(but you knew that).
What is it with them? As our Canadian friends pointed out (see below post), they ignored a press conference at which the current and fully elected President of Iraq stated that ‘civil war is out of the question and… the Iraqi people will not accept [for] a civil war to take place’ in favour of Mr Allawi, the former President’s comments about civil war being emblazoned across the BBC website all through Sunday.
Then, today, they report Bush denying the case stated by Mr Allawi, as though that were more logical than demonstrating balance with comments from Iraq’s current and elected President. Just who do the BBC think runs Iraq? Bush, from the Whitehouse? Why, he must be a clever chap! There’s something both lazy and patronising in bypassing the elected President’s comments in favour of the former and unelected President’s comments, partially, one feels, because Allawi deigned to make his to the BBC directly.
It’s not balanced reporting to only allow the news to be filtered through the BBC’s own favourite caricature-politician, saying ‘He said there were many voices that disagreed with Mr Allawi’s view, including President Jalal Talabani and top US commander Gen George Casey.’
Look Beebies- we know about these voices disagreeing with Allawi, but no thanks to you! Bush’s comments were not themselves news, but referring to news. They are not opinion expressed by the President of the USA, but facts that the BBC should merely have acknowledged. Some people accuse Bush of failing to state his case, but often all he fails to do is to rip into the sensitive media souls who fail to paint the picture truly and can’t understand why that makes some people, interested people, angry. Bush refers to shadows and the public disbelieve him, and whose fault is that when the shadows in fact are real yet go unrecognised and unreported by the farcical MSM?
See also: The Belmont Club’s analysis.
“Blair yesterday made the speech of his life that has so far been roundly ignored by Al Beeb”
well spotted SiN. it was an awesome speech. he tore chunks out of the idiotic Beeboid media – and yes – its been pretty much buried.
“Are you a Beeboid Ian Betteridge?”
The more the merrier is what I say! We like to be challenged on here, unlike the BBC.
heres the permalink to the conservativehome commentary on blairs speech:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/03/everyone_is_tur.html
“Even a cursory bit of research would give you the fact that Jalal Talabani isn’t “fully elected” [sic], but is in fact appointed by the Iraqi parliament. Not a single vote is cast for the position of president.”
In other words not dissimilar to how Tony Blair is appointed PM
DONT HYS
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=1354&edition=1&ttl=20060322101126&#paginator
Our Indian chap from yesterday, with over 80 recommendations, has been replaced by someone from Chelmsford.
no doubt to reinforce the BBC line that anyone who is anti-islam is usually white and from Essex and has a rather large tatoo on their backs, while swigging 10 pints of lager.
Actually Ian Betteridge confirms he has a financial association with the extortion funded BBC in the previous thread.
Ian, you factual fellow you,
Please oblige me by tripping over the following fact:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that the coalition troops will be obliged to leave Iraq if requested to do so by the Iraqi government.
So who really holds the power here?
Blair yesterday made the speech of his life that has so far been roundly ignored by Al Beeb
To be honest it was up to the level of Bush on a bad day, lots of his usual I’m right and everyone else is wrong. Thus it is odd that Baghdad’s favourite broadcaster didn’t comment.
By the way, if you’re going to lambast the BBC for getting facts wrong, you might be wise to get your own facts right. Even a cursory bit of research would give you the fact that Jalal Talabani isn’t “fully elected” [sic], but is in fact appointed by the Iraqi parliament. Not a single vote is cast for the position of president. And, as leader of a Kurdish party, it’s extremely unlikey that Talabani in any way represents the views of the majority of Iraqis.
One, this is a blog without thousands of employees and the other resources of the BBC.
Two, presenting only one error as evidence of a pattern is always dishonest.
and three to quote the Iraqi Constitution (Article 36) ‘[t]he National Assembly shall elect a President of the State’.
ayayay
Very fair point, and one that many forget. Blair is only an MP and, like all Prime Ministers, was asked by the Head of State to form a government for no other reason than he led Parliament’s biggest faction.
It appears that Ian Betteridge thinks the views of an ex-Man Who Wasn’t Elected President of Iraq are more pertinent then the current Man Who Wasn’t Elected President of Iraq, and more pertinent than the Current Elected POTUS and the top US General in Iraq.
Very odd.
Even a cursory bit of research would give you the fact that Jalal Talabani isn’t “fully elected” [sic], but is in fact appointed by the Iraqi parliament.
The German President is not elected but appointed by Parliament.
