Please use this thread, and this thread alone, for off-topic comments, preferably BBC related. Please keep comments on other threads on the topic of that particular post. N.B. this is not an invitation for off-topic comments – the idea is to maintain order and clarity. Thank you.
This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Official: Blair were to blame for the death of Margaret Hassan.
In a stunning revelation, brought to us on the Today programme, Edward Stourton interviewing Margaret Hassan’s sister, reveals for the first time that Iraqi terrorists were not to blame for the Mrs Hassan’s death. Apparently, Tony Blair was to blame.
On a serious note, I wonder why the Today programme feel it is important to highlight this now, and why Stourton didn’t refer to these comments by the sister following Mrs Hassan’s death:-
“Those who are guilty of this atrocious act, and those who support them, have no excuses”.
Unless of course, even then Mrs Hassan’s sister considered Blair as the guilty one.
and
“We are the Irish family of Margaret and we are pleading with you to set her free,” she said.”
Why, then does she not blame the Irish as well as the British Government?
I can quite understand that Mrs Hassan’s family will say all sorts of things in response to the terrible events surrounding the death of Mrs Hassan. But it is another thing for the BBC to allow these views to be broadcast, without comment or challenge. Ken Bigley’s brother, who also blamed Tony Blair for everything, was also allowed to make unchallenged claims on Today.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5047102.stm
Gaza militant shootings kill five
‘A car carrying a Hamas militant….’
‘blamed his death on the Hamas movement.’
Why do these ‘gunmen’ keep ‘clashing’? Isn’t the term ‘clash’ used more for demonstrations that turn a bit ugly? ‘Protesters clashed with police’, ‘Rival demonstrators clashed…’, etc.
How long until the BBC actually start referring to ‘Civil War’?
And the interview was at the peak Today timeslot – 8.10am.
The Hassan family may have a grievance – for instance about getting the men now on trial interviewed by someone to find out where Mrs Hassan is buried – but is it really the biggest item of the news today ? And isn’t it the function of the Iraqi authorities to do any such interviewing ?
The interview was pre-recorded as well as pre-arranged. The BBC website story is timed as being last updated at 7.15am. I think it went up much earlier than that.
Stourton mentioned that British Governments have a long-standing policy of not negotiating with hostage-takers. Stourton mentioned this – but more in passing than as the primary, over-arching reason for not intervening in the phone calls made to Mrs Hassan’s Iraqi husband.
Given their normal appeasing manner, the BBC probably disagree with that policy. It would follow the French/Italian/German line, which ends up with yet more kidnappings.
Can we have a thread on the apalling Panorama program last night.
What a pretty pathetic showing….
who was the utter tosser on Today this morning comparing Islamists to the American Civil Rights movement of the 1960s?
i swear , i nearly self-detonated.
[ to be utterly fair, John Humphries did give a quip in response along the lines of “well, the Civil Rights people werent going around blowing us up, were they?”. ]
John -> the stereotypes of “Republicans” came thick and fast. i swear, i thought i was watching Cuban propaganda.
John and Archduke,
You actually bothered watching it? Let me guess what the story was, evil neocons couple with the oil industry got Bush to lie.
What lessons have been learned from 7 July?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=2031&edition=1&ttl=20060605105953&#paginator
The first page of ‘Recommended’ to a man (& woman) common sense silent majority view. The Beeb must be hating it. Expect the thread to be ‘Closed’ soon.
“Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:55 GMT 09:55 UK
I am afraid of another attack because the police aren’t allowed to do their job properly without offending communities. There are clearly still people willing to cause harm in this country, but the more the media and muslim communities attack the police for raids they carry out because ‘they didn’t find a bomb’ the more unsafe this country becomes. You don’t have to have a bomb strapped to you to be guilty. You can still be guilty of intent and planning.
amanda, peterborough
Recommended by 19 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:55 GMT 09:55 UK
I do wish certain (usually left wing) groups in the UK would stop attacking the police and security services. They are doing their best to prevent extremists (some of them traitors) from attacking us. Sometimes they will make mistakes, most of the time they will be correct. The only people who should be attacked and ridiculed are those who want to attack us or who support those who want to attack us.
