A reader called Dina writes:
Hi, I just wondered if anyone else watched the programme on BBC2 on Friday 17th March about called “The Family that Walks on All Fours”?
I watched this expecting it to be a scientific documentary about the curious anomaly of a rural Turkish family who have several mentally handicapped children who walk on all fours, like monkeys. The programme started well. About half way through, one of the scientists interviewed the Imam at the local village Mosque who was afraid that the programme might hint at Darwinian evolution in explaining the childrens symptoms. The programme went on sympathetically to explain that the idea of evolution is generally anathema in Turkey as an Islamic country, especially in rural areas and the Imam thought that to allow a Western programme to make the connection could invoke the wrath of an Al Qaeda attack on the village. The programme then went on to emphasise that hostility to the idea of evolution is not exclusive to Islamic countries and then, in classic BBC style, the programme switched to show an American Evangelical Church discussing the bible. At this point I changed the channel. I thought I was watching a genuine scientific documentary, but I should have known that the BBC needs to insert a political (especially anti-American) angle into such a programme. I try not to watch the BBC as much as possible as I cannot stomach the boring and predictable PC, anti-American drivel that is their stapel diet. Anyway, I just wondered if anyone had seen this and agrees with me?
Just be grateful they didn’t find some reason to show a clip of Gitmo.
John Reith,
so you’re saying that it’s possible to become a BBC journalist without having gone to university to get a media studies degree or whatever qualifications are needed? Or did the people you know (ex army etc) go back to further education?
I ask the qusestion because I have always assumed that journalism was something of a “closed shop” in as much that you either need a)some kind of qualification which will start you off at the bottom of the ladder in the BBC news department or b)you would enter BBC news having first served an “apprenticeship” in a local or regional newspaper.
“Why did the Today programme put on that bloke Murray to give Tariq Ali such a tongue-lashing this morning? Agenda; schmagenda.”
why did Andrew Marr never press Mozzam Begg as to what the hell he was doing in Bosnia and Afghanistan in the first place?
Why did Marr not press him on why he was trying to get into Chechnya?
Why does the BBC never refer to Hamas as a terrorist organisation?
Why did the BBC have as its lead headline “Israelis storm Palestinian prison” last week, when the rest of the world was reporting “British Council office in Gaza stormed”?
Why does the BBC see fit to promote Hajj and Meccah every year ( only 2 per cent of the UK population is Muslim)- while at the same time , St Paddys Day is barely mentioned , if at all?
Why are there Islamic prayer rooms at the BBC , as reported by Peter Hitchens? Is there an Anglican chapel there too?
John Reith
The proof of the BBC’s “institutionalised leftism” is its failure over the last nine years to even mention our investigation in its national bulletins, or bother to investigate our research and claims.
Now then, the BBC makes much of its duty under the due impartiality legislation to air a “wide range of views”. This is the justification that the BBC offers for airing the opinions of, among others, sypathisers of Muslim terrorists.
Given the above, the very least the BBC should do, surely, is take up my request to examine our research and establish its merits. However, the BBC steadfastly refuses to do so.
Here’s a few more endorsements of our research exposing a criminal conspiracy conducted by the BBC’s house mag, The Guardian:
“what a superb book you have written.. describing how two decent people have been ruined through no fault of their own… the media cannot ever accept that they have got something wrong…”
Letter to J. B. Hunt from leading political pundit and political publisher Iain Dale
(13 November 1998)
“Like everyone else in the country I have hitherto complacently accepted as true the cash-in-envelopes story about Neil Hamilton, but “Trial by Conspiracy” has shattered my complacency as it provides, for the first time, the other side of the story”
John Butcher, The Birmingham Post (9 January 1999)
re – the Reading murder case
this just in on C4 SnowMail:
“One, Michael Johnson, had already hanged a 13 year-old boy with learning difficulties upside-down and beaten him so badly his skull was fractured and he suffered serious brain injuries. He was convicted and yet was let out the next year.“
Alan G, Archduke & JBH
I don’t claim to be an expert in the provenance of BBC journos but an unscientific sample from my address book suggests the ones I have come across are overwhelmingly Oxbridge types(History, PPE & English – not one meedjah studies, alas). Other unis include Edinburgh, UCL and Warwick. About half did the BBC trainee scheme; the other half joined from elsewhere – Reuters/PA/FT/Times/ITN with some from the City and a couple were former diplomats/fast-track civil servants. Two came from local papers. This may not be typical as all my sample are over 35.