Parliamentary systems cannot operate properly with an elected President as Charles de Gaulle made self-evident in the Fifth Republic Constitution.
Like Germany, Iraq has a constitution to prevent one man having all the power
Rob Read
In which case, he`s using my money to spread Authoritarian Socialism becuase I have a financial associaton with the BBC too, although its somewhat onesided.
SiN
Rob Read doesn’t and I don’t either.
Archduke,
no doubt to reinforce the BBC line that anyone who is anti-islam is usually white and from Essex and has a rather large tatoo on their backs, while swigging 10 pints of lager.
Thanks for the chuckle. Who was it who said, ‘Many a true word is said in jest?’ Shakespeare?
Our Indian friend’s current position is at the bottom of the first ‘Readers Recommended’ page:
NAMAKKAL GOVINDAN KRISHNAN, Bangalore, India
Recommended by 33 people
Maybe Eamonn has it right:
…. perhaps the moderators just restart the voting (setting all to zero) every so often, to give newer comments a chance?
I have a supplementary theory:
Could it be that there is a Pakistani clique in the HYS studio and they just couldn’t stand the support shown by those who recommended the Indian guy?
indeed bryan. isnt it curious that despite all the coverage of the Israeli “wall” , there exists a far bigger one in India – 2,500 miles long – surrounding Bangladesh. And they are currently building another one in Kashmir.
Me thinks that our Indian Hindu friends have an awful lot to say – if only they could get past the Beeboid censors.
The phrase I should have used in my 22.03.06 – 8:03 am | comment was ‘abridged comments’ or ‘shortened comments’ and not ‘summarised comments’.
Sorry about that unintentional mangling of the language.
Well, at least I don’t do it on purpose, unlike a certain broadcaster I could mention.
Er… that was me.
Me thinks that our Indian Hindu friends have an awful lot to say – if only they could get past the Beeboid censors.
We’ll have to invite them over here.
“Are you a Beeboid Ian Betteridge?”
Oddly enough, I’ve registered for a BBC web site (Action Network), appeared on BBC World twice, and have done work for the BBC, writing the occasional column for Ariel.
But, of course, that doesn’t matter. What matters is whether I’m factually wrong. Given that you’re always claiming the BBC doesn’t deal in facts, I think the same standard should apply to you – or don’t you agree? Which leads me on to…
“In other words not dissimilar to how Tony Blair is appointed PM” and
“and three to quote the Iraqi Constitution (Article 36) ‘[t]he National Assembly shall elect a President of the State'”
Both of which are accurate, unlike the original report. To any reasonable reader, the “fully-elected” means elected by the people, which Allawi isn’t. You wouldn’t say that Tony Blair was “elected as prime minister”, because it’s simply wrong.
To look at some other points, in no particular order:
“One, this is a blog without thousands of employees and the other resources of the BBC. ”
Bill, I assume that you have access to Google? 🙂 It took me less than a minute to find out that “fully-elected” wasn’t correct, using no more tools than a search engine.
“Two, presenting only one error as evidence of a pattern is always dishonest.”
I’m happy to say I’ll be sticking around for a while and picking up on any other errors. You should be glad about this – I know from experience that writing to an audience that doesn’t criticise makes it hard to keep your standards of accuracy up.
“In which case, he`s using my money to spread Authoritarian Socialism becuase I have a financial associaton with the BBC too, although its somewhat onesided.”
Assuming that the “he” is me, show me how quoting a fact – a fact that no one has disagreed with – is “spreading authoritarian socialism”? Or is criticising something on the basis of a factual inaccuracy somehow not allowed?
And finally:
“Actually Ian Betteridge confirms he has a financial association with the extortion funded BBC in the previous thread.”
Yes, indeed. For those who missed it: approximately 3% of my income last year came from the BBC. I have good friends who work there, although given the low state of morale I don’t know if that’s likely to endear the place to me.
“We’ll have to invite them over here.
Bryan | 22.03.06 – 10:48 am |”
it might well come to that. we could use their expertise in building barrier walls. i would suggest starting in Bradford.
If you have documentary evidence of the BBC manipulating the recommended comment counts, please send it to the Telegraph and other papers, this needs to be publicised. You should not expect a reasonable response from the BBC, the best you can do is to shame them.
Ian, are you deliberately ignoring my comment, or did you perhaps not notice it?
Since you’ve worked for the BBC, I suspect the former.
Ian, you factual fellow you,
Please oblige me by tripping over the following fact:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that the coalition troops will be obliged to leave Iraq if requested to do so by the Iraqi government.