Kev, Chester
Recommended by 19 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:47 GMT 09:47 UK
Lessons? None! We still criticise the police and emergency services at every opportunity, whilst trying to find excuses for the terrorists and their supporters. This encourages extremists and demoralises those who risk their lives to defend us.
Jack, London
Recommended by 17 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:37 GMT 09:37 UK
In this country we seem hell bent on blaming anyone but the bombers. The emergency services appear to have done a fantastic job but are now being opened up to blame, why? bombers caused this carnage and now by publicly criticising our emergency services they are winning a propoganda war.
[mufcnews], Stockport, United Kingdom
Recommended by 17 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:51 GMT 09:51 UK
I hope the Government has learnt that London should not be a refuge for religious extremists and international terrorists.
They chose to ignore the advice from the French government and other countries that we had some dangerous fundamentalists exploiting our liberal society.
Griff from Cardiff, Cardiff, Wales
Recommended by 14 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:47 GMT 09:47 UK
Anyone in such a situation has a hard and arduous task, no amount of paper planning can really prepare for such an event.
I would feel happier if we tightened our border controls (not difficult) and increased the effectiveness of MI5 and other security forces.
I would also feel happier if the human rights and PC brigade didn’t hamper investigations and extraditions – to anywhere!
Tom Smith, Ipswich
Recommended by 11 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 09:35 GMT 10:35 UK
Why is it that the media seem more concerned with criticising the emergency forces risking their lives to save people than the actual bombers? Blame culture at it’s worst.
Gouranga Patel, Norwich
Recommended by 7 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:49 GMT 09:49 UK
The lesson for the police seems to be this:
If you shoot to kill, you’re damned. If you shoot to injure, you’ll be damned. If you don’t shoot, you’ll be dead.
Curiously, terrorist attacks happen every day in Iraq. In US there was ONE attack. In UK there was ONE attack. Where is the terrorism?
Iain Mair, Stirling
Recommended by 6 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:53 GMT 09:53 UK
I feel safe enough not to need a compulsory ID card.
Michael Allison, Preston, United Kingdom
Recommended by 6 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:33 GMT 09:33 UK
There’s more chance of dying in a road accident than in a terrorist attack. So, I about as worried as I was this time last year. Ie/ not very.
Richard O’Shea
Recommended by 5 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:40 GMT 09:40 UK
July 7th woke me up to the fact that no-one is safe from these attacks. Although while these attacks are terrible and totally unnecessary, it is unfair to criticise the police and intelligence services. It’s easy to say “this could’ve been done”, or “that could’ve been done” in hindsight. The only people we can blame are the terrorists themselves.
Graham Longlands, Bolton, United Kingdom
Recommended by 5 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 09:15 GMT 10:15 UK
I spent years in N.Ireland where terrorist attacks happened on a daily basis Enniskillen Omagh bombings etc where was the public enquiry into just these 2 attacks NEVER just 1 attack on the US 1 attack on London and everyone is in uproar The thing is the RUC new & still do who planted those bombs and were powerless to arrest them because of UK politics cmon people get a grip maybe if the IRA had bombed London more in 69 the troubles would’ve been over in a year but they needed the US $
DAVE SCOTT, WINCHESTER, United Kingdom
Recommended by 4 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 09:08 GMT 10:08 UK
The main lesson of 7/7 is that we are at war with an enemy that our own governments and legal system have brought right into our midst and which they seem to be doing very little to expel.
Michael Jamieson
Recommended by 4 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 09:43 GMT 10:43 UK
This is what I have learned…
Our police, emergency services, anti terrorism squads and intellegence services will be damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
There are thousands of scenarios of terrorism attacks and if you put thousands of systems in place there will always be one scenario not covered.