If there is a Muslim prayer room, I suspect it owes its existence more to employment law than to political bias or religious enthusiasm. As for the Anglican chapel…..given the publicity about the director general being the most powerful Catholic layman, I’d guess that’s been refitted with incense and a cd player belting out Gregorian chant by now.
JBH – I don’t need endorsements from Iain Dale or Trevor Lloyd whatever…..I’ve read your book. Read my last post more carefully. I really believe that it is more likely that the libel laws are what is holding you back than a conspiracy on the part of the BBC (and everyone else in journalism) to protect guardian journos (one of whom left the guardian years ago).
John Reith
Here’s a few more endorsements of our research exposing a criminal conspiracy conducted by the BBC’s house mag, The Guardian:
“To my mind at least the issue remains unresolved… [Hunt & Keith-Hill] have been working on an extremely detailed and comprehensive account which casts doubt on much of the so-called evidence and particularly calls into question the role of The Guardian newspaper in the affair; and I have a copy of the report here. It demonstrates conclusively that there are still investigative journalists who have the courage, occasionally, to challenge received opinion.”
The current Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords and the Evening Standard’s 1997 “Peer of the Year”, Labour peeress Baroness Turner of Camden, speaking in a House of Lords debate on Press standards (Hansard, 14 January 1998)
“Jonathan Boyd Hunt has got their number”
Taki, The Spectator (31 October 1998)
“Whatever the truth or otherwise of Hunt’s allegations, nobody has yet even reported the story in the wake of [The Guardian’s denunciation of Hunt’s research]. The Guardian dedicated thousands of feet of newsprint to putting its case against Hamilton, yet has so far refused to respond to the questions Jonathan Hunt has raised. The result of all this is that people are being denied the chance to consider all sides of the story. That kind of selective attitude to the evidence cannot be healthy for public debate on any issue.”
James Heartfield, LM Magazine, March 1998
Surely you agree John, the very least the BBC should do is deploy a couple of reporters to examine our research. Yet it doesn’t. What reason do you offer, John? Come on, speak up!!
Is everyone else out there starting to get the idea that there is, er, something not quite right with John Reith’s/the BBC’s position on this??
John Reith
Our posts crossed.
Regardless of your thoughts on the matter, which, if you are sincere, are indeed perfectly reasonable, given the endorsements of our research that I’ve posted here today,which you have probably seen for the first time, can you now think of any cogent reason to justify the BBC’s continued refusal to examine our research and assess its merits?
Why does the Israeli government refuse contact with the BBC?
Why do Palestinian terrorists attack offices of many British organisations but not the BBC?
Why do the top recommended comments in the HYS about BBC openness all point out the pro-left/anti-Bush/anti-Israel bias at the BBC ?
Why do journalists returning from Iraq feel the need to make statements about distortion of the situation in BBC reports?
Why do the BBC attack from the left at all times?
Why do BBC journos cry when terrorists die?
Why do the BBC leave out details from stories which show their pet special interest groups in a bad light?
Why do the BBC invite terrorist apologists onto their programs and call them moderate?
Why does ex-pres Clinton think the BBC is anti-American?
Etc etc
BBC Radio 4s PM at 5.35pm
Did anybody catch the sanctimonious tone of BBC journalist Ben Wright, reporting from West Bengal, amidst “the iconography of Marxism”. Interviewing the leader of an Indian Marxist Trades Union, who was only too happy to accept British government money, provided courtesy of DFID (Department for International Development).
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/
Yes, headed by the same Hilary Benn (son of TB) who shook hands at the Houses of Commons with the suicide Bomber, Kahn. How many Millions given to West Bengal from the £280 million in 2005/06 towards development assistance in India? Yes grants for Communists, so as to facilitate the Revolution! Not one shred of outrage or criticism, or combative journalism from the BBC here, the journalist sounded as if he was in complete agreement with such British government economic assistance. Not one John Humphrey’s style interruption when the names of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin , Mao, were recited approvingly by this same Trades Unionist and receiver of British tax payers monies. Not even a whisper of protest to the effect that some of them are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people and the worst crimes & genocide of the 20th century, how can you still celebrate these names! Just a quizzical silence, and a strange BBC blessing from another uncritical journalist when it comes to Communism.
