I was interested to find people in the comments compiling lists of ‘BBC issues’.
I think the following is a nice example of the BBC’s sly slanty issued-based bias.
This article might seem fairly innocuous, business as usual for Caroline Wyatt reporting French affairs.
It’s got a fashionable feminist slant, after all, questioning patriarchal values blah blah. Typical BBC really. But notice that the photo appears to have little to do with the article. Who is she? She’s not even mentioned in the main text, this ‘Segolene Royal’ (nice name, baby, btw).
To find out you have to click here, but before you do take note of the final line of the aforementioned Wyatt article ‘Perhaps, then, this issue will have to wait until France has a Madame le President?’
Then, in the other article, we have,
‘on the left, MP Segolene Royal, the Socialist in stilettos, a regional leader who is hotly tipped as France’s first real potential Madame la Presidente, overtaking her piqued male colleagues from nowhere.
The idea of a Sarko-Sego battle has gripped the nation’s imagination, with Madame Royal now the cover-woman of the moment, her elegant features smiling from the front pages of four of the country’s leading news magazines this week.
Her features have for once displaced those of Mr Sarkozy from the news magazines’ glossy covers, though no doubt he is planning a rapid return next week.’
So that’s what we needed to know about ‘French politician Segolene Royal [who] is seen as a role model by some’, as her glam portrait was identified in the caption to the feminist article. The connections are cleared up, where in the first article taken alone they are subliminal.
I also noticed a to me quite foolish-sounding word, ‘cover-woman’, where ‘cover-girl’ used to be accepted usage. It’s foolish because contradictory really; and it’s not even as if we have a notion of ‘cover man’. This went hand in hand with Sarkozy (the likely main rival all of a sudden) depicted as at the height of vanity. It’s not as if women are entirely singled out by language generally. There are ‘pretty boys’ and ‘pin-up boys’ and quite a lot besides- so no excuse really for C.W.
All in all, sly, deceitful, sexist, politicised, and well, quite biased. Nice work Ms Wyatt!
Decades ago, Wharton invented a pliable media-friendly “moderate” Conservative of no fixed beliefs • Jeremy Cardhouse, leader of the Tories for Progress Group • only to see him at the very end of his long life triumphantly anointed as head of the apparently real British Conservative Party under the name “David Cameron”
http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=70
More about the anti-science bias.
The constant whingeing on the technology page of the BBC web site about a “digital divide”.
This is just another attempt to find a down side to a technical or scientific development.
Its also a bit reminiscent of Marie Antoinette: “you may be poor, you know, not much of the folding stuff, drive a crap car, not many holidays, live in a bad neighbourhood, – but, hey, why not have broadband ?”
Jack Hughes wrote:
“More about the anti-science bias.
The constant whingeing on the technology page of the BBC web site about a “digital divide”.
This is just another attempt to find a down side to a technical or scientific development.”
Let’s get our terms right – it’s not really about science it’s about technology – a different thing.
What is so wrong with identifying that despite becoming an ever more powerful form of communication there are many people who don’t have access to the internet? It is legitamate socsil comment to identify this as an issue and consider its implications. It’s not being ant science, or anti technology – it’s just being por social analysis of the modern world.
Is the BBC biased? Yeah probably. But some of you B-BBC lot see demons where none exist. Or yuo choose to exagerate you point to such an extent that it becomes ludicrous – an example is about calling Tony Blair and dangereour left winger and crypto communist (yes I’ve seen this description of him here many times). Yuo dont like Tony Blair – that’s fine (in fact all REAL left wingers don’t), you think he’s not free market leibertarian enough for you – fine too. But calling him a communist is just plain silly.
A Luker
Wake up, the BBC is not supposed to be a tool of social engineering.
“Gaps” between rich, poor, haves & have nots etc should properly consider Input, Talent, Effort, Luck and Aptitude.
There may be more to “Gaps” than simple outcomes suggest.
Seeking only to level is Socialism at best but malign Communism at worst. Remember always to respect Talent and Ability, the rest will follow.
Tony Blair, the Beeb and everyone left of Sir Winston Churchill (peace be upon him) are the greatest risk to humanity as we know it. There’s no exaggaration possible when talking about the Beeb’s Bias!
Nice Steyn article, Rick… Steyn rules!
P.S.: Most people on here know that the Beeb’s bias starts with the name British Broadcasting Corporation. That’s why we sometimes call it IBC (Islamic Broadcasting Corporation).
P.P.S.: HAPPY EASTER!
