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.
Gary,
I think it comes down to taking the ‘most reasoned’ and ‘civilised’ side in any debate.
If the evil baby killing, oil stealing, redneck, crazy Christian Bush is on one side of the argument, then the ‘civilised’ and ‘enlightened’ people must be on the other. It’s as simple as that.
Nobody at the BBC has the balls to stick their neck out and challenge the ‘consensus’. To be outspoken at the Beeb will be professional suicide. If you want to get on, you adopt the corporate ethos. My ex worked at Disney (as an accountant). Believe it or not, but you aren’t an employee, you’re a ‘cast member’ (pass the sick bucket). You aren’t going to get on at Disney unless you adopt their bullshit and tow the ‘party line’. The BBC will be exactly the same. Unless you conform to and adopt the prevailing ethos, you’ll be sidelined permenantly.
john reith
Much as I – and others – appreciate an “opposing view” such as yours on this blog there is no point in engaging if you do not argue the point that’s made to you. Even giving “Today” the benefit of any doubt concerning the uncertainty of getting interviewees to the microphone in a running story, opting for two Muslim spokesmen who effectively express the same opinion was 1. predictable, 2. boring and 3. biased. Not only lazy but crass.
Shouldn’t reith be dealing with that stack of questions he promised to find answers on ?
Why was it relevant for the BBC to be interviewing a bunch of young people about the police raid ? What do they KNOW that will be any help in the matter ? If a bunch of local youths are to be interviewed – how come there was not a single “white face” – don’t the indigenous yoof get a look in ever ?
The answer of course is that it waas totally irrelevant for the BBC to be interviewing any yoof. But the BBC’s purpose was to keep stirring the Islamophobia/we are victims pot, to keep peddling the MCB line.
On the Panorama programme, it is fatuous of reith to try to deny that there is a real debate. Even the “fact” of global warming is in contention. Going beyond that, there is a very large debate about possible causes, and about the best remedies. I have NEVER heard the BBC state that the US Congress virtually unanimously rejected the Kyoto approach as the remedy.
No-one who has given any thought to the matter denies that there is contention. Strip away all the rank amateurs on either side commenting on stuff they have nil professional expertise in – and there is still a serious argument going on between experts.
It was reprehensible of the BBC to mount a Panorama programme as one-sided as last night. As BIASED.
In just one week, we have had serious bias by omission by Panorama, by omission by John Simpson, and by the reporting on the police raid which gave undue prominence to the defence lawyers and local yoof.
I watched Top Gear last week and Jeremy Clarkson remarked that (I’m paraphrasing) thanks to global warming, it’s the coldest May that he can remember. On Any Questions on Friday night, it was discussed whether he should have “been allowed” to make such a remark.
Firstly, up here it has been a very late start to summer but I doubt whether that fact will see the light of day – so what Clarkson said is probably true. Secondly, it is evident that anyone who disputes any aspect of the religion of global warming is considered a heretic by the ‘opinion formers’.
newsnight tonight refers to “Newham” rather than “forest gate”
archduke 1
john reith 0
police are getting a hammering on newsnight right now.
oh dear.
newsnight panel – muslim guy is a member of the
“association of newham muslims”
archduke 2, john reith 0
“how come there was not a single “white face” – don’t the indigenous yoof get a look in ever ? ”
when i lived in newham, there were a lot of white families still living there. and a lot of afro-carribean families. and a lot of Hindus.
but newsnight gave the impression that the area was some sort of Muslim enclave.
why hasnt newsnight interviewed any non-muslims in Newham? what about their fears about bomb factories in their midst?
why were the newsnight interviews tonight limited to muslim “yoof”?
Paxman…. “US Client Government in Iraq”
All the BBC is bringing us is injured innocence from the Muslim community – “Wot me Guv ?”, complaints against the police for ethnic targetting, .
The idea apparently being that all Muslims in London and Britain are innocent, pure as the driven snow, whereas the police are scoundrels who rush in firing guns with minimal justification or cause.
All following the MCB line that British Muslims are victims, that Islamophobia is behind everything, that all Muslims in the UK are peaceful and law-abiding.
This is such an obvious crock that it is amazing that the BBC should keep trying to ram it down our throats. It is less than a year that home-grown Muslims killed dozens in London, and within a fortnight another bunch apparently set out with the same intention. We know of the killing desires of people like Reid the shoe-bomber and Massouri, we know of allegations of people trying to obtain huge quantities of fertiliser with no farm to spread it on, we know that hundreds if not thousands of British Muslims have attended camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan, we know the security services say that over 100 British Muslims have gone on jihad to Iraq, we know that many more have been stopped from going, we know that there are at least 1200 suspected jihadists in Britain that the security services are hard-stretched to monitor.