I, for one, give 100% support to our police and emergency services and my only critisism will be directed towards terrorists.
Elizabeth Philips, Halifax, United Kingdom
Recommended by 3 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 08:44 GMT 09:44 UK
Judging by the number of raids and arrests since then …and other outrages in other parts of the world… (and the subsequent “failed” second attack) , there are clearly a significant number of people sufficiently motivated to harm innocent people to merit the police and security services to be very active.
Do not be complacent….we will be hit again if they get the chance.
jackie scott, london, United Kingdom
Recommended by 3 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Its blame the Jews time again!
Gaza blast kills Hamas militant
An explosion in a refugee camp in the Gaza Strip has killed a Palestinian militant and injured his wife and son, medical sources said.
…
The cause of the explosion is not yet known. Israel says there were no military operations in the area.
The Israeli army frequently carries out air strikes against Palestinian militants in Gaza, usually claiming responsibility shortly afterwards.
…
The explosion comes just hours after five other Palestinians were killed the most serious round of deadly feuding between supporters of Hamas and the former ruling party Fatah.
Given that (a) “work accidents” are possibly the most common cause of “Palestinians” dying in explosions in the Palestinian administered terroritories and, (b) as the bottom line indicates there’s a civil war going on with rival factions merrily murdering each other, why even mention that The Israeli army frequently carries out air strikes against Palestinian militants in Gaza…?
(That’s a rhetorical question – we all know the answer)
BBC invites SEXIST & RACIST as regular commentator.
From this afternoon’s (Sunday) Dateline London:
‘I don’t like middle-aged white men’ Yasmin Alibi-Brown.
The “What lessons have been learned from 7 July?” HYS comments are indeed encouraging.
So is this:
Palestinian support ‘crashes’ in Europe
Take note BBC, your public does not want more appeasement and PC puff-pieces on terrorists and their enablers!
All day Friday B-BBC posters were berating the BBC for its coverage of the Police raid in Forest Gate.
One example:
‘key things missing:
1. Pakistani
2. Islam/Muslim
3. bomb factory
4. Usage of the vague “Asian” term
The BBC – not bringing you the news.’
archduke | Homepage | 02.06.06 – 3:29 pm | #
Mmm. A curious silence seems to have decended as things became clearer.
First, according to the next door neighbours the Koyairs are NOT Pakistani; they’re from Bangladesh.
Meanwhile, the family next door – whose house was also entered by Police – come from neither Pakistan nor Bangladesh; they’re from India.
Seems like that term ‘Asian’ (admittedly unsatisfactory much of the time) was the right call here.
Also, it wasn’t a bomb factory.
Why do B-BBC posters always appear to want the BBC to jump the gun? Waiting until the facts are established would be much mopre conducive to accurate and impartial reporting, surely?
Given that on a previous occasion a suspected Somali plumber turned out to be a Brazilian electrician, I’d have thought you lot would have grasped that by now.
Oy vey! John Reith the shlub‘s back!
;-Þ
and yet the BBC seems to have no problem jumping the gun with Iraq “massacre” stories – such as the John Simpson lead item on the ten o’clock news with his “Ishaqi” scoop.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5042036.stm
i sense double standards at work here.
“You actually bothered watching it? Let me guess what the story was, evil neocons couple with the oil industry got Bush to lie.”
Ralph -> yup. you got in one.
John Reith – you mean third-party commenters at Biased BBC, not Biased BBC posters.
To add a typical BBC style aside, third party commenters at Biased BBC often include BBC staff.
“Waiting until the facts are established would be much mopre conducive to accurate and impartial reporting, surely?”
Oh dear Reith, try reading the article posted by Andrew below re: croquet and get back to us.
John: “Can we have a thread on the apalling Panorama program last night. What a pretty pathetic showing….”
Feel free to write something and post it here! Given the sheer volume of the BBC’s output it’s not possible for the regular Biased BBC team to watch and respond to every questionable thing they broadcast.