I wondered why it was “Marxist” when usually it is “Communist”……..I thought maybe this programme could be extended to France so they could restructure their overmanned State enterprises with British taxpayers’ funds.
Then I realised – hindered by the Eu from interfering in industry here New Labour has adopted India as a place where it can meddle and it has found kindred spirits, after all New Labour is nothing more than Frankfurt School Marxism anyway
Why do Palestinian terrorists attack offices of many British organisations but not the BBC?
Protection Money
Why has John Simpson still got a job? What was the last piece of NEWS and not comment he has published?
Why are all my sentances questions? When is my dinner going to be ready?
I ask the qusestion because I have always assumed that journalism was something of a “closed shop” in as much that you either need a)some kind of qualification which will start you off at the bottom of the ladder in the BBC news department or b)you would enter BBC news having first served an “apprenticeship” in a local or regional newspaper.
You need a sponsor………..if you are related by blood to an insider, or if you sleep with the right people, or “meet” late at night on Hampstead Heath, or go to the right parties and cut the right lines, you can surely join the public sector aristocracy
odd story of the day.
bomb blasts just “happen” in the streets of Boston in Lincolnshire
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/4823998.stm
this is currently the lead story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/4825212.stm
note the lack of a Have Your Say on whether murderous criminals should be released on probation or whether the Home Secretary should resign.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/default.stm
note also the lack of a Have Your Say on whether the death penalty should come back.
And yet, when its anything to do with the “Palestinians”, there’s a HYS posted up nearly immediately.
john reith
For the sake of argument suppose the BBC did not have agenda (and your answers to the questions posed by archduke etc should be enlightening) how different would the BBC service be? Would the word “terrorist” return to coverage of outbreaks of “militancy” or “insurgency”? Would the words “Islamic” and “terrorist” be found in the same sentence (let alone whole item)? Would Gordon Brown be interviewed as aggressively as, say, David Cameron? I could go on but I’m sure you get the picture.
In the 1970s policians would be interviewed in threes or maybe in twos – I recall Austin Mitchell and Richard Whiteley interviwweing 3 MPs – Martin Flannery, Joe Ashton, and Fatty Prescott – now often they would have representatives of all 3 major parties with Michael Meadowcroft and Marcus Fox……………..but they woulsd debate.
Following the Tories New Labour demanded one-on-one with pre-screened questions and Minister to have last word…….always.
So now we get Soviet-style announcements from The Party and the Central Committee and sometimes directly from the Politburo. It does not seem to have dawned on these politicians and their media buddies just how Sovietised they have become
John Reith
If you cant see bias when it is broadcast at you all the time, it just gos to show how much the propergander has worked. It is not the things that the BBC says that make it so subversive, it is the things that it does not report. A rational conservative middle of the road one just does not exsist on the BBC, and never has. Please tell me where this veiw point is expresed anywhere on the BBC. This inspite of the fact that I believe it represents at least what, 75% of ordinary people in their hearts, really believe. The BBC is institutionaly Leftist. If you dont believe me, get the BBC to run a opinion POLL on how Labour and Tory voters view the BBC. If their is any substancial difference, then by definition the BBC must be BIAS. Whether you think the BBC is right or not.
Good point about the death penalty (D)HYS, Archduke. I was just about to make that point. This is a classic case where the death penalty would be fitting. Come on, Beeb, let the public speak.
What a horribly sad case about that poor murdered girl and her friend. Just breaks my heart.
At least the Beeb is reporting it straight, not morally equivocating like they do in so many other cases of atrocity.
John Reith talks a good game, but he speaks with a forked tongue.
Clearly, he either works for, or with, the BBC. Equally clearly, his disingenuous claims about the provenance of BBC journalists are not to be trusted.
As he well knows, it isn’t that BBC hacks have media studies degrees (though some of the young tykes hacking away at the News Online coalface possibly have). It is that they are solely drawn from what has become a ‘media class’ – a self-annointed priesthood of journalists sharing almost identical Left-liberal views.
You don’t share those views? You either don’t get past the interview or (like Jeff Randall) you don’t stay long.