We know that for years there have been preachers of hate here in Britain, inside and outside mosques. We know that the internet has many many sites preaching jihad, that jihadi videos and CDs have been widely sold. Here is some info on a current example :
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3258963,00.html
The BBC is treating its audience as blind deaf fools.
But we live in a new era – we are not restricted to the traditional media for news, and on any topic we can rapidly check out multiple sources, multiple commentators. The BBC groupthink may work for them inside the bubble, but it can be far more easily challenged now than ever before.
The BBC presented us with a puff piece on the election of a new bosscat of the MCB – elevating this dross to a major news item. The guy popped up in the Newsnight report just now. But INSTANTLY people can check the name and point out that he was one of the people in the John Ware Panorama programme who was temporising on issues of terrorism or anti-semitism. One of the smooth-talkers unable to answer straight questions about what is really going on, what are the real attitudes and views as against the stuff presented for public consumption or disinformation.
In a time of serious terrorist threats in our midst, the RESPONSIBLE line to take is to urge everyone to cooperate with the police and security authorities. The IRRESPONSIBLE line is to keep presenting critics of the authorities, to keep spinning things so that the views of the MASS of the British simply don’t get presented.
The BBC chooses the IRRESPONSIBLE line.
John Reith:
If the BBC had ended its news bulletin on this subject with the statement: ‘The suspected chemical bomb-factory lies only a few minutes travelling time from the financial hub of the City of London’ then many people would conclude that the BBC had been given an off the record steer by the security services that the City was the intended target.
That’s a good point. If you’d said that instead of talking about the perps of other attacks living nowhere near their targets we could have saved a lot of agro!
“Simplicity”, as Steve Jobs once said, “is the ultimate sophistication.”
Dumbcisco
What makes all that you say even more irresponsible is that when the next terrorist attacks do happen. The BBC will not take any responsibilty for deaths it may well be responsible itself. We know who will be the one in the BBCs dock, George Bush.
Some while ago the BBC were very excited about the hole in the ozone layer.
I thought we were supposed to have fried by now.
Has that one slipped out of fashion?
I recall jr insisting that he had nothing to do with the BBC. I’ve not noticed him recanting that since Andrew’s revelation about where he posts his comments from. I used to enjoy watching him carefully selecting topics to defend but can’t take him at all seriously now.
P.s. Thanks Natalie!
boblog – re ozone layer.
right now in 2006 we should be frying, and not able to walk outside without lashings of suntan lotion factor 30.
funny how that one has dropped off the agenda.
“All the BBC is bringing us is injured innocence from the Muslim community – “Wot me Guv ?”, complaints against the police for ethnic targetting, .”
utter joke alright – i want to find out about the real issues. not what some muslim “yoof” think about things. this is newsnight after all
The BBC is not the only “old media” to wear blinkers, to be in denial about the existence of terrorist planning within the Muslim community.
This glorious headline and intro to a
Toronto Star article about the 17 suspected terrorists arrested in Canada is worthy of Monty Python. It asks “The ties that bind”…. and finds in para 2 that it is difficult to find a common denominator linking the 17. But it is accompanied by a photo that SHOUTS OUT what the common denominator is !
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1149371435839
The BBC is trying to deny that there is an elephant in the room.
I’d like to endorse what dumbcisco has just posted about the sycophantic drivel the BBC has been dishing out tonight on Neswnight.
The only good thing to emerge from this is that, so absurd has been the BBC’s position on this issue that even the most bovine BBC consumers I know have started to laugh at the Corporation’s output.
Which is, all things considered, the best fate for Reith and his pals. That their absurd posturing is just openly laughed at.
Until their poll tax is abolished and they all have to get proper jobs. That will be even funnier.
1970S, IRA = Irish nationalists – which leads to “be suspicious of people from Ireland” – and if you hear anything, inform the police.
its not *that* hard.
unfortunately, political correctness has made it hard.
Andrew wrote:
P.S. As I keep having to remind my offspring, there’s a word missing from your request
Would that word be “now”? 🙂
Ah Ted, the offspring are also often puzzled, in the first instance at least, as to the missing, indeed magic, word.
Amazingly though, obduracy on my part is all that’s needed to remind them of it, followed of course by a suitably dramatic “eh-heh-hemmm” to elicit a departing thank you from said offspring – another thing that the small number of ingrates around here might care to practice from time to time 🙂
The message is spreading !
Gerard Baker, US editor of the Times, has written a superb hatchet job on the BBC and its move into the US. He refers to biased-bbc as a source of daily examples of BBC bias.
