‘Note to Biased BBC, you are getting under their skin. You will be pleased to know you are the recognised enemy.’
Well, funnily enough I feel the same way about them.
Guido Fawkes was at the opening night of some We Media thing which the BBC is hosting, and has observations to offer.
There are of course many reasons for not resisting the temptation to become an enemy of the BBC, but one among them is the routine bias– bias like this incident noticed by Ian Dale.
When the media critique a group or institution they tend to do so with a kind of coordination: the BBC becomes all uncoordinated when it comes to Nu-Labour scandals, as Stephen Pollard notes.
Recently I was looking into the worst local government corruption scandal of all time: the Donnygate affair. Searching the BBC produced no ‘Q & A’ article, and the article which reported the conviction of coucillor Peter Birks failed to mention that he was A LABOUR COUNCILLOR- which is rather unlike their approach to a rather less seriously indicted Conservative from the same town- article here. Donnygate was a Nu-Labour scandal (in the sense, especially, that Nu-Lab was a cunning laundering of Old Labour money- metaphorically speaking!!!) through and through, and yet commentary of what it implied about Nu-Labour strategy/culture, occurring as it did in the constituency of one- friend of John Prescott- Rosie Winterton, was not forthcoming.
Well, political winds blow where they will, but the BBC is shelter from the storm for a certain pink tinged political party.
As far as I’m concerned, the number of reports on a ‘killing’ are not really relevant, it’s the way the report is presented.
When one of the valiant Palestinian resistance ‘petition collectors’ accidently explodes on a bus full of children, the BBC refuse to call him/her a terrorist. However, pretty much every day, the BBC describes Israeli actions as “State Terrorism” or “Collective Punishment”.
They speak of a “Segregation Barrier” instead of a “Security Wall” (how many terrorist attacks have there been since the wall was constructed?)
The way the BBC reports the news is the problem, not the total air time given to each story.
You may recall that the deputy chairman of the BBC at the time of the Hutton inquiry was a former Tory chief whip. (Lord Hutton, by the way, was appointed by ex-Blair flatmate Charlie Falconer – did that make him any the less independent?)
Mr Reith – Citing Lord Hutton takes some chutzpah! Somehow I must have missed all those BBC voices (and their media chums) asserting that the Hutton inquiry was wholly independent and unbiased. The tu quoque argument does cut both ways. To quote you “The panel has reported – citing evidence, which it has published. The evidence proves you were WRONG.” Did anyone at the BBC adopt this line apropos Hutton? No. They screamed ‘whitewash’ and ‘government interference’ as you well know. In fact the BBC staff went crazy when the Chair of the Governors actually apologised. They clearly didn’t think the BBC had anything to apologise for. Isn’t this a case of believing the inquiries that suit you and trashing the ones that don’t?
reith:
Perhaps the beeb reports more on Israeli deaths than palli deaths in order to overemphasise what the pallis see as success.
(Only joking!)
Eamonn
You need to learn something about news values if you can’t see why Tom Hurndall merited more mentions than Shmuel Mett.
Many Brits have been mugged – and some even murdered – in New York, but they don’t make the front page. But if someone was mugged by Don Rumsfeld, I’d splash it large. Why? Am I biased against Rummy? No, I love that man. But the point is that we do not expect our friends and allies to kill our citizens. Hurndall was killed by the IDF, an agency of the state. Mett was stabbed in a back alley in Palestinian East Jerusalem by a thug. We don’t know why, but it was probably because he was Jewish and believed therefore to be an Israeli.
Nice one Gordon Bennett. You may be joking, but there are others on this blog who believe dafter things. Crazy as a bag of snakes some of ’em.
In fact Mr Reith it was Lord Ryder – that shining example you provide of BBC ‘balance’ because he used to be a Tory chief whip – who made the infamous apology in response to Hutton. And appalled his colleagues for doing so. He clearly didn’t fit in with BBC culture at all – which I think rather proves the point we’re trying to make.
Hey look, it’s the cuddly islamic revolutionary state….altogether… awwwww!
In pictures: Tehran pet hospital
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/06/middle_east_tehran_pet_hospital/html/1.stm
Part of the ‘deal’ with BBC and Tehran I guess to ‘big up’ the land of Sharia. Bizarre.
Ritter,
The mind boggles.
Now I’m not given to conspiracy theories but I have wondered for some time why this had to stated in every report
Moussaoui, the only man to be prosecuted over 9/11
There had to be some motive.
I’ve just realised, courtesy of SkyNews – who use the same formulation.