P.S. As I keep having to remind my offspring, there’s a word missing from your request 🙂
John,
For some of us, the issue isn’t that the BBC is loathe to start banging on about evil Islamic monsters threatening armageddon until full facts are established. It’s that it doesn’t appear to show the same reluctance to fling around speculation in respect of various unproven allegations elsewhere.
i.e. I find it wholly appropriate to report that a major police raid has been carried out in London under anti terrorism laws. I’m more than happy for the ethnicity of the alleged perpetrators, details of the alleged plot and the story of who shot who to remain out of the public domain until police have fully investigated – hence lurid language about ‘bomb factories’ etc can be avoided as the Beeb has rightly been careful to do.
Equally though I can do without all the bullsh*t about excessive force and agonised interviews with family members about brutality and innocence etc etc – why are resources being devoted now to investigating this stuff when there may be a bomb to find? Do it later for f**ks sake. The Beeb has been involved in stirring this up without any hard evidence.
Similarly in Iraq, it’s wholly appropriate to report findings and in brief factual terms allegations of improper conduct from US troops. The arguments about civilian casualties and unpleasantries happening in war so that’s all right then are bollocks in my view – this isn’t WWII it’s a pre-emptive war and occupation in the name of ‘freedom’ and against a tyrranical regime which surely places behavrioural obligations to the fore (and incidentally is costing us all a fortune).
However, the fact that unlike WWII we had a choice as to whether to do this places obligations on the media to call it down the line. How can the public make an informed CBA next time (Iran?) if the feedback is skewed? Gung ho bullsh*t is inappropriate but the Beeb’s constant spinning of every unfounded allegation is equally so and increasingly nauseating. Only an idiot could say that the War is/was a good/bad thing at the moment – it’ll become clear over the next decade and more and we need facts on which to judge this.
Is it a ‘magic word’?
_______________-
John Reith,
Have you had a chance to watch that Kofi Annan interview yet? What did you think? I’d really like to know what you thought of the ‘balance’.
Andrew
‘you mean third-party commenters at Biased BBC, not Biased BBC posters.’
The rule-of-thumb taxonomy I’ve been working by has been to call people who post a comment ‘posters’ while you, Natalie, Ed etc. would be ‘bloggers’.
I’m happy to use some other classification if you can suggest one. But ‘third-part commentators at Biased BBC’ seems a bit of a mouthful.
Once again Gordon Brown gets an easy ride in the “Today” programme. No questions on the destruction of UK pension schemes, the tax credits fiasco etc etc. Nevertheless there were questions on what the Chancellor is going to say to the CBI about globalization: why not wait until he’s said it rather than let him set the agenda?
reith
Yes – the BBC kept saying “Asian” which includes all sorts of religions. It avoided the word Muslim.
I can’t see why you are challenging this. It is true.
Also – the BBC could not even get its London geography right.
And there has been precious little investigative work by the BBC since then. All the new news we get comes from elsewhere.
Pathetic.
BBC in Third World exploitation shocker:
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article625111.ece
“He was pleased to learn Thai extras would receive 400 baht [£6], almost double the standard wage for a day labourer.”
“But Robert Reynolds, who runs a charity for tsunami orphans in Krabi province, was incensed after discovering Western extras were routinely paid 1,400 baht [£20].”
You see – the BBC is really in favour of capitalism and market forces – when it suits them.
Re Panorama “Bush’s Climate Of Fear”.
Having not watched a BBC political documentary for several years and having nothing better to do I decided to watch this last night. Having become attuned to BBC bias recently, I found myself both laughing and angry at this programme. It was pretty obvious within the first few minutes that this programme was intended not as an intelligent discussion of the issues but as a partisan attack upon George Bush; luckily for us it failed to land any punches.