He admits that he works for News International so there is a link to Fox. But he happens to have worked at the BBC for 7 years so he speaks with authority.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/bbc_bringing_sophisticated_new.html
The BBC will really hate this article.
And as I have mentioned before, the real-clear-politics site is a “must-read” for politics watchers in the US. This will be picked up all over the place.
Scott Callaghan over at AmericanExpat has pointed out that the claim that BBC World is a fraud when it claims that it is commerically funded – its news content is largely drawn from hundreds of mainline BBC staff who WE pay for.
http://www.theamericanexpatinuk.blogspot.com/
Scott links to the BBC World PR on itself. What struck me is how ridiculous the BBC looks to choose as its first photo across the banner of the page that passe guy Terry Waite. News values in a bubble.
‘Hamas operatives working on adding toxic chemicals to bombs’
Headline in today’s Ha’aretz. Will the BBC report it? Not likely. They’d rather act as PR agents for the Abbas referendum that Hamas is boycotting and suppress news of Palestinian terrorism.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/723309.html
I would have thought that a far more interesting Panorama would be to take a critical look at climate change science (religion?), and really how well the science stands up to scrutiny, and how much is instead based on political bias and junk science.
On Today this morning MontaQuinn asks “How is the Government going to tackle global warming?”.
Note the usual implicit BBC assumptions here:- global warming is a given (is it?), we have caused it (have we?), there’s nothing we as individuals can do about it since evil big business, especially American business, is largely to blame (is it?); the only solution is a statist one (is it?).
I am willing to accept global warming and that we have caused it, if based on rigorous science. I am willing to accept that Jeremy Clarkson is talking a load of bull, if based on rigorous science. However the depressing tendancy of the BBC to unquestioningly accept the views of Pot-Porritt clones undermines any faith in the ability of this tax-funded organisation to deliver objective news and current affairs.
Today has just interviewed the Times Editor on the newspaper’s setting up of a New York edition. The have the gall to ask “How long has Rupert Murdoch given you to see if this works?”.
The question was parried in a neutral fashion. I wish the proper answer had been given – “We obviously have to make this work on commercial terms. We don’t have the luxury the BBC enjoys of setting up new ventures with no timescale whatsoever for proper return, because the licence tax payer bales everything out anyway, however bad the original venture was planned or executed”.
The BBC’s activities over past years in the US are a case in point.
We were discussing whether or not it was remiss of the BBC not to point up the proximity of the raided premises to Stratford Station in its News reports.
:?:What’s wrong with locating the incident? It might be relevant to the investigation. It might be simple background for BBC listeners who don’t live in London. It may have nothing to do with the story and can be easily corrected in the future, if and when further information on alleged targets becomes known.:?:
I’m not a Londoner and don’t have a good idea of the city apart from the obvious tourist sites – Madame Toussards, Tower of London, etc. I’m grateful for more information.
IMHO the issue here is whether the BBC was attempting to influence public opinion and imply those arrested were innocent victims of incompetent police before investigation, court procedures or a Police/Government press statement could present a different view.
Does proximity to Stratford Station bias the report one way or another? I doubt it.
The real tragedy of the BBC is not its self-indulgent and biased news programs, but the fact that it broadcasts low quality, ratings chasing rubbish for 90% of its output. If the BBC were a shop it would be a junk food takeaway.
Cheer up everyone. Billy Bragg is on BBC TV tonight.
Grimer
Watched the Kofi A. Lamentable. Outrageous. Worst I’ve ever seen. Indefensible. Can’t say plainer than that.
[This is not the same IP as “john reith.” Since the commenter has signed him/herself somewhat differently, I’m going to assume it was a joke and not intended to deceive. Even quite a funny one.
But not one we want to see repeated. Impersonation corrupts debate.]
Edited By Siteowner
Eamonn “global warming … the only solution is a statist one (is it?).”
A recent poll was re-assuring. When asked who could make the biggest contribution to reducing emissions, the largest response was “me”.
Is that really you agreeing with Grimer, John Reith?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
[No, it wasn’t. Please see above.]
Edited By Siteowner
Apologies if this has already been pointed out, but you can watch John Ware’s ‘A Question of Leadership’ Panorama programme online at the Corporation’s own website here.
Click the link on the right to watch the video, or scroll down to read the transcript.
Reith – sure, the weight of scientific opinion is there for global warming. Doesn’t mean you can ignore the sceptics; in fact, it’s even more reason to give balance to the debate to show the case being made is a solid one when you put the evidence to the sceptics. I happen to agree that there is global warming but that doesn’t excuse the lack of balance in a BBC programme.