Now and then (as is the case with a friend of mine in BBC News) someone who is not stamped from the Guardian/Independent mould slips past the ideological guards. But he does so by keeping his mouth shut. Indeed, my mole tells me he doubts if more than two or three people in the entire department are Conservative voters – and that they keep their opinions quiet: particularly on maters concerning the USA, Iraq, the EU and other shibboleths.
Perhaps Reith would like to tell us how he thinks BBC news staff vote? And no fluffy ‘How would I know?’, please. Come on, John, just give us a guess.
While he’s at it, perhaps he’d like to comment on the frequency with which external commentators on all manner of subjects are chosen from small circulation (but politically approved) papers like the Guardian and the Indy, as opposed to the vastly more popular Telegraph and Mail?
Come on, John. We deserve a laugh in these dark days, after all.
Alan G asks of john reith:
“so you’re saying that it’s possible to become a BBC journalist without having gone to university to get a media studies degree or whatever qualifications are needed? Or did the people you know (ex army etc) go back to further education?”
In Joe Boyle’s ‘report’ below,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4820646.stm
he writes that police looked on “disinterestedly” at the the march. Disinterestedly? As in ‘impartially’. Or does he mean ‘uninterestedly’ as in with little or no interest?
The answer to Alan G’s question is simply that one doesn’t need a degree (of questionable value) or further education to get a job at the BBC: in fact, no education at all will suffice.
What a bunch of thick, illiterate knuckle-heads.
Iran’s mullahs signed a huge agreement with BBC
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_14250.shtml
Bush has come out straight – saying that he will use “military might” to defend Israel:
“I made it clear, and I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel”
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/20/060320195105.4089dcoq.html
i guess that Mullah contract will be all fubared pretty soon.
Last time John Reith cropped up here he was defending the BBC’s refusal to accept (or even mention) that the killing of a Parisian Jewish man by psychotic islamic detritus had anything to do with antisemitism. He evn denied that the killers (who had telephoned the dead man’s family & screamed ‘Allah akbar’ or some such shite) were muslims and said the BBC were right to deny it! He then disappeared from the comments here… He denies a BBC bias as it is minutely disected here and in many other blogs – how many sites can he name that attack the BBC for its RIGHTwing (or even non-antisemitic, non-statist, non-Guardianista) agenda?
“who had telephoned the dead man’s family & screamed ‘Allah akbar’ or some such shite”
it was worse – they recited Koranic verses. Muslims living in the district joined in the torture. The torture went on for three weeks. THREE WEEKS!
But despite all of this, the French authorities refused to highlight the anti-semetic/muslim angle initially.
to get an idea on how bad it is in France, have a read of this interview with a Jewish Rabbi
dave,
from your link:
Iran will soon present its tourist attractions in a publicity campaign to be waged in the international and local television networks, said an official of Iran Cultural Heritage and Tourism Foundation (ICHTF) in Madrid Wednesday.
Tourists to Iran? Oh good lord, imagine what that would look like. “Over here is the pit we use for ritual stoning of adulteresses. And over there is the ceremonial building crane we use for hanging gay men. And over there is the nuclear warhead bunker we plan to use to wipe the Jews off the face of the planet. Isn’t it all lovely.”
Yes, all too lovely, I’m sure. Just the place for a second honeymoon.
“Why did the Today programme put on that bloke Murray to give Tariq Ali such a tongue-lashing this morning? Agenda; schmagenda.”
I was delighted to hear Murray expose Tariq Ali so effectively this morning. But it was an item put out at 8.55 berated by Norman Tebbit (pbuh) in a memorable attack some months ago as the graveyard slot of the Today programme. It stood out dramatically from the usual, wall to wall anti-Iraq war coverage and was clearly slipped in so that weasel worded BBC types such as yourself could demonstrate ‘balance’ in the coverage of the Iraq war’s third anniverary. In short this item was the exception that proves the rule.
Look guyz’n gurlz, you really are pissin’ against a strong wind if you think that you’re gonna get a Beeb minion to own up to BBC bias. Since the first radio presenter chipped a microphone out of a lump of flint the Corporation has been self defining it’s output as the epitome of lack of bias. It is ‘the standard by which all others should be judged’ (it says here on this Charter renewal application).
Whatever the Reith impersonator posts has to balanced because he works for the Beeb. It’s sorta like Papal infallability. That’s why they never, ever admit to getting anything wrong. They’d get excommunicated or something.