Firstly the title: “Bush’s Climate Of Fear”, suggesting that people are living in fear of an overpowering Bush Whitehouse. As the programme progressed it was pretty clear that this “charge” was not substantiated in any way. Scientists interviewed all looked pretty comfortable to me. None were cowering in fear or asking to have their faces blacked out.
In the opening minutes we were subjected to background music (what is its purpose in a political documentary?), said music being the ominous “Dance of Death” from “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”. Hmmm…. Then various talking heads (actors?) were presented in a manner which I am fairly sure was meant to invoke the image of US Christian TV preachers. Geddit?
The impression I got from these opening scenes was vaguely unnerving – my unease being directed not at George Bush, but at the fact that this was Panorama, supposedly the BBC’s flagship political current/affairs programme. After this, the programme meandered badly.
The main body of the programme was really just a mish-mash of the usual enviromentalist talking points. Various themes were mixed in in seemingly random order, you could almost be forgiven for thinking that the producer couldn’t find enough material to fill out the programme. We got:
Sinister editing of scientific reports
A series of pro-global warming scientists expressing their opinions and frustration at US policies
1 guy on a mountaintop in Virginia complaining about coal mines
Residents of New Orleans whinging about the state of their homes and lack of government assistance
The world is getting hotter and it’s all man’s fault!
There will be more hurricanes!
ExxonMobil controls the US state dept
George Bush has links to the oil industry
Texas is the most polluted state in the Union and it’s the fault of George Bush
Americans drive Hummers (though they have just stopped making them…)
America produces 25% of the world’s pollution
It’s now too late to do anything about global warming – “precious time has been lost” (yes that is a direct quote) and it’s America’s fault
Americans don’t care about the rest of the world and they are going to do what’s best for their economy (shocking, I know)
Some pollster demonstrating his polling technology which allows favourability to be tracked in real-time as a politician actually gives his speech. Just what was the relevance of that? Oh…did I mention that he was a Republican who has now “seen the light” and is anti-Bush’s Kyoto policies?
The programme really didn’t land any blows, it was pretty poor all round. No doubt it will be lapped up in Guardian-land as more “proof” of how evil George Bush is, but frankly the point the programme made best, to those who like to think, is just how poor the BBC’s documentaries can be.
“hence lurid language about ‘bomb factories'”
it wasnt lurid – it was based on what intelligence sources were saying at the time to their contacts in the media- it ran on numerous newspaper websites, even ITN ran with it – and you cant accuse ITN of being a UK version of Fox News, can you?
and it WAS a bomb factory – it was only later we found out the type of bomb factory that the police were targetting – a chemical bomb factory.
no whether that was in the house or not is by-the-by.
Re Panorama “Bush’s Climate Of Fear”, part deux.
The programme was notable for what it omitted – that will not be a surpise to any reader of this blog. A few examples, please note this is all off the top of my head:
There was not a single interview with a scientist that is sceptical on global warming. NOT ONE. Some of the pro-global warming scientists were asked about the “anti” opinion, but not surprisingly they dismissed it and said the issue was now “settled”.
The old canard about America producing 25% of the world’s pollution was trotted out. The fact that America produces 25% of the world’s wealth was conveniently omitted.
The fact that Kyoto was rejected 99-0 by the US Senate during Bill Clinton’s presidency was not mentioned.
The fact that there might be benefits from global warming was not discussed.
The fact that even if the whole world implemented Kyoto it would make sod-all difference to the world’s climate in 100 years time was not mentioned.
A cost-benefit analysis of implementing Kyoto vs dealing with global warming was not mentioned.
The fact that America’s population and economy have both grown significantly during the past 10 years was not mentioned. This makes it essentially IMPOSSIBLE for the US to cut its emissions to 1990 levels (as required by Kyoto).
The fact that the rapdily growing economies of India and China are far more inefficient in their use of energy per unit of GDP was not mentioned.
The fact that Kyoto is effectively a dead duck was not mentioned. For example, the Canadian government is backing away from its commitments. And just how many European governments are on track to meet their commitments?