It’s because Bush hasn’t captured OBL.
Perhaps Europe could help out. Offer Afghanistan & Pakistan membership of the EU & perhaps they would make a quicker job of capturing OBL than Serbia is managing with Mladic.
“I am amazed that you think that people with impressive CVs and track records (Establishment or not) are likely to go out of their way to whitewash the BBC. What would be in it for them?”
There is a precedent; the BBC thought that such a person with an impressive CV and track record whitewashed the Government, and made sure they told us so with numerous Today bleatings:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2003/david_kelly_inquiry/default.stm
Will,
Claire Short is on record as saying she ‘hopes that members of the Talliban claim asylum in the UK’ (what planet does she live on?), so maybe he’s already here and claiming his ‘birthright’ (council house, healthcare, education, benefits, driving lessons, etc).
john reith
“I am amazed that you think that people with impressive CVs and track records (Establishment or not) are likely to go out of their way to whitewash the BBC. What would be in it for them?”
I’m not saying they are corrupt and I’m not saying they conciously opt to whitewash the BBC. But to quote Jeff Randall on the BBC mindset “It’s not a conspiracy. It’s visceral. They think they are on the middle ground”. This panel have exactly the BBC mindset (the existence of which you continually deny but to the exposure of which BBBC provides endless and daily evidence). The members of the governors’ panel actually believe they are disinterested.
What a lovely puff-piece on that nice Mr Ahmadinejad, the cuddly and popular leader of Iran. Not one reference to Israel and his threats to destroy her.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4964296.stm
New BBC euphamism for terrorist/ plumber /man etc…..
Restless convert in quest for jihad
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4942924.stm
‘restless convert’ is a new one. Up there with Simpo’s ‘misguided criminals’.
Maybe if we are nice to them (the terrorists)and give them understanding and a cuddle, they’ll be nice to us?
That’s the level of analysis in BBC broadcasts. 6th form common room stuff passed off as serious comment. What a joke.
From Ritter’s link to Pet Hospital
Some people say dogs are unclean. But after all, in Islamic teachings, it says that guard dogs are acceptable.
Aren’t those “some people” Muslims?
The BBC are certainly happy to use “unclean” when they are complaining about the actions of Coalition troops in Iraq.
The Army has confirmed it used sniffer dogs during previous searches – a tactic that caused outrage among the conservative Shia Muslim population, who regard dogs as offensive because they are considered unclean.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3021738.stm
Ritter, one sentence sticks out in the piece you link to:
“He came in wearing military fatigues and a rucksack on his back. I asked why him why he was dressed like that, what the purpose of it was. He basically started shouting abuse. It was an act of defiance but he was very proud of himself.”
For Baker this was final proof that Moussaoui had turned his back on orthodox Islam and wanted jihad.
And there I was thinking it was precisely “orthodox Islam” that preached Jihad…
OpEd
You are quite wrong. Hurndall got so much coverage because his case was constantly highlighted by those sympathetic to the Palestinians. Indeed the Hurndall family are well known “peace activists”. Thayer and Mett have had no such advocates.
Just as we don’t really know why Mett was killed, we also don’t know why Hurndall was killed.
BBC & Amnesty in a race to be the first to claim that Moussaoui, just sentenced to life imprisonment, will be ‘tortured’. BBC wins:
‘Supermax’ prison awaits Moussaoui
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4972526.stm
Zacarias Moussaoui looks set to live out the rest of his days in a super-maximum security Colorado prison, dubbed “the Alcatraz of the Rockies”.
Critics describe them as a breeding ground for monsters – with regimes that are tantamount to torture”.
Are they f&%ing kidding??!!
Umbongo
If you admit at least that the panel believed themselves to be disinterested, then you are logically estopped from claiming that they deliberately procured false or misleading research from a university and MR organizations and/or deliberately skewed or misrepresented the independent research. So, never mind the panel, look at the evidence.
Eamonn
Surely Hurndall got more coverage because he was at Winchester and his dad’s a lawyer.
John Reith | 04.05.06 – 4:13 pm
I dont agree that any of the contributors are “crazy”.
The virtue of blogs is that if someone does write something arguable then someone else will come in and point that out.
(See OpEd | 04.05.06 – 4:10 pm)
The net result (IMHO) is the truth and without stealth editing.
Our general and particular grievances are nearly all about the beeb not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The general public soak it up because thay dont know any better. However, when people get to read blogs and see other facts and contexts the scales drop from their eyes and they become militant (not, in this case, meant as a euphemism for terrorist).