Happy Easter d_g! While it’s still legal to say that!
Thanks, Susan… I’m prepared to be a “martyr” for Easter. 🙂
Current Al Beeb headlines:
Global warming 3C rise ‘likely’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4888946.stm
also:
Woman’s body in bedsit for years
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4906992.stm
So all your socialist flavoured broadcasting couldn’t
a) stop global warming
b) stop Ms. Vincent to die alone in her flat
How do you actually justify your existence? The British tax-payer spends billions each year to keep you alive but all you can come up with is “BNP stories”. Shouldn’t you be able to help people like Ms. Vincent? Shouldn’t that be your main motivation?
You’ve got the money, you’ve got the means. It’s no good reporting on the deceased when you can assist the living. Do you care about the living? I doubt it – unless the living are members of the RoP.
Segolene Royal, I saw a report on her on German TV. She has lived with her “partner” and has a couple of adult children. She seems lightweight and frankly I doubt France will want to try a woman after the disastrous French PM Cresson.
The media just need the woman angle after Merkel in Germany, and since no Socialist Party in Europe has managed to put a woman into the very top job it is one of those things in need of media propaganda to have any chance of being taken seriously.
Then again, it would be good for other nations to have France run by a weak leader.
oh and her live-in concubine is Head of the French Socilist Party
Let me spell Socialist properly…………..François Hollande, the leader of the Socialist party.
Perhaps the bbc should point out the silliness of Caroline Wyatt’s “article”. The whole problem is the way the French think, and this is because of their gender-driven language. La Table? Why not le table? No logique. So how do you say female doctor? Try le medecin femme! Don’t yell at me. I didn’t invent the most illogical language in the world whose speakers don’t even bother to pronouce fully half the letters! Point of all this? The bbc should discuss the linguistic root of French problems.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4888946.stm
Global Warming!
What about the BBC’s carbon footprint? How many megawatts of power does it take to run their hundreds of transmitters , heat and air condition their plush studios?
Have you seen their taxi bill? How much fuel is wasted there? And what about John Simpson, can anybody imagine just how much methane that fat twat releases into the atmosphere each year?
Come on BBC, do us all a favour, do the world a favour, close down, we don,t need you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4908978.stm
Astonishing, shocking, dramatic, gobsmacking….I didn’y know if I should laugh or cry.
Ed Thomas: “All in all, sly, deceitful, sexist, politicised, and well, quite biased. Nice work Ms Wyatt!”
Like it.
I still think that this “anti-science” thing is a load of crap.
The comments mentioned so far all seem to be about shoddy coverage of science in thier programmes, but NO ONE has come up with any other mainstream channels that cover science better.
Don’t forget that it was the BBC that had BBC Knowledge (which was shut down due to poor viewing figures); is the home of Adam Hart-Davis and David Attenborough; did the slightly suspect Walking With… programmes (which was science for the masses); and has, for as long as I can remember, dedicated a great deal of its broadcasting to the Open University.
And I’m sure much more that I can’t think of off the top of my head.
Jack Hughes, if you think that the BBC is “anti-science” then all I can say is that you spend far too long reading anti-bbc blogs and you should pull your head out of your own arse and get some perspective.
Yes Charlie!
BTW they didn’t pretty up that photo; he looks like a dried prune (perhaps that’s what he has in his mouth).
The BBC is now mentioning the fact that a couple of dissident generals – out of HUNDREDS of generals at the pentagon – are criticising Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld has all along been one of their targets. People here in Britain here hardly care about the generals grumbling – but as it is in the liberal US press the bBC sticks it into the today prog etc.
Here is a demolition piece on the dissidents. And the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff has pointed out that some of them were out of the loop on matters they have been commenting on. Not quoted by the BBC, of course, even though the whole thing got the full tratment on a live C-Span Pentagon press conference that the BBC will have monitored.
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/04/grumbles_from_t.html
I’m sure this has been covered in earlier comments section but this part of the BBC website devoted to “Life in Iraq” is astonishing in its relentless negativity and anti-American bias:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2006/life_in_iraq/default.stm
I could not find a single person interviewed by the BBC who thought life was better than under Saddam. Throughout there are references to the “US-led occupation”, no mention that they remain there at the request of the Iraqi Government.
If this had appeared on the Socialist Worker’s website I wouldn’t have been surprised. It is a tour de force of left-wing bias.