Frank Gardner BBC1 Lunchtime news (TV: yes, I ventured forth into the daylight for once)
Subject:Iraq
2000 US troops have lost their lives,
100 British troops have died;
and this is the interesting part;
“35,000 Iraqis have been killed.
This is an estimate.
The number could be higher”
As you said Frank. “This is an estimate”
But what you didn’t say, Frank;
“The number could also be lower”
It’s an equally valid statement.
You could have added nothing to your original phrase, Frank, the meaning would be clear; but you chose the words;
“The number could be higher”
Why did you say this?
Do you know something we don’t?
Why don’t you share your source(s)?
Do you think the public might doubt your sources?
Or perhaps it’s really just your opinion.
Perhaps you’re pandering to the masses, already primed by the figures from the ‘Lancet’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3962969.stm
Whatever; the BBC has its thumb on the scales again.
susan -> Iran actually is a pretty cool place to visit. there’s tons of history there, dating from the Persian Empire and Alexander the Great. Most Iranians I have met in the UK , exiles/dissidents from the Mullahs mostly, make a point of correction to you – they insist on you calling them Persian. It’s like “iranian” = the mullahs, but “persian” = the shah, the former glory of the empire. the pre-islamic days. Friendly people too – and the Persian cuisine aint bad either.
having said all that , with A-ma-dinner-jacket in charge, i’d give it a wide bearth for now.
I dont fancy having a U.S. cruise missile missing its target and turning my hotel into “collateral damage”.
Oscar -> its LORD Tebbit (pbuh).
thanks.
😉
Alan@Aberdeen
Please be reminded that you are not stupid because you cant spell, and you are not intelligent, because you can. Never underestimate your enemy. Most present day university students cant spell properly, thats just modern life. The BBC employs only graduates, this is the main reason it has nothing in common with the vast mass of ordinary people that are forced to pay for it. I hope by your comments you were not implying that in some way it had been taken over by the GREAT UNWASHED. If only that was true.
Very much OT but I still need to say it:
Archduke, you had your great Rugby win at the weekend now I’m going to say “Come on West Ham… I’ll be over for the Semi” 🙂
I’ve detected some BBC Bias against West Ham, by the way. Their commentator sounded like he was willing Man City on. It looks like the Beeb doesn’t like West Ham United much and, yes, I had that feeling before.
Alf Garnet was a West Ham fan. The BBCs contempt for WHUFC has gone back a long way it seems. None of your chairman ever donate to the Conservative party or was a working class self made man I hope. As a lot of football chairman do and are, that cant be the reason. Must be that none of their UNIs or friends are in the eastend. I think its because they just hate working class white English people who “dont talk proper”, and charge them £150 for changing their tap washers.
Which club produced the 4 goal scorers in the 1966 WC finals and produced the most glorious day our contry has had for 40 years?
Why do lefties dislike this football club more than one owened personaly by a American?
Answer1 West Ham FC
Answer2 They dont. The BBC hate Americans even more than English people, and that is saying something.
i’m working class. London Irish by birth.
i know what yer on about Gary.
may i add – thanks to free markets , i’m now middle class. Lord Tebbit (pbuh) and his “get on your bike” attitude was my families attitude. And it has propelled me to a middle class life. I cant deny that.
being on welfare was just utter taboo and still is. we have major arguments in our extended Irish family if somebody is found out to be drawing on welfare.
to the extent that if any of my relatives arent “getting on their bike” , they become non-persons.
its harsh – but the lesson is learned.
Thanks for the comments, lads… I guess it may have got something to do with Alf. At least there’s another reason for me to dislike the Beeb. Thanks, Beeb!
Let’s all move to the US, make loadsa dosh and laugh at the Beeb’s feeble attempts at opinion making! 😉
archduke
Unfortunately for this countries current parents, they can be on welfare even with combined income of over £30,000 per year. An expensive unfair and destructive way to buy votes. Problem is the econemy is running on it, and then only just. If there is so much spare cash about, would it not be nice if the goverment just stop taxing poor peoples wages altogether?
Shame on the BBC that this simple just, inexpensive and liberating concept, is not even discused.
it beats me Gary – especially when i turn to my wife and say “if we got divorced we’d be about 10 grand better off”.
and that is the truth. the wife went off to the council pretending she was going to divorce me, just to find out.
and we’re middle class. somethings not right with the state of England.