You have a hangup on a particular facet of the beeb coverage and dumbsisco and others have argued strongly against you. The watchers will make up their own minds about the discussion having read all the evidence from varying points of view.
Sounds perfect to me.
It reminds me of the Delphic System (IIRR) where papers were circulated and recirculated with accumulated critiques until all were satisfied (or exhausted). Blogs have speeded up the process.
The beeb will retain its current bias because it can set its own agenda and has its own security guards on the doors to limit who gets a say in any discussion.
I’ve seen the footage of Hurndall getting shot. It’s pretty damning. However, a member of the Israeli Defence Force is currently serving time for manslaughter.
The BBC give the impression that the IDF are to blaim for the killing, rather than the soldier that fired the shot.
Have the Palestinian Authorities made any attempt to track down any of the terrorists that routinely target Israeli civilians?
So why do the BBC portray the Israelies as the bad guys? The Palestinian Authority is clearly backing the murder of Jews, but the BBC never, ever investigates their leaders/police/security forces/Hamas/Islamic Jihad/Hezbulla/etc.
That is the BBC bias.
On their website, the BBC are calling the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill the “red tape bill”
And so it goes on…
They also avoided the words “seriously misleading” from the report over their coverage of Israel/Palestine
Oscar
You have an odd recollection of the post-Hutton experience. As I recall Lord Ryder apologized and Greg Dyke was fired. The Gillygoon left shortly thereafter. The BBC then set up an internal enquiry which led to a radical tightening up of editorial procedures, journalistic standards and the BBC sent all its journos back to school.
It was Ian Hislop who said ‘whitewash’. I suspect that had little to do with the rights and wrongs of BBC reports at the time. My bet is that Hislop reckoned that a certain A Campbell had more to do with the fact that the print media had run headlines like ‘British troops in Cyprus could be hit by Iraqi missiles in 45 mins’ than Lord H allowed. Maybe Hislop also though certain people close to 10 Downing Street had more to do with leaking David Kelly’s name to the press pack too.
john reith
ive read this blog for about a year never posted. i think most of the people on here are intelligent and certainly not crazy.you come across
as a bit of a smug git to be honest.
John reith
“Yes you can read what the Israeli had to say. It’s in the appendices.”
The report says clearly on page 28 that they are not publishing the written evidence submitted or giving a record of the oral evidence. They are only listing the “main organisations concerned”. As on so many issues, you are therefore wrong.
As for the Ryder issue, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. Maybe your memory is the one at fault. This is how Ryder’s apology and handling of Hutton was reported at the time, which I think proves my point.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/29/nbbc29.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/02/29/ixportal.html
john reith
“If you admit at least that the panel believed themselves to be disinterested, then you are logically estopped from claiming that they deliberately procured false or misleading research . . ”
It’s all in the interpretation of the evidence. The members of the panel BELIEVE they are disinterested: in reality they are NOT disinterested. Therefore their interpretation of the evidence – possibly even the type and extent of the evidence they requested – is tainted with their lack of disinterest. I repeat: I don’t believe they set out with a stated intention of getting the BBC off the hook: I’m saying that they could not conceive that the BBC was on any kind of hook in the first place.
Oscar
As on so many occasions it is not I but you who’s wrong.
I have downloaded the document. It is Appendix E available as PDF at:
http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/docs/rev_israelipalestinian.html
just keep looking down the page after the main report and the appendices come up as individual PDFs. E comes just after C and D.
Umbongo
You’re still missing my point. IF you don’t trust the panel to be objective, if you have doubts as to their ability to interpret, then read the research yourself. Be your own panel.
It’s the raw data that vindicates the BBC. The rest is commentary.
Apparently the research for this BBC impartiality report threw up some worrying facts.
It seems that an embarrasingly large chunk of our fellow citizens believe the ‘occupied territories’ are so called because the Pals half-inched them from Israel.
Some of these people are voting today in council elections. Will they vote Labour ‘cos it’s the party of the countryside, or Tory ‘cos Dave will nationalise the commanding heights?
It looks like the BBC will have to go back to basics.
Op Ed
You’re right. It is scary. If the Beeb is biased, the bias sure as hell ain’t working.
John Reith
Appendix E is not evidence given by ‘an Israeli’ – it is the Noam Lubell International Law Report, which has entirely different status altogether. It discusses key issues in the conflict from the viewpoint of international law. Noam Lubell is a Senior Researcher at the Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex. He is only a Visiting Research Fellow at the Hebrew University in Israel.