So who really holds the power here?
Bryan | 22.03.06 – 10:23 am
OT
On “Today” the BBC’s religious affairs correspondent (didn’t catch the name) said that the present trial and possible execution of the Moslem apostate in Afghanistan is a symptom of conservative islam and a conservative interpretation of sharia. Well no, it’s actually a straightforward and basically non-contentious application of sharia law (as set out in the hadith covering Moslem apostasy) http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos.htm
So he gives a misleading commentary on Islam and, for good measure, smears the “conservative” approach to legal – or any? – interpretation.
If you have documented evidence of manipulated figures, I’d suggest you send it to the BBC too – it would help your case, and help the foundations of any report from a third-party. If you want contact emails for different sections of BBC Online, you can go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/newmedia/contacts.shtml to find them.
Here’s something referring to the voting, tucked away in the ‘about have your say’ FAQs:
Week beginning March 20th: This week we are doing some testing on the Recommendation System. This means that you will probably see that the system will be working differently with the number of recommendations on comments changing both up and down, and more rapidly than previously. We apologise for this, but it is essential work that needs to be done, and can only be done in the live system. It will hopefully make the Recommendation System better in the long run. Thank you for your patience.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4180382.stm
Anyone have a guess as to what they can be doing that means canging the votes? Some sort of weighting system perhaps?
Pete_London
I`m not worthy of your company!
Sadly, I still do.
“school wins muslim dress appeal”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4832072.stm
but its not over yet:
“She would consult her lawyers about a potential appeal to the European Courts, she said.”
Ian,
I know from experience that writing to an audience that doesn’t criticise makes it hard to keep your standards of accuracy up.
One’s standards shouldn’t drop simply because one is not encountering opposition to one’s point of view.
Oh, but I’m forgetting who you work/worked for.
What about integrity?
OT
Glad to see we have a competent Govt & Chancellor that believe in tough action on terrorism and yet cut our Defence forces to the bone..
Well done No.10
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=448542006
Ian Betteridge, thanks for coming back. My point is that by taking money from the Beast, you participate in the perpetution of Lies, Obfuscation and Bias.
The BBC has brought this hate and distrust upon itself. My guess is that if morale is low within the Corporation, it is becuase the indentured Socialists have been found out and thier days are now numbered. I pay the telly tax against my will.
Afghan on trial for Christianity
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4823874.stm
OT – This article needs to be saved for posterity. Next time some idiot on the BBC spouts about ‘tolerance’ and ‘religion of peace’ – show them this.
Islam is wicked, vile and cruel. There, I said it. It’s still a free country in the UK, and I’m dammed if I’m going to let the politicians appease away our hard fought rights. For what?
If you have documented evidence of manipulated figures, I’d suggest you send it to the BBC too…
Oh, come off it Ian. Go up the thread to Susan’s post near the top:
Susan | 21.03.06 – 7:43 pm
Note the date and time of her post and compare the content with the current state of the topic on HYS. Then you send it to the BBC, since you have connections there.
I’ve had enough complaints totally ignored.
Umbongo
On “Today” the BBC’s religious affairs correspondent (didn’t catch the name) said that the present trial and possible execution of the Moslem apostate in Afghanistan is a symptom of conservative islam and a conservative interpretation of sharia.
I thought I caught that but didn’t want to say so without being certain. Why am I reminded of the communists in Russia suddenly becoming ‘conservatives’ in the eyes of the BBC? In any case, it should put to bed any notion that the BBC shies away from using the word ‘conservative’. It’s just waiting for the opportunity to associate ‘conservative’ with ‘bad’. Likewise, the BBC’s habit of mentioning ‘Labour’ when it comes to policies, initiatives, action etc, but mysteriously dropping the word when … oh I don’t know, maybe a Labour MSP has been caught trying to torch a hotel.
Bryan:
“One’s standards shouldn’t drop simply because one is not encountering opposition to one’s point of view. ”
I agree entirely. You’re mistaking an observation (“this *does* happen”) for an exhortation (“this *should* happen”). My experience as a writer is that you’re sharpened up by being opposed, and that standards slip if you’re not held up to scrutiny. That’s true for the BBC, which is why this site is valuable, and it’s equally true for this site itself.
You’ve made a common category error, and I can only assume that either I wasn’t clear enough or you were deliberately misreading me in order to score rhetorical points. Which is it?