“Let’s all move to the US”
thats next on the cards for me. Gotta convince the Lib Dem-BBC supporting wife though. i’m getting there.
i think i’ll do a Lieutanant Winters eventually – aged 55, nice farm in Virginia. Away from all this crap.
Gary: It’s true… ever since the Moan. Utd. take-over the Beeb seem to have discovered a sudden dislike for the Mancs. I think the fact that we (West Ham) don’t have a very multicultural team (unlike Chelsea or the Arsenal) and our manager has criticised A. Wenger for fielding a team without one English player may have got something to do with their dislike for the real Eastenders…
P.S.: Did Wenger actually imply that Pardew was a racist or was that piece put in by the Beeb? I couldn’t bring myself to look into it. Five black regulars in the first team and Pardew’s a racist? Yes, well…
Alan Pardew’s racist credentials:
Shaka Hislop, Anton Ferdinand, Danny Gabbidon, Nigel Reo-Coker, Hayden Mullins, Marlon Harewood, Bobby Zamora…
Another reason why they might dislike us is the fact that we’ve got two Israelis in the squad (Benayoun and Katan)… Interesting thought that.
Iran actually is a pretty cool place to visit. there’s tons of history there, dating from the Persian Empire and Alexander the Great. Most Iranians I have met in the UK , exiles/dissidents from the Mullahs mostly, make a point of correction to you – they insist on you calling them Persian. It’s like “iranian” = the mullahs, but “persian” = the shah, the former glory of the empire. the pre-islamic days. Friendly people too – and the Persian cuisine aint bad either.
I know archie. Loads of ’em where I live. People who fled after the Shah went down for the most part. Very cool people. Fantastic food.
But Iran’s probably not a great place for a woman to visit right now, for one thing.
I’ve detected some BBC Bias against West Ham, by the way. Their commentator sounded like he was willing Man City on. It looks like the Beeb doesn’t like West Ham United much and, yes, I had that feeling before.
disillusioned_german | 20.03.06 – 10:43 pm | #
You are absolutely right, the bias in sport is so obvious, in fact bias is endemic within the bbc. With bbc Rugby commentary it’s the same they have a Welshman who commentates for every English match and with such an awful Anti-English bias. It’s heart-breaking. Only the bbc would have the nerve and gall to employ a Welshman to give the main commentary for an England v Wales game at Twickenham. BTW what nationality is the new bbc Radio 4 announcer prior to PM yesterday- sounds like a phonic circus freak!
Well, say goodbye to good old patriotism, my dear anonymous friend. In twenty years time we won’t watch football matches but public hangings of women and homosexuals… at least that’s what’s going to happen if the Beeb get their way. They’re a cancer and need to be stopped.
Even the write up shows bias….”deemed”(sic), some how I get the impression that he/she doesn’t agree with the referee’s decision!
“City’s Sun Jihai saw red after he was deemed to have swung an arm at Matthew Etherington,”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/fa_cup/4820132.stm
Gary Powell wrote:
“Alan@Aberdeen
Please be reminded that you are not stupid because you cant spell, and you are not intelligent, because you can.”
We sit at our computers typing out our thoughts with various degrees of accuracy depending, to a great extent, on our mood. And there may or may not be errors in our spelling, grammar, whatever.
The confusion in the mind of the media studies graduate who used ‘disinterested’ where ‘uninterested’ was correct and appropriate was not a spelling error; it was a fundamental lack of understanding of English. The BBC is funded to the tune of £2.5 billion per year and their staff can’t get this right. They lie constantly, omit facts in order to distort reportage and the grasp of English of their reporting staff is questionable. The BBC is utterly pathetic.
Returning to topic (can’t you folks start up your own blogs to post things instead of posting random pieces of foaming at the mouth rhetoric here?) it was a crap documentary, but BBC bias? I call BS on that claim.
How is it “anti-american” to make the point that there are powerful factions in US public life that want to banish science from the science classroom and replace it with cod-theology? Is no one allowed to tell the truth now, because it doesn’t fit in with your ideology? As far as I’m concerned, the only thing that would be anti-American would be hiding the truth, which is what you lot seem to want.