If you read it, you will see that the BBC report makes it clear that they are not publishing written evidence or a record of the oral evidence. Printing a report commissioned from Essex University, specifically about international law is of course an entirely different matter. If this is what you were referring to you have, as so often, been misleading.
And I notice you have failed to respond to the Lord Ryder evidence.
John Reith
One day you and the BBC and hopefully the people, will work, a very obvious thing, out. That is that there is not such a thing as unbias reporting. This is the main reason I object to the very pricipals the BBC bases its right to inflict its TV tax.
Constantly editing the news to not be bias MAKES IT BIAS. Just as much as if you left it all alone. If fact more bias. The BBC can not please all the people all the time unless it makes every one think the same. But we all have to pay for it.
The BBC believes that if it gets complaints from left and right that it must be doing a good job. Only an organisation funded the way the BBC is, could possibly be happy with this thinking. “Pissing off” all your customers is hardly the sign of a good business.
The BBC cant win because it is out of date and hopefully fast running out of time.
If you still dont understand what I am getting at, see if this helps.
If I BOUGHT cornflakes, eat them, and I dont like them. I dont buy anymore cornflakes. So I dont HAVE to pay, for something I dont like. I dont contribute to blogs, go crazy,and £125 or something, poorer every year, cos I just dont buy anymore cornflakes.
There maybe a hope that the people making the cornflakes, might try harder to make cornflakes I like, but quite frankly, I dont care whether they bother or not.
However the BBC and all that work for them I hate more than words can express. The fact that I am FORCED to contribute to their overblown wages just adds insult to injury.
I know it’s an unpopular thing to say, but I think JR has a point.
It is a foundational belief of B-BBC that the BBC’s journalism is skewed against Israel. On the day a major enquiry into precisely this subject is published (a) The topic doesn’t even get a thread of its own and (b)No-one seems to have read it.
Where I agree with Reith is it is no use just using the Mandy Rice Davies defence ‘they would say that wouldn’t they’. There is no evidence at all that this is just a stunt and that the members of the enquiry panel were ‘safe’ placemen and placewomen. They look like the typical great and good types that would be on any royal commission. We don’t have to agree with them, but slurs are no argument.
I look forward to more reports on the BBC’s coverage of Bush/Katrina etc. We should encourage it. And read the resulting documents with respect.
Then pick holes, if there are holes to pick.
Gary Powell
Just as there is correct spelling and incorrect spelling, there is impartial reporting and partial reporting.
As for your cornflakes:
Quakers don’t like wars but they pay taxes, some of which go to the Army. Gays don’t have kids (usually), but they pay for education. My uncle John never had a day sick in his life, never went to a doctor let alone anywhere near a hospital. But he still stumped up for the NHS.
Cornflakes are consumer goods. We pay for consumer goods that we consume. Education, culture, information and some entertainment are public goods. They benefit society as a whole. We pay for them whether we, as individuals, use them or not.
You might like your cornflakes more if you tried milk with them. The brown stuff with the grouse on the bottle makes them taste funny and does nothing for your temper.
Oscar
In my earlier post I wrote:
“It was a report commissioned by the governors, made up of independent non-BBC members who, in turn, commissioned independent research from a university department, a commercial market research company and some expert witnesses (one an Israeli).”
The Israeli expert I had in mind was Noam Lubbell, who, I read somewhere today, is an Israeli passport holder. Is this wrong?
I have never mentioned the oral or written submissions from interested groups.
As for Ryder…what evidence? You linked to a Telegraph story that confirmed what I said: Ryder apologised. Mark Byford set up an internal inquiry. Greg Dyke went. Ditto Gavyn davies and Gilligan.
Donnygate is not ‘Nu Labour’.
It’s old Labour wearing a flash new suit (probably bought with public funds)
John Reith “a certain A Campbell had more to do with the fact that the print media had run headlines like ‘British troops in Cyprus could be hit by Iraqi missiles in 45 mins’ than Lord H allowed.”
Well Lord H is an old fashioned kind of guy, & he would have expected the media to have read the dossier before they wrote their stories.
Unforunately the press had only looked at the pictures, one of which showed that Saddams plans for future missile development could result in Cyprus being within range. The text of the dossier made clear that Saddam had only a few unaccounted scuds, which were nor expected to be in a state for rapid deployment.
The government’s error was not shouting to the media in Sept 2002 that the dossier had been “mis-read”. They probably failed to do this because (a) the scare suited them & (b) the media wouldn’t have wanted to climb down after over-egging their first reports.