Nice one Ritter
Afghan on trial for Christianity
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4823874.stm
Three (count’em, three!) times ‘conservative, is mentioned. It must be a record.
I especially like:
Trial judge Ansarullah Mawlazezadah told the BBC that Mr Rahman, 41, would be asked to reconsider his conversion, which he made while working for a Christian aid group in Pakistan. “We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of tolerance.”
Ah, I’ve just noticed Moriarty’s post. So I guess we’ll have to suspend judgement till we can see what’s going on.
Um… yes, looks like we were guilty of a bit of a rush to judgement here.
Then again, if the BBC hadn’t built up a solid reputation for obfuscation and implacable bias nobody would have rushed to judge it.
oops
Hey, We’ve got another Beeboid come to edumacate our poor, stoopid selves. Can we keep him, ma ?
Hey, Ian, funny you should mention Google. Searching on Blair + ‘elected as prime’ +site:bbc.co.uk returns a whole bunch of stuff like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4227633.stm
And no, since you were about to ask, there are no weird caveats there about Mr Blurgh not being really elected
the afghan christian trial has made it to CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/21/afghan.christian/
From my experience of visiting this site over the past year, I would say that I get more accurate news from the contributors and links posted than I do from the BBC. What this means, Mr Betteridge, is that an unfunded amateur(in the true sense) blogsite can provide a more accurate news service than the BBC does.
I have checked for myself the HYS link and it is clear that the numbers of ‘recommended’ to a comment which is directly in opposition to the BBC’s viewpoint (yes, viewpoint – a clear breach of Charter) is being manipulated. I have seen for myself that the BBC carries out ‘stealth edits’ to its web pages.
These are simple facts confirmed by me for me: I don’t need people like you telling me that the BBC isn’t lying to me.
Bryan:
“Oh, come off it Ian.”
Seriously: If you believe that moderation is being done incorrectly, then complain, to one of the addresses listed. I don’t think it’s really up to me to do your complaining for you, given that I’m less clued-up on what you’re actually complaining about.
SiN:
“My guess is that if morale is low within the Corporation, it is becuase the indentured Socialists have been found out and thier days are now numbered.”
Actually, it’s mostly because the place is structured in a way that can only be described as byzantine, and is generally poorly-managed at the highest-level. The influence of the unions over the years means that the best managers tend not to stay long – it’s very difficult to manage when you effectively can’t fire someone for being incompetant. I doubt there’s a BBC employee who you won’t hear say of someone that they’re no good at their job “but they’ve been here 10 years and we just can’t get rid of him”.
The BBC has many problems, but – certainly at the levels that I’ve dealt with – the only ideology you find is the desire to do the best work you can under a management structure that doesn’t deliver clear management.
looks like the Afghans are trying to get out of the sticky situation:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060322/ap_on_re_as/afghan_christian_convert
so there you have it – if you convert to christianity in Afghanistan, you are “mentally unfit”
Ian
There is an important point of difference between the BBC and every other source of information. If I find the errors on this, or any other, blog (and they tend to be pointed out by commenters) unacceptable, I can stop visiting. If I find the same with a newspaper I can buy a different one, or none, tomorrow. If I find it with a commercial broadcaster I can watch or listen to something else. In an extreme case I could chose to boycott their advertisers’ products.
If I fail to pay the BBC poll tax I become liable for criminal sanctions (not civil, which would apply if my clients fail pay me). I could be fined or even imprisoned, and my professional body could remove my qualification, and hence my livelihood.
Given the sanctions in place to force me to pay for the BBC, they have a moral duty not just to be good, but to be perfect, all the time, every time, without fail.
Ian -> i’ll believe that the BBC has become un-biased, when it starts calling a spade a spade – and starts using words like “terrorist” when describing suicide bombings of innocent civillians.
the BBC pretends that it cant take sides – well , sorry BBC – the first B in your name is BRITISH
its about bloody time that the BBC woke up and started promoting democracy, the rule of law and BRITISH values over Islamic fascism , rather than the other way round, as it is clearly doing , day in , day out.
it could start by firing everyone on “Today”. Then we might actually start getting the friggin NEWS in the morning rather than the constant pandering towards Islamic nutcases.
Ian Betterirdge writes:
“…or you were deliberately misreading me in order to score rhetorical points. Which is it?”
Considering you breezed into town bent on precisely that, with your hair-splitting point about what constitutes “fully elected”, I’d say you’re not beyond a little rhetorical flourish yourself.
