Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
Honestly, if the BBC could limit itself to just understating Bush’s poll numbers. I would be well pleased.
Nasty piece of work to be barred from Canada
According to CTV News Immigration Minister Monte Solberg has given the order to keep Sheik Riyadh ul-Haq out.
The federal government has taken steps to prevent a controversial British imam from entering Canada on Friday to speak to a Muslim youth conference in Toronto, CTV News has learned.
Sheikh Riyadh ul-Haq, a prominent cleric in England who has been accused of publicly vilifying Jews and Hindus, among other groups, was slated to be the keynote speaker for the weekend Youth Tarbiyah conference, sponsored by the Islamic Foundation of Toronto.
Sources told CTV News that Immigration Minister Monte Solberg informed immigration officials that ul Haq should not be allowed into the country because of his extreme views.
The cleric has been accused of making inflammatory comments about Jews, Hindus and moderate Muslims, as well as gay, bisexual and transsexual people.
Ul Haq was recently called into the Canadian High Commission in London and was told he would not be admissible to Canada on grounds that his views could incite hatred and violence…
News of the imam’s planned visit has enraged Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and gay-rights groups, who wrote last week to Solberg calling for Canada to refuse ul Haq entry to Canada under anti-hatred laws.
In a letter, the Muslim Canadian Congress, Canadian Jewish Congress, Hindu Dharma Mission and Egale Canada, a gay-rights group, said ul Haq’s history of “dangerous and inflammatory” statements are an affront to Canadian values…
Oops!
The point of my last post was that I can’t find the story on the BBC website.
On Newsnight they had UKIP claiming success in the Bromley by election. They got 872 more votes. Hardly a success.
What words would be missing if the BBC reported this story on their Asian service, or would they even report it?
Pakistan Daily Times
Friday, June 30, 2006
Four executed for gang-raping Christian girl
Staff report
FAISALABAD: Four Muslim men convicted of raping a 14-year-old Christian girl seven years ago were hung early on Thursday morning after losing a six-year legal battle against the death sentence, officials said.
Muhammad Ashraf (34), Umer Hayat (32), Shahzad Ahmad (29) and Mubarik Ali (28) were executed at the Faislabad central jail at 4:30 am. Superintendent District Jail, Yousaf Ghauri, told Daily Times that the men had until the last moment pleaded their innocence.
According to the prosecution, Bashir Maseeh, a sanitary worker of Chak 144 RB, filed an application with the Jhumrah police stating that on the night of November 6, 1999, the accused broke into his house, took turns raping his daughter, Saima, before stealing valuables worth Rs 60,000. Bashir said that the men had threatened to kill him if he raised an alarm.
ATC Judge Chaudhry Mohammad Ikram sentenced the four men to death on December 18, 1999, a move upheld by the High Court, the Supreme Court and also President General Pervez Musharraf. However, the execution dates were later extended on three occasions.
Ghauri said that close relatives of the convicted men met them before the hanging, adding that the dead bodies were handed over to family members two hours later.
John R,
The BBC (and other broadcasters) report any low poll figure for Bush with glee yet fail to mention the high ones. Odd that.
Also the BBC fail to mention the almost consistant Democrat bias in these polls. Odd that.
Check and mate, mutha funker:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/06/gaza_stories.html#commentsanchor
* 14.
* At 04:44 PM on 29 Jun 2006,
* Louis Pinkett wrote:
I read Mr. Williams’ comments at first with interest, but increasingly with disbelief.
The disingenuousness of your editor, and by extension in this case, your network, is astonishing.
A group of loosely organized individuals (call them what you wish-terrorists? militants? gang members?)tunnels under a border, attacks an army post and brings back by force a soldier who they then threaten to kill unless their demands are met?
This is not a kidnapping? Are you really serious? How about blackmailing then?
Your tortuous logic, couched in some sort of journalistic doublespeak, seems designed after the fact to justify whatever agenda it is you yourself are hostage to. This is a frightening scenario for a major network financed by the people of Great Britain and undercuts the trust that I used to have in BBC.
What do you have to say to that Reith? Are you going to bother defending your employer? Do you think this is OK?
Nobody trusts the BBC anymore.
So, why do we still have to pay?
Not content with with attempting to eliminate the word “terrorist” even when quoting others, the BBC has now decided that soldiers are not kidnapped, they are captured, and that only policemen can “arrest” so others can only “detain”, we now have a situation in which the BBC is re-writing everybody’s scripts, selectively using reported speech and direct quotes as it sees fit, rather than doing what they are supposed to do; report accurately and precisely.