Will
…up to a point Lord Copper. Many times I have stood in the press gallery at the Commons when some document or report is published. The government press officer says how it should be spun. The journos question and then agree among themselves. It’s called ‘agreeing the intro’. That way no-one looks a pratt in front of his newsdesk by going off on a different tangent from all the other papers. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t someone in the gallery on the day the dossier came out helping the lads ‘agree the intro’.
The BBC – in the shape of Mr Gilligan didn’t fall for it. Credit where credit’s due.
John Reith, Stan Fish
Please read this and let us know what you think of the BBC then.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-is-turn-off-its-official.html
John Reith
There are no facts that you won’t twist • making a good fit with your employer. Noam Lubell • presented by you as giving the ‘Israeli’ point of view for the BBC report – turns out to be an academic working for the Human Rights Unit in Essex University. In other words you have been wholly misleading. Lubell clearly represents the human rights lobby and international law (and everyone knows where that sits in the political spectrum). Whether he is an Israeli or not (and you clearly haven’t checked you facts) is immaterial.
As for Lord Ryder • the news reports show that senior editorial staff at the BBC went apeshit when he apologised following the Hutton report calling him a government ‘appeaser’. You know, and I know, that the general staff at the BBC and the powerful news editors rebelled against BBC management. They did NOT accept Hutton’s findings • they thought Hutton was in Blair’s pocket and that his inquiry was biased. As usual with the BBC you like to dish it out but you can’t take it – as evidenced here by your lying responses to my perfectly valid points.
OpEd “The BBC – in the shape of Mr Gilligan didn’t fall for it. Credit where credit’s due.
No credit to Gilligan to come up 10 months later with a story that claimed that it was the dossier to blame when the press had mis-reported its contents.
Your excuse about journalists jointly deciding on the story in a corridor, without reading the source material, is damning.
The only missiles possibly existing that were capable of getting as far as Cyprus were adapted scuds, called al-Hussein, of which the dossier states
27. According to intelligence, Iraq has retained up to 20 al-Hussein missiles (Figure 5), in breach of UN Security Council Resolution 687. These missiles were either
hidden from the UN as complete systems, or re-assembled using illegally retained engines and other components. We judge that the engineering expertise
available would allow these missiles to be maintained effectively, although the fact that at least some require re-assembly makes it difficult to judge exactly how
many could be available for use. They could be used with conventional, chemical
or biological warheads and, with a range of up to 650km, are capable of reaching
a number of countries in the region including Cyprus, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran
and Israel.
Doesn’t read like delivered in 45 minutes, does it?
“Quakers don’t like wars but they pay taxes, some of which go to the Army. Gays don’t have kids (usually), but they pay for education. My uncle John never had a day sick in his life, never went to a doctor let alone anywhere near a hospital. But he still stumped up for the NHS.”
All your examples (Army, education, NHS) are things the State does, though. The BBC is different. Don’t pretend you can’t see that.
JR: “Quakers don’t like wars but they pay taxes, some of which go to the Army. Gays don’t have kids (usually), but they pay for education. My uncle John never had a day sick in his life, never went to a doctor let alone anywhere near a hospital. But he still stumped up for the NHS.”
Lizzie: All your examples (Army, education, NHS) are things the State does, though. The BBC is different. Don’t pretend you can’t see that.
Plus doctors don’t (usually) hunt down the healthy, schools don’t teach the evils of homosexuality and the Army doesn’t shell Quaker meeting houses. On the other hand, the BBC adopts an attitude of snarling hatred towards us pesky ‘right-wing extremists’ but still claims the right to steal our cash.
“Journalists and media organizations [are] waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people.”
Fayad Abu Shamala, the BBC correspondent in Gaza for the past 10 years, at a Hamas rally in May 2001
“…she had cried upon witnessing Arafat being airlifted from the Mukata in Ramallah”
The BBC’s Barbara Plett
“Jenny Tonge, a Liberal Democrat member of the British parliament, declared in January that she would consider becoming a suicide bomber if she were Palestinian (and subsequently led a minute’s silence in March — in the House of Commons no less — for the deceased Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin, who issued orders for dozens of suicide attacks against Israeli civilians). Since then, Tonge’s invitations to appear on BBC have noticeably increased.”
“In one case, in February, BBC Radio 4’s Flagship morning news program Today actually sent her off to “Palestine” (at the BBC’s expense), after which they broadcast her “diary,” in which she further defamed Israel and reiterated her sympathy for suicide bombing. She has also repeated her support for suicide bombers on air on the BBC on other occasions.”