The slam-dunk refutation of the so-called “hockey stick” model which underlies much global warming alarmism was not mentioned.
The fact that the world cooled in the middle of the last century was not mentioned.
The disparities and divergencies in the main global warming computer simulations were not mentioned.
The politicisation process behind the original IPCC report was not mentioned.
My homepage abive is not my homepage! It is the Panorama home page – you can watch the “documentary” here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/programmes/panorama/default.stm
Dumbcisco
‘the BBC could not even get its London geography right.’
The BBC used ‘Forest Gate’. Why? Because that’s what the Met said.
‘This morning, shortly before 4am, the Metropolitan Police executed a search warrant at a house in Lansdown Road, Forest Gate, East London.’
http://cms.met.police.uk/met/news/arrests_and_charges/terrorism/anti_terrorist_branch_operation
Now there may be some who insist that Forest Gate really only starts north of the Romford Road. But actually they’re wrong. Green St, for example, is often said to be in Forest Gate. Upton Park would do too.
But it’s third party commentators on this blog who get it wrong. Archduke, despite having spent time in Plaistow (‘near West Ham Park’) says he’s never heard of Forest Gate and wants the BBC to say ‘Newham’. I’ve never met an eastender who talks about Newham in other other context than the council. ‘Newham’ like Cumbria and Avon is a figment of the municipal imagination dreamed up by bureaucrats and politicians in some sort of reorganization. There is no such place.
As is becoming clear, most of the the speculation on the blogs and elsewhere is steadily proving to be unreliable. Many of those claiming to have ‘contacts in the security services’ are turning out to be fantasists.
The BBC has been responsible and accurate. Just ask DAC Peter Clarke.
Cockney
I broadly agree with you. Except that I do not accept your line about the BBC’s ‘constant spinning of every unfounded allegation’. Sometimes the BBC reports allegations….and the replies/ripostes/rebuttals etc. That’s called impartiality.
why do i get lots more information from the Seattle Post, regarding recent Iraqi violence:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Iraq.html?source=mypi
as opposed to this on the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5045608.stm
the BBC appears to be filtering out the news fragments , such as this, which is in that Seattle Post article:
“He said the gunmen ordered the Shiites to lie down and before they opened fire one shouted, “On behalf of Islam, today we will dig a mass grave for you. You are traitors.””
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5040806.stm
The Israeli killing bots attack a hospital in order to snatch an innocent patient.
In an attempt to provide context the BBC elaborate on another body snatching incident:
“In March, the Israeli military snatched four members of the PFLP from a jail in the West Bank town of Jericho.
They are alleged to have shot Rehavam Zeevi, a hardliner who advocated deporting Palestinians from the occupied territories.”
They just forgot to mention that alleged hardliner was a serving cabinet minister at the time. It’s probably not such an important fact.
“despite having spent time in Plaistow (‘near West Ham Park’) says he’s never heard of Forest Gate and wants the BBC to say ‘Newham’.”
geographical context is everything – the alleged bomb factory was within walking distance/bus ride of Stratford station. Docklands railway, central line, and buses all operate out of there -not to mention the new Eurostar terminal being built there.
its quite a busy transport hub.
but we never got a hint of that in the BBC reports:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5042724.stm
re max’s link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5040806.stm
“and arrested an injured Palestinian militant said to be seriously ill.”
Seriously ill! deary me – sounds terrible. was he in hospital because of cancer maybe? err no..
“Reports said the man had been shot in the stomach during clashes with Israeli forces”
Grimer,
You are quite right in calling attention to al-beeb’s use of terms like Hamas “movement”, and “militant” and aunty’s reluctance to use the “T” word.
But what we must understand is that this is indeed a cvil war, but only on the surface. Underneath lies the clue to what the “clashes” are really about: gangs, family rivalries, drugs, prostitution,general smuggling, and a lot of other struggles carried on by a bunch of slimy bottom-feeders. These issues have been happening for centuries and have nothing to do with Israel.But licence payers will have to wait a long time for the story behind the story.
