carol Gould, about the racist and inflammatory language used by delegates at the recent Global Peace and Unity’ Conference at London’s Excel Centre.
Some 20, 000 Muslims attended and applauded what appears to have been a steady diet of anti-British, anti-American and (even more worryingly) anti-Jewish hatred.
I can find no mention of any such behaviour on the BBC report covering the event. Does anyone know different? If not then I remain deeply worried at the Beeb’s silence on this matter. Surely the sight of 20, 000 individuals vigorously applauding racist abuse would be headline news for the ‘right-on’ Beeb. Yet strangely that doesn’t seem to be the case here. Can anyone tell me why?
That Carol Gould link is …
http://www.currentviewpoint.com/cgibin/news.cgi?id=11&command=shownews&newsid=826
… for anyone interested.
Just read that article Rob, it’s scarey
That truly is a scary article. We’ve known for a long time that the Islamic enemy is within, eating at Britain and much of the rest of Europe like a cancer, but now they’ve dropped all pretence.
Still, I’m surprised at Khan. I though he was married to an infidel and had fairly enlightened views.
In the light of the report on that rally, what I have to say here re ‘Have Your Say’ on the topic of the additional emblem for the Red Cross seems trivial:
I came across the following comment. My emphasis in bold:
Added: Monday, 5 December, 2005, 17:25 GMT 17:25 UK
This is a very good idea but doesn’t go far enough. The Red Cross was set up so that a neutral organisation would be able to care for all victims of war and would not be targeted by either side. Currently the Red Crescent is regularly fired upon by Israeli army snipers. The new symbol (if used by both sides) will mean that the Israelis will no longer target the Red Crescent ambulances. I’d also like the name ‘Red Cross’ changed to the Red Crystal and only this neutral symbol allowed.
So I responded, pointing out that the statement was absurd and adding that the ‘Red Diamond’ was proposed because the Red Cross and the Red Crescent will not tolerate the Red Star as a partner.
They’ve since published more comments, but mine is not among them – even though they don’t seem to be inundated with comments on this topic.
So it seems they are going to let the vile propaganda stand, though any news organization worth its salt would know that there were instances where Israel was obliged to stop Red Crescent ambulances ferrying terrorists and weapons and certainly does not ‘regularly fire’ on them.
Against my better judgement, I resubmitted the comment last night. We’ll see if the moderators will play fair this time, though I seriously doubt it.
Still, I’m surprised at Khan. I though he was married to an infidel and had fairly enlightened views.
ah, hem. Those deep thinkers among us who read the Tatler — or rather, in my case, Vanity Fair, the US equivalent of The Tatler — know that Khan’s infidel wife has ditched him for Hugh Grant, and has swapped her hijab for strapless evening gowns and bikinis. She’d probably get stoned to death in Pakistan for this photo alone:
http://www.virgin.net/movies/galleries/bridgetjones2premiere/gal_01_04.html
She’d probably get stoned to death in Pakistan for this photo alone
Khan is presumably now well distanced from his previously Christian wife of Jewish family background.