Councillor – the “gender” of French articles (le, la, un, une, etc) is nothing to do with males and females. “l’armée” isn’t “feminine” because it resembles a woman, for example.
The complaint of the feminazis here is their belief that “madamoiselle” is patronising, yet half of them are pissed of because they think being called “madame” means the man thinks they are old. As with all of their illogical hatreds, you just can’t please them: men are at fault both ways. Which is of course how they like it, they can blame men for every irritation and ill in their lives.
After a certain age in Germany all women get called “Frau” which sort of renders everything generic. The Americans are funniiest with their insistence on “women” in place of “ladies” or “girls” – it makes them sound like real old harridans.
Then again the failure to use words like “actress” or “chairwoman” or “policewoman” or “WPC” are also quite funny because you just have to accept them as “second-best men” when the male article describes females.
It is the triumph of mind control over linguistic precision
MisterMinit has a point: there’s not another mainstream channel which deals with science as much as the BBC. But the dedication of a “great deal of its broadcasting to the Open University” is not necessarily a compliment. For instance, the “Mark Steel Lectures” are an uncritical view from the (fairly extreme) left on history and various social phenomena. Not to put too fine a point on it, Mark Steel produces pretentions, contentious and, while we’re on about it, unamusing crap under the imprimature of the BBC and the Open University.
Coming back to science: the “science” of global warming was “discussed” on “Today” this morning by, ostensibly, experts from different perspectives – the Labour Think Tank (IPPC I think) and an ex-adviser to the conservatives. Guess what – even Humphreys was exasperated by the agreement on every point concerning the imminent danger of Gaia death. No mention that there might be a respectable alternative view (via Daily Ablution) http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2006/04/climate_change_.html
This is surely the essence of bias at the BBC – conscious or unconscious: the BBC has made up its mind(s) and that’s it.
are criticising Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld has all along been one of their targets
Heaven forbid !! I don’t think I could step up to the plate to defend Rumsfeld’s strategy, tactics, or comments………………..why do you feel you have to ?
but NO ONE has come up with any other mainstream channels that cover science better.
Actually BBC2 used to be superb – with Open University programmes – you could learn a lot by dipping into various subjects. They were really good – there was a superb one about Liquid Crystal Displays
Is it too soon to make art out of 9/11?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=1542&edition=1&ttl=20060414104731&#paginator
When is the right time to dramatising and satirising the events of September 11, 2001?
Drama? Well, if it portrays the horrors of that day, the anguish and broken lives of those involved then it may serve a purpose. But satire?
I bet the Beeboids are disapointed in their (D)HYS system again.
Current No.1 Recommended post:
Added: Thursday, 13 April, 2006, 20:10 GMT 21:10 UK
Too soon? Methinks it’s almost too late. We seem to have forgotten 9-11 politically with the war on terror reduced to an exercise in legalistic handwringing by the ACLU and the New York Times and worries that Gitmo isn’t serving good enough food. Maybe instead of a movie we should be shown, again and again, the real uncensored news footage of innocent people jumping to their deaths from 82 floors up. And realise, again, Why We Fight.
Peter Kohler, Washington DC, United States
Recommended by 16 people
Rick
Wouldn’t you think it odd if a US channel targeted and indeed ran a lot of ridicule against a British Defence Secretary.
A lot of people think Rumsfeld’s reforms at the Pentagon have been worthwhile – streamlining the military. An old-fashioned approach on Iraq would have had far more bombing before the troops went in, a far slower build-up.
Rumsfeld is actually a helluva smart guy. The problems often arise because there is a tug of war with the wet State Department.
Anyway – the point is not whether Rumsfeld is good or bad – the point is whether the BBC is biased against Rumsfeld. He would eat someone like Humphrys or Naughtie for breakfast – but they wouldn’t dare face him, they prefer to yap at his heels by quoting a small number of retired generals.
cover-woman’, where ‘cover-girl’ used to be accepted usage.
Accepted usage has always intrigued me, indicating a hierarchy, grading, and different levels of attainment i.e.
model
celebrity
star
super star
screen goddess
footballer
The new aristocracy or mediocrity? It shows that human nature does not change. The working class who have made good, have adopted all the mannerisms of the old aristocrats. Rooney is a great example, with his gambling debts and his fashion conscious wife.
The socialists destroyed this class with taxation, isn’t about time they did the same today? or is it OK to be a champagne socialist and give yourself airs and graces that come with the trappings of power?
The main difference is that the Nueva Riche have no brains to go with the money.
How pleasing it is to see the BBC asking the question about satirising 911!