John Reith, my own preference is to make clear the distinction between ‘posts’ from bloggers (i.e. Biased BBC team members) and ‘comments’ from commenters, so it is clear whether you’re referring to Biased BBC posts or third-party comments. Within this forum, the term ‘commenters’ should be sufficient for clarity.
It’s tempting not to add comments once the thread count goes past 200 – like as not a new one will be started and your timeless remarks (!) will have been lost to the discussion.
So, at risk of paraphrasing myself from the previous ‘open comments’, last night’s Panorama was so shoddy I’m astonished Hilary Anderson still has a job this morning.
All the usual polemical tricks were pulled. The programme opened with the mandatory heart-tugging routine, presenting her case by implication and innuendo, relying on sympathy to overcome any nagging questions of fact or relevance of the subject matter she’d chosen to dramatise her point.
It progressed to the selective choice of interview subjects, laboratory controlled to rule out the possibility of dissenting opinions from equally qualified scientists who believe her chosen bunch were talking nonsense, then staggered on to the mandatory ‘poor blacks from the South’ section (complete with the pricelessly gratuitous vox pop “I don’t think the Bush government takes anything seriously”) before descending back into the mire of soft-reporting, designed to plaster over any cracks in her tar and paper argument.
Certainly there is censorship in the ‘global warming’ debate. It is the ruthless censorship of any dissenting view – even of those who accept the hypothesis, like Bjorn Lomborg. And why this matters is because Anderson and her kind take our money by force to feed us propaganda and ruthlessly extend that censorship. The lazy viewer (which we all are, to some extent or other) takes in the drip-feed of BBC propaganda and ends-up holding opinions she or he has no idea how they arrived at. Which then enables other BBC pundits to claim that ‘public opinion has shown a remarkable shift…’. You don’t say!
That edition of Panorama was nothing more than thinly-disguised anti-Bush ranting from an organisation that has clearly lost the dictionary.
If Reith likes to give me the right address, I’ll gladly go and buy one and post it to the right department.
The word ‘impartial’ will be helpfully highlighted in fluorescent ink.
john reith
“Sometimes the BBC reports allegations….and the replies/ripostes/rebuttals etc. That’s called impartiality.”
A small point: the Met hadn’t said anything about how the suspect came to be shot – only that “a man was shot”. In fact they are precluded from commenting until the IPCC investigation is complete. However, solicitors for the arrested men were all over BBC News like a rash claiming that the shot was “not an accident” and implying police brutality and a de Menenzes situation. What does the BBC expect defence solicitors to say? “It’s a fair cop” or “Yeah our clients are terrorists”? Claims of innocence coupled with veiled allegations of police brutality are to be expected from defence solicitors in this type of case: it isn’t “news” so why does the BBC give it such extensive and high priority coverage? This kind of editing is certainly not “impartial” and it allows the defence solicitors and the suspect bombers to set the agenda for future coverage and analysis.
John,
Re: spinning of allegations against US troops.
Report the allegation, in brief (particularly where the complainants may not be entirely impartial observers) with appropriate caveats. Report any conclusions of official US military investigations, without necessarily accepting at face value – i.e. report conflicting evidence. As in the vast majority of cases it will be impossible to subsequently establish exactly what happened stress ambiguity at all times. Raise thereafter in the context of an overall assessment on the pros and cons of the war, not in exclusion.
At the moment it just seems that hopelessly unreliable commentators are invited to waffle at length over atrocities, massacres etc etc without any substantive evidence.
and Umbongo has it absolutely right re: Friday in my view. STFU and let the police do their job.
Umbongo writes:
“This kind of editing is certainly not “impartial” and it allows the defence solicitors and the suspect bombers to set the agenda for future coverage and analysis.”