Is that you John Reith? If so, you’re at odds with the BBC’s complaints procedure. They reminded me how much they ‘strive’ to be impartial. Complaint rejected.
The issue isn’t really whether or not there is Global Warming (i.e. the planet is getting hotter). The issues are:
1) Is man contributing to the warming?
2) If so, by how much?
3) Is global warming a bad thing?
4) If so, what can we do about it?
The BBC has decided that:
1) Yes we are
2) 100% man made
3) It will destroy life on earth
4) Kyoto will solve everything, if only America/Bush would sign the piece of paper.
A more rational interpretation of events might be:
1) Possibly, so it might be wise to proceed under the assupmtion that we are.
2) Impossible to tell, but highly unlikely to be the ‘majority partner’.
3) It depends what species you are and where you live.
4) Concentrate on habitat protection (which we should be doing anyway, to safeguard the planet’s biodiversity), cut pollution through the use of new technologies and educate the public of the importance of conserving natural resources (e.g. don’t waste water, electricity, etc).
The BBC is so obsessed with the Baby Killer’s refusal to sign a piece of paper, they are blind to the big picture:
People will not have their lifestyle curtailed by busybody politicians/NGO’s/Greenies/social-engineers.
The only way forward is to invest in R&D for new, non-poluting, power sources
D Burbage
Yes, there should still be balance.
Especially – if one agrees there IS global warming – what are the causes ? Is it actually proven to be essentially man-made ? There seems to be a lot of dispute about this.
And as a step after that – if one agrees that there IS global warming, and one also agrees it IS man-made, what are the best policies to improve things ? Parroting “Kyoto, Kyoto” is simply too shallow, too kneejerk. There is genuine dispute about this THIRD step in the analysis.
reith truly is a BBC bot if he genuinely thinks that all debate is closed, that the arguments on all three steps are overwhelmingly settled except for a few nutters falsely arguing the contrary.
I have seen close-up big technical arguments that gather a momentum of their own. Huge mass of pressure stifles proper debate and can lead to disatrous errors. Eg Concorde – endless arguments about how it was a world-beater, and if anyone suggested it would be a commercial disaster for Britain they were promptly sat on. Same with Advanced Gas-Cooled reactors. On both issues, Britain was wrong and the Americans were right. Meanwhile Britain poured endless PUBLIC funds into special-purpose electronics. The Americans went for the all-purpose microprocessors that can be programmed to do anything under the sun – and the main funding was through venture capitalism, not the taxpayer. In telecoms, Britain followed the ATM Holy Grail. In the US they were turning the world upside down with TCP/IP – which the Europeans derided. The BBC view is anti-nuclear, pro-windpower – when both arguments can be shown to be seriously flawed.
When there is a bandwagon rolling – that is often the time to jump off. Or at least to be very sceptical.
The clear fact remains that the Panorama programme was entirely one-sided. Not even BBC bots like reith could deny that. It was a PARODY of the notion of balance.
Grimer
Obviously I was having much the same thoughts as you !
Panorama
We are told that it is in the Arctic that change is most dramatic. We are told that major species face extinction.
This is voiced over film of polar bears and ……….. penguins.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/programmes/panorama/default.stm
(6 min 39 sec into programme)
Incidentally, do the BBC go looking for clones of Orla, or are other BBC female reporters so smitten by her that they copy her looks & mimic her vocal delivery? Hilary Andersson is certainly Orla Mk2.
http://www.isu.net.sa/saudi-internet/contenet-filtring/forms/unblock-requist.htm
http://ubergirl87.blogspot.com/
http://eveksa.blogspot.com/
Musings of a blocked bloggerette
..
..
..
..
What happens when a site gets singled out and blocked in Saudi?
It gets more hits than it ever did.(Remember; there’s no such thing as bad publicity)
..
..
What can you •my fellow bloggers- do about it (if you want to do something about it)?
1- you can fill in an unblock request
or,
2- You can post about it and do what : Aya, Farooha, Fouad A. AlFarhan, Kharabee6, My Head, Pheras, Richard, sandmonkey, and Yael K did.
..
..
Why was Saudi Eve singled out and blocked?
Raf* has an entertaining take on why of all blogs Saudi eve was the one to get blocked first. He says: ” it’s all because of love. a bunch of o.c.s.a.b. kids fell heads-over-heals in love with your writing and the only way that their bosses could prevent them from leaving the forces of evil and come running towards the light (i.e. you) was to block your blog.”
My Head thinks it’s all because of the Jewish prayer I posted a month ago. Could it be?
dumbcisco “reith truly is a BBC bot if he genuinely thinks that all debate is closed, that the arguments on all three steps are overwhelmingly settled except for a few nutters falsely arguing the contrary.”