Of course it is ripe for satire – Madrid and 7/7 are too. Heck, why not make a musical out of the beheading of Ken Bigley?
But for goodness’ sake, BBC, don’t show a picture of Mohammad – that really is a step too far.
Les Chiennes de Garde (the Guard Dogs), the biggest feminist group in France, say the title “perpetuates the submission to macho values” in France.
“submission eh?” Perhaps the guard dogs will mount a campaign to stop French females (mademoiselles or Madames) from seducing married men.
What are we going to call the female who runs a brothel? A brothel supervisor? brothel foreperson or a brothel chair?
How pleasing it is to see the BBC asking the question about satirising 911!
How pleasing it is to see the BBC asking the question about satirising Islamic extremists ?????????
After all Charlie Chaplin made The Great Dictator to satirise Hitler………why doesn’t the BBC make a comedy show about Islamic Extremists to show how ridiculous they are and invite “moderate Muslims” to engage in laughter ?
The BBC steadily ditching Christianity :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=1588&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=P8&targetRule=0#head9
Comedy: BBC One, 8.00pm:
“Djihad’s Army follows the hilarious antics of a group of Muslims at martyrdom training camp.
“Tempted by the promise of 72 virgins, a motley bunch of sex-starved no-hopers decide to train to become fully-fledged suicide bombers.
“Led by the pompous Imam Mohammad Mainwaring, the recruits learn the basics of jihad and Jew-hatred, and discover how to build a dirty bomb in line with Koranic principles. But things go hilariously wrong.”
TAoL
“Jihad’s Army sounds offensive to me, I don’t think the Mahomet’s have a sense of humour, they may even call it heresy and I believe the punishment could be severe.
Wouldn’t you love it if the “British Muslim Community” took offence and the Iman’s and Mullahs directed the faithfull to withhold their BBC licence fees as a mark of protest.
I shall pitch the Djihad’s Army programme idea to the BBC and see how far I get.
I don’t think there would be any ructions if the BBC were to screen such a programme, Sarge. After all, it’s only the Islamic equivalent of The Vicar of Dibley and if we avoid screening any depictions of Mo we should be all right.
That HYS on the ‘911 aftermath’ is sickening BBC doublespeak.
By drawing the ‘United93’ film & ‘DJ Riz’ song arguements together, they have subliminally suggested the film is a satire, most respondants seemingly think so.
Why does nobody watch the trailer before commenting though? It made the hairs on my neck stand on end. Apple trailers have a HD version. Go watch!
http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/united93/hd/
Easter News 1pm
BBC Version
Plight of Muslim construction workers in Dubai
Moroccan Acrobats perform at the south bank (Arab Music)
Sky News
Cash for Peerages
Italian election
BBC World Service is running “Generals say Rumsfeld should resign” as their top discussion story in NewsHour.
Guess who they get to comment – the Time bureau chief in London. Time is notably anti-Bush.
And of course they drag Abu Ghraib into it, when that has nothing todo with the current argument. No reference is made to the robust slapdown by the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
Jeez, I wish the UK had someone of the calibre and experience of rumsfeld running the MoD. We might still have properly-funded armed forces.
The islamic version of Dads Army has already started to air….
http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1144583784/Pathetic_Jihad_Trainee_Prances_Around
You would have to call it “Dhimmi Legion” with Anglo punkawallahs outside and they would be up in the Yorkshire Dales doing a “paradise lost” course and blowing up tree stumps.
Then they would have effigies of Blair & Co with paintball target shooting and a promise of real handguns once the ban is lifted.
They could even have them drinking whisky and looking at lapdance websites as they train to be jihadis like the Atta-Team – the “A-Team”.
They would have big Lego sets and radio-controled aircraft to crash into them, and maybe even dress up as pregnant women with the belly-bomb.
See how sick you can be in developing a script for BBC Nirvana Broadcasting?.
You could have them hiding from Team Griffin as they are hunted down, and Team Griffin are in turn being hunted by the Europol-CPS as they roam across the wild Yorkshire Dales with Team Griffin hiding on a pig farm and the Dhimmi Boys afraid to enter and contracting Animal Rights terrorists to liberate the pigs.