Neither is it impartial (do remind me where to send that dictionary, Reith) to concentrate your reporting on the reaction of aggrieved local ‘yoof’, to the exclusion of examining why an air exclusion zone was in place over East London, investigating the terrorist bust in Canada, the mysterious detention of a surface-air missile by French customs and one or two other recent incidents, which are of a great deal more news value than the apologetic spin your employer is feeding us, day after day, after tiresome day.
BBC USE ‘I’ WORD SHOCKER!
Islamists claim Mogadishu victory
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/5047766.stm
Shouldn’t the correct headline be:
‘Asians claim Mogasishu victory’.?
Of course, no ‘Islamists’ here though…
Police await shot terror suspect
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5047200.stm
“A terror suspect shot in the shoulder during a police raid is not yet well enough to be interviewed by detectives, his solicitor has said.
Mohammed Abdul Kahar, 23, and his brother Abdul Koyair, 20, were arrested after Friday’s raid on a terraced house in Forest Gate, east London.
Oh my god…. is that the Prophet Mohammed?? I get confused, so many Mohammeds….
Second surprise of the day…..
Liberalism under pressure
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5042418.stm
This (excellent) ‘point of view’ could eaily have been titled ‘Wake Up and Smell the Coffee’.
What surprises me is how dhimmis like the BBC fail to see this coming, nor do they see the MSM’s role in supporting the Islamists, as a result of their politically correct search for moral equivalence between thought systems supporting democracy and peace and thought systems consisting of death and conquest.
If the BBC spent half as much time Islamist bashing as it does Bush bashing we might be getting somewhere. For the time being the BBC continues to feed the crocodile.
Margaret Hassan lived in Iraq and was married to an Iraqi. She was an Irish Citizen with an Irish Passport.
Just what possble benefit would it have been to her to have the British Government intercede on her behalf ?
Umbongo – Good points well made.
“solicitors for the arrested men were all over BBC News like a rash”
A characteristic of the BBC is the way they allow certain “experts” all over the BBC News like a rash. Here they often “omit” or hide any mention of the connections that the person has with various “peace” or “antiwar” or other left wing organisations.
I remember that Radio 5 Live used to have on an “academic expert” to comment on the Iraq war. However, they never mentioned that this person was affiliated with the antiwar movement. I happened to know that this person was, but from the BBC the listener would never have known, except by the anti-coalition views that he always conveyed. I e-mailed the BBC to complain about the fact that his antiwar standpoint should be made clear to the listener; I haven’t heard that person on radio 5 Live again but have no idea whther my e-mail had anything to do with this.
There are many, many examples of this on the BBC.
A good example of this in the media is the way in which the Guardian employed a member of a radical Islamist group to write articles. The Guardian knew who he was, but kept it quiet until exposed by Scott Burgess at the Daily Ablution.
Eamonn,
The most common example I have spotted is when the Today programme wheels on an American for “balance” when commenting on George Bush. So often it turns out to be a former member of the Clinton administration. But the BBC doesn’t declare that.
so many Mohammeds. So many problems.
To misquote Mark Steyn.
Liberalism under pressure
A point of view by Lisa Jardine
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5042418.stm
I don’t quite get it. What does she want? More tolerance for the intolerant? Why doesn’t she just write what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been saying on a regular basis?
I hope nobody here at Biased BBC gets any ideas after reading this:
Militants storm TV studio in Gaza
Armed supporters of the Palestinian governing party Hamas have stormed a TV office in Gaza, complaining of bias towards the rival Fatah party.
The gunmen fired into studio equipment and called Palestine TV staff “dirty collaborators”, before ordering them off the premises.
I seem to remember somebody suggesting here some kind of invasion of the BBC news room recently.
hmmm…
😉
Somebody who would have been dealt with if they had… 🙂
Biodegradable: The people at the Beeb would understand it – as long as it’s some deprived plumber from Newham storming their offices. Wait… don’t they get plenty of airtime on Al Beeb anyway?