That was the whole premise of the Panorama programme, which was further compounded by the impression that the nutters were all politicians & evil capitalists – not even the slightest suggestion that scientists differed.
dumbcisco “and the main funding was through venture capitalism, not the taxpayer.”
Interesting column on this theme in yesterday’s Times
Can science get by without your tax money? Just ask them over at IBM
Science Notebook by Terence Kealey
The Times Higher Education Supplement’s survey last year showed that Harvard University’s science papers are the most cited globally (20.6 citations per paper on average) but coming in second was IBM (18.9), outranking all other universities and research bodies.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2211018,00.html
According to the BBC Israel is to blame for Iran’s determination to build nuclear weapons. We knew that anyway, but not in these terms:
Scientist says Israeli raid was catalyst for weapons programme
Israeli attack ‘jump-started nuclear programme’
“Until Israel’s attack, we were only dabbling with some calculations relating to nuclear fuel burn-up and criticality calculations – nothing sophisticated and focused.”
Just to be clear, according to the BBC if the Israelis had not destroyed Iran’s reactor 25 years ago Iran would now have a peaceful nuclear program and the world would be a safer place.
If you believe that you’ll believe anything!
Guess the BBC headline:
Terror raid could ‘damage trust’
OR
Self-exploding Muslims could ‘damage trust’
Go here to find out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5051078.stm
Grimer
Agree. The point is, the BBC neads a constitution to stop this from happening. Private business can do what it wants, nobody has ever been locked up for not going to Disney.
Oh I just remembered the BBC does have a constitution, in the form of a charter. So why is this ignored?
It is ignored partly because it is humanly impossible to keep to.
The government has got out of running and financing industry, so why have the left not got out of the media.
This because a truly free media is the corner stone of a free sociaty, and the only free thing socialists like is our free cash.
Which is why the best thing to do is privatise it, or just close it down.
One other thing that would at least be honest. Which is just give the “blood soaked” overpaid inefficient mess to the Labour party, they own it in spirit anyway. Lett the people that benifit from it PAY for it. The propergander could not get worse if Hamas had shares in it.
The very last thing any Conservative should want is to stifle political idears and debate. So the above solution would be the best solution for our countries democracy.
archduke – what’s your take on the similarities between the Irish ‘troubles’ and the Londonistan ‘troubles’?
By that I mean do you think that the war has already been lost in London and London will increasingly become more Islamic. It will be difficult to turn back the clock. The ‘enemy’ are already here.
Often, Hitler and the Nazis are brought up by commentators perhaps illustrating a similarity in the type of war we are engaged in. I am coming to the view that WW2 was an easier win.
The big difference in WW2 being that the UK remained an uninvaded whole unified people against the enemy Nazis. Listening to Radio4 6 O’Clock News last night, I fear London has already been lost so a creeping Islamism, supported by a variety of groups including the BBC, human rights lawyers and a raft of PC legislation.
Sorry, this is getting well off topic. Gosh it’s depressing listening to BBC News……
The BBC assault on the US market is pitched entirely the wrong way.
If it follows the usual BBC lines, it will be insulting to a lot of Americans. On average – the RICHER Americans. Now that ain’t a very good model to attract advertising.
They should take a tip from Rupert. Fox News saw a completely liberal line-up of US TV channels, including the cable channels such as CNN and MSNBC. So it introduced a right-leaning approach – but with a lot of balance, aiming for some debate rather than just the drip-drip of one side’s propaganda.
result – Fox News is wiping the floor with channels such as CNN and MSNBC. Five times as many people watch the Fox news progs as watch the CNN or whatever equivalent.
Wanted – one sports editor
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_5050000/newsid_5051600/5051640.stm
And where would the BBC be advertising for this position…?
“There’s an advert in this morning’s Guardian for a sports editor for the BBC….
Al-Guardian, naturally…….
Biodegradable
You are confusing your Iraq with your Iran.
This is about Iraq not Iran.
Israeli attack ‘jump-started nuclear programme’
BBC could send in Theodore Dalrymple as Social Affairs correspondent, maybe. Hirsi Ali or Norm geras as Religious Affairs correspondent. Simon Heffer or Chris Hitchens as politics correspondent. Jeremy Clarkson as Environment correspondent. Mark Steyn as Security correspondent.
They’d build ratings far faster than they will with their present shallow and boring liberal tosh. They could leave the leftie fiction to Doctor Who inserts.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/rev2006-06-04td.html
OT
Flag target provokes racism probe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5051162.stm
Glad to see the police spending time on real threats to the safety of the nation…….