“Similarly, there is the case of Oxford University literature lecturer Tom Paulin — who among other things has compared Jewish settlers to Nazis, has said they should be “shot dead,” compared the Israeli army to Hitler’s SS, and said he could “understand how suicide bombers feel.” He continues to be invited as a regular guest commentator by the BBC; indeed, he is one of the two or three most frequent contributors to their most widely screened program on the arts. “
john reith
Having skimmed Appendix E and Loughborough’s evidence only I would emphasise two points:
1. The first para of Loughborouh’s conclusion
“This report is not Loughborough University Communications Research
Centre’s assessment of whether we believe that the BBC’s reporting is
impartial or not. The concept of impartiality is contested. It is a matter for
debate whether impartial reporting is either desirable or possible. In this report
we have not adopted a particular meaning of impartiality and then used it as a
way of judging the BBC’s coverage. This is a matter for the Independent
Panel should it decide to do so”
which leaves the panel to decide whether or not BBC’s coverage is impartial – and, more to the point, what impartiality comprises. So over to the (disinterested) Panel on that one.
2. para 87 sets out the “partiality” aspect of the report and, in 8 out of 10 it’s a matter that Israeli “actors” had more talk time that Palestinian “actors”. In the other 2 aspects one item of coverage (annexation of land in E Jerusalem) had been overlooked by the BBC. The other aspect is that the BBC reporters did not give historical context. So here the “partiality” does not deal with the way BBC reporters dealt with the interviewees or what had occurred or their comments to camera – just that there were more Israeli “actors” than Palestinian ones. Apparently the panel accepted the implied suggestion that counting minutes would outweigh any comment by the BBC reporter.
3. para 88 says that Israeli fatalities were given more coverage than Palestinian ones. Can I suggest that this could have been a. because the Israeli casualties were more spectacular (women and children are always more newsworthy – BBC is selling news after all) b. How many of the Palestinian casualties were terrorists – sorry militants – and how many were innocent bystanders? Actually we’ll never know. And this ignorance is not helped by well documented Palestinian staging of atrocities. c. How open are Palestinian territories compared to Israeli territories in news gathering terms especially post an incident? I guess it’s easier to move around Israel that the P territories.
And that’s it. Not overwhelming by any means. And then, of course, interpretation is left to the panel.
Loughborough’s evidence just does not point to an unequivocal conclusion. However, it is unsurprising that this panel given this evidence concluded as it did.
Of course that should be 3 points
Ed – Just a small point, but is it not possible to spell Iain Dale’s first name correctly? I notice you also had the incorrect spelling in your 30/4 posting. Sorry to be so pedantic but it’s just becoming annoying…
Reith
Your lapdog messenger boy printed the piece about not using the T word oin relations to organisations. I had already posted that.
He failed to post, and you failed to refewr to, the strong recommendation by the review that ACTS of terrorism and PERPETRATORS of terrorim should be descrived using the T word.
Quit trying to lie and dissemble here. It doesn’t work.
If what I say above is not true, print the actual text that says the BBC can carry on avoiding the T word for acts of terrorism and for those who perpetrate them.
The Loughborough analysis was for a very brief period – at a time when Sharon was ill. Of course there was a lot of Israeli coverage during those few weeks. The analysis was so short, it is not convincing. The Glasgow analyses covered a longer period – but were countered by the Asserson analyses. Neither of these were dealt with in the review’s findings.
The only finding or recommendation printed IN BOLD was about the T word. On the Israel/Palestine3 situation generally, they founbd that the BBC often fails to provide context. A point repeated a couple of times in the report.
reith
You are wrong also on another important matter of fact. You imply that evidence submitted to the review is in the appendix to the review.
The great bulk of the written submissions to the review was NOT published. This is is clearly stated at the end of this item – which I pointed out yesterday :
Click to access terms_of_referencefinal.pdf
Just read the damn thing, stop trying the snow jobs.
I have worked on reviews of this sort while in the civil service. The practice is to issue the report and ALL the written evidence – and usually the minutes of the oral evidence.
The Loughborough analysys covers just a few weeks. Sorry – not a convincing review. With the Heisenberg effect probably operating.
And Q Thomas was cosy with the BBC 20 years ago, when he worked in the Broadcasting Division of the home Office. He was a fence-sitter, refused to pay proper attention to technical matters – and he thereby helped lose the BBC the chance to make an effective entry into satellite TV.
Much of the review is repetitive and shallow. I am hardly surprised. The Governors should require the publication of all the submissions so we can see what was reviewed.