DumbJon: You’re welcome, glad to be here. I’m not here to educate you though – I’m sure the education system did a good enough job of that. However, I’m a bit curious about what you’re saying. Are you claiming that because the BBC makes a mistake (Tony Blair *isn’t* elected as prime minister, although he is of course an elected MP), it’s OK for you to make it too? Given the number of “mistakes” you claim the BBC makes, this would give you rather a lot of leeway.
Allan: First of all, it is, of course, your right to get your news where ever you want it and you are totally entitled to hold your opinions and seek sites which back up what you think. It’s your right – and, I’d argue, your duty – to monitor and criticize the BBC and its output. The BBC can only benefit from being held to account.
That said:
“I don’t need people like you telling me that the BBC isn’t lying to me.”
I’m sure you don’t “need” it. I’m not “telling” you the BBC isn’t lying to you. I’m asking you to justify that view, just as I’d expect and hope that you ask me to justify mine. You don’t have to do so, of course: you’re completely free to ignore me, if you wish. However, civilised debate – the thing that I hope everyone here is in favour of – proceeds by challenge, not by agreement. Just as you are right to challenge the BBC, so, I believe, I’m right to challenge you.
But, as I said, feel free to ignore me. I’m not going to try and bait you, or attack you personally, though.
http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/2006/03/bbc-today-interviews.html
iranian mullahs sign contract with the bbc:
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_14250.shtml
whats that all about, eh?
Ian Betteridge,
The BBC management needs the most honest, effective and correct feedback system ever invented.
Namely dump the TV-tax and allow people to subscribe.
Extortion funded entertainment is both unforgivable and poor value.
Anyone noticed the prominence that this has had on the BBC recently?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4715474.stm
and this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4467825.stm
and this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4831408.stm
How many interviews has Begg now had on the Beeb?
BUT on the other hand:-
How relatively little coverage there has been of this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/4817432.stm
and this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4832740.stm
and this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/victims/default.stm
Perhaps they don’t really exist because after all it’s a “So-called War on Terror”, as the Beeb likes to tell us.
Or perhaps the fact that some British muslims, rather than being victims of Islamophobia etc etc are instead intent on killing us – a fact that the Beeb finds a little uncomfortable in communicating to the likes of you and me.
Mark:
“Given the sanctions in place to force me to pay for the BBC, they have a moral duty not just to be good, but to be perfect, all the time, every time, without fail.”
That’s an interesting standpoint, but somewhat impractical. The BBC, like everything else, is a human endevour and humans make mistakes. If your argument is that no body funded by taxation (and yes, the license fee is taxation) can make mistakes, then you’d also have to do away with all forms of government too – which is fine if you’re an anarchist, not so great if you’re not.
Personally, I’d say that the duty is in fact to acknowledge and learn from mistakes in order to avoid them in the future. And, I’d argue, the present system of management and governance in the BBC makes that impossible – but that’s another argument.
archduke:
“its about bloody time that the BBC woke up and started promoting democracy, the rule of law and BRITISH values over Islamic fascism , rather than the other way round, as it is clearly doing , day in , day out.”
If you think that’s what the BBC should be doing, fair enough. I disagree, but that’s not important. But what is important is that you’re criticising the BBC for not doing something that it’s not actually being asked to do, which hardly seems fair.
GCooper:
“Considering you breezed into town bent on precisely that, with your hair-splitting point about what constitutes ‘fully elected'”
I like accuracy. Sorry about that, but it’s just the way I’m wired.
The point of the this story was that Talabani’s view was more important than either Bush’s or Allawi’s, and that, by reporting both Bush’s and Allawi’s views but not Talabani’s the BBC was showing bias that was “severely askew”.
So let’s break that down a little. Does anyone think that Allawi’s views were not worth reporting at all? I think it’s pretty clear that they are: he’s a significant figure in Iraqi politics, and a former prime minister – a position that, unlike that of president, wields real power. Does anyone think that Bush’s views weren’t worth reporting? Clearly, they are. Whatever the US president says about Iraq is worth reporting, especially when responding to a controversial claim.
What, then, about Talabani? Arguably, the BBC could have done a story reporting his comments. However, given that the original story didn’t let Allawi’s claims go unanswered, would that have contributed significantly to overall balance? I’d argue not. All Talabani said was “no, it’s not”. Bush made a substantive point (that the army had stayed united): Talabani didn’t.
Overall, then, I just don’t see this as an example of “severely askew” reporting, either in the story itself, or in the context of other stories.