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.
Ian: If they were equally es critical of their mates in Iran things would be different but then they’re not. Time to remove them red-tinted spectacles!
Sorry, dis, but you can’t use semantics to wriggle out of it. The story isn’t *critical*. It’s factual. Point out to me where it’s inaccurate, or where the story shows bias, and I’ll take your claims seriously.
Your view, on the other hand, is inconsistent. You’re prepared to criticise Iran on the grounds that it circumscribes knowledge and creates government policy based on religion, yet when factions in the US attempt to do the same thing you demand that others turn a blind eye to it.
Of course, that’s your view and you’re entitled to hold it, even if it’s inconsistent. But holding on to an inconsistent view is a hallmark of bias.
Oh, and by the way: If you think the way to win an argument is to accuse people of wearing “red-tinted spectacles” then your reasoning powers are in a poor state. Stick to facts and reason, and you might do a bit better. Didn’t you read Kant at school?
Take a walk down Green Street disillusioned_german. Why the BBC might not like us will become sadly obvious.
“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”
Mr Betteridge, have you ever thought of taking your own advice?