So Good Friday on BBC TV has Salvador Dali and a rock concert from Manchester…………….German TV manages
ARD/ZDF 10.00 Church Service
13.20 The Robe
ARD/ZDF 10.00 Church Service
13.20 The Robe
19.30 Caiaphas & Pilate
SAT-1 1915 The Crucifixion
20.15 The Ten Commandments
3SAT 10.15 Matthew Passion (Ballet)
12.15 John Paul II
BR 13.30 Pontius Pilate
19.00 Luther
In contrast as the letters page of the Daily Telegraph today reveals:
Easter observance
Sir – When I was younger, the Good Friday television and radio schedules would be generously littered with programmes dedicated to the Easter story and its place in our lives. There would also be a liberal sprinkling of epic biblical movies which, while not quite in the same way, also served to reflect the importance of Easter within the Christian community.
It was with some surprise, then, that I investigated the schedules for today and, among the main terrestrial broadcasters, could not find a single programme related to Easter.
The conclusion must be either that the BBC and other channels believe that our children already know all there is to know, or that Easter is soon to be consigned, like Christmas, to the growing pile of holidays that once had some vague religious connection.
Ian Bett, London SW1, Oswestry, Shrops
That HYS on the ‘911 aftermath’ is sickening BBC doublespeak.
By drawing the ‘United93’ film & ‘DJ Riz’ song arguments together, they have subliminally suggested the film is a satire, most respondents seemingly think so.
Barker John | 14.04.06 – 12:45 pm | #
I agree with you.
The lead to this story declares the trailer was booed by audiences. I think this is true, as I have heard this reported elsewhere. The conclusion they draw from this (in my opinion) is wrong. (Just the fact that they are drawing a conclusion, instead of asking people why, says something.) They feel the booing is because people are against this movie being made. I seriously doubt this. I think people were simply booing the villains, those blowing up the towers (not the Americans, just in case that’s unclear). It’s normal for people to hurl abuse when a villain appears on screen. Why does the BBC decide this is anything other than the norm?
I haven’t seen the movie but I can’t imagine it portrays the plane passengers in anything but in a good light and, well (you can imagine), victims of evil Muslim terrorists. This movie will contain everything they edit out of their own Politically Correct, left leaning, coverage.
As for the song, someone in the comments points out that it is about the response to 9/11 and not jokes about those who died that day as the BBC implies. I have not heard the song and I doubt I ever will, as it does not sound like something that would play well in the US at this time, but it does seem to me that the BBC is being deliberately deceptive and provocative.
You couldn’t make it up #1009
Odd omission from BBC News reports??
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) — Iraq will chair the United Nations’ most important disarmament negotiating forum during the panel’s May session.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/28/sprj.irq.disarmament.conference/
via USS Neverdock
Surprising piece here:
Anti-Americanism ‘feels like racism’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4881474.stm
Are the Beeb contemplating their responsibility? Doesn’t sound like it.
They also have “reactions” and this one is a peach:
“As a Muslim studying abroad I can sympathise with her. However, she has only suffered a black eye and had hurtful words thrown at her, whereas I have family members who are now buried six feet under in Basra due to her government’s actions.
Ahmed, UK”
You what? It’s the British who are in charge of Basra, mate. And you’re studying in the land of the enemy… Why?
Another gem from the reactions:
“Ms Cox shouldn’t really be surprised in the current climate. More and more people are coming to realise the US administration is the biggest terrorist organisation in the world. Unfortunately, their citizens will increasingly take the backlash, even though many of them are against US foreign policy – just as many Muslims are against such atrocities as 9/11 and Bali.
John Lockett, Burnley, UK”
There’s more. Read them all.
Ah, typical Beeb ploy. Pretending to be “sympathetic” to someone complaining about anti-Americanism, while actually using the story to whip up even more of it via heavily edited “comments”.
We should be neither shocked nor surprised by the remarks of John Lockett, Burnley, UK.
Moussaoui, currently on trial, calls the US the head of the snake.
“You (Americans) are the head of the snake for me. If we want to destroy the Jewish state..we have to destroy you first.”
Sounds like a mission statement to me.
Sounds like a mission statement to me.
One with which I suspect the demented al-Beeb fully agrees.
MisterMinit and Lurker.
First off – lets stay polite.
Now – the “digital divide” thang. This is on the BBC website every few months.
eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4594498.stm
This thang may or may not exist. But either way it should be on the “sociology” page. Its got nothing to do with science.
Science output should reflect the kind of thing you would learn in a physics, chemistry, biology lesson. Maybe throw in maths and geography.
Maybe I need to find a “killer” example of bias – a bit like the “Justin Webb Quote” is a killer example of anti-american bias. Obviously lots of small examples don’t cut it for some people.