Compare these two versions of the same declarations:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_344
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip – Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said Friday that Israel’s offensive in Gaza — including the kidnappings of some of his Cabinet ministers — was part of a premeditated plan to bring down the Hamas-led government.
…
Israel’s air force has struck more than 30 targets in Gaza — including the Palestinian Interior Ministry — in response to Sunday’s kidnapping of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, 19, by Hamas-linked militants. Thousands of Israeli soldiers backed by tanks also have taken up positions in southern Gaza.
Haniyeh said the military offensive was not only about rescuing the soldier but also about crippling Hamas, which won January parliamentary elections.
“This total war is proof of a premeditated plan,” he said.
“When they kidnapped the ministers they meant to hijack the government’s position, but we say no positions will be hijacked, no governments will fall.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5132514.stm
Speaking at Friday prayers in Gaza City, Mr Haniya said Israel was using Cpl Gilad Shalit’s capture by militants as a pretext to bring down his government.
“This total war is proof of a premeditated plan,” he told worshippers.
He said Israel’s detention of dozens of Hamas officials on Thursday was “meant to hijack the [Palestinian] government’s position, but we say no positions will be hijacked, no governments will fall”.
If the BBC chooses to use or not use certain words in its own narratives that’s their perogative, but I really feel that imposing their own rules on how they report what others actually say has gone too far.
Here’s another one for you,
* 120.
* At 01:14 PM on 30 Jun 2006,
* R Saus wrote:
What is truly astonishing is that the BBC, its journalists editors and employees actually believe the distorted delusions they tell themselves and then try and sell us.
Maybe you can explain to us all why the middle east section at the BBC website under news has had that video of the ‘palestinian teachers working for nothing’ as the only & main video story for about 4 months now? Is it because the BBC is fair and unbiased? Odd seeing as there are numerous video reports on the Mid East every day at the BBC and changeover must be huge to your credit..
Or is it because the BBC actively manufactures Palestinian sympathy using this and things like ‘language’?
Do you think us, your readers are so ignorant that these things are not glaringly obvious!?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/default.stm
It’s really quite sad Jon this whole farce of objectivity, there’s nothing remotely objective about it. The bias is so entrenched you guys can’t even see it any more. It would be much better for everyone if you didn’t try and take the high ground while actually slogging through the mud.
Complain about this post
Biodegradable,
The BBC had the audacity to change the Uk Prime Minister’s speech to Parliament.
After the 7/7 bombings, Blair gave a speech on ‘Terrorism’. The BBC changed ‘terrorist’ to ‘bombers’ when ‘quoting’ the PM.
Who the hell do they think they are? How bloody dare they?
Total shysters, the lot of them.
I wonder what Communist Propganda Reith will spin about that then???……..
Changing the PMs speech????
The BBC is a sick cancer that opresses the people………
Shame on you BBC..utter shame……
I do remember the PM’s speech Grimer. There must be countless examples that slip under even our radar and all the while opinions are being formed and “value judgements” being made on the basis of those details.
They must take comfort from comments like this:
54. At 08:27 PM on 29 Jun 2006, Steve H wrote:
One good rule of thumb to use is that if you’re receiving complaints of bias from both sides (as evidenced in these comments), then you must be doing a good job overall of being unbiased.
I take comfort from the fact that a heck of a lot of the comments, if not a majority, reflect what’s said here at B-BBC.
dumbcisco
Everything you have argued about the US polls has been untrue, some of it perhaps deliberately so.
Here is a comprehensive list of ALL reputable polls published in June, comparing the most recent Presidential approval rating with the LOWEST figure recorded by that organisation at any time in 2006. NOT ONE SINGLE polling organization records any significant recovery of the sort you claim:
Harris Interactive
Lowest: 29% (May 11th) Current: 33%
No ‘one-third increase’ there.
Fox News/ Opinion Dynamics
Lowest: 33% (19th March) Current: 41%
No ‘one-third’ increase’ according to Fox either.
Rasmussen
Lowest: 38% (19th March) Current: 43%
Nothing like a ‘one-third increase.’
LA Times/Bloomberg
Lowest: 38% (1st March) Current: 41%
Does that represent a ‘one-third increase’. No.
USA Today/Gallup
Lowest: 31% (7th May) Current: 37%
No ‘one-third increase’.
ABC News/ Washington Post
Lowest: 33% (15th May) Current: 38%
No ‘one-third increase’.
Diageo/Hotline
Lowest: 37% Current: 41%
No ‘one-third increase’.
Pew Research
Lowest: 33% (22nd May) Current: 36%
No ‘one-third increase’ or anything like it from Pew there.
CNN
Lowest: 32% (23rd April) Current: 37%
No ‘one-third increase’.
NBC/WSJ
Lowest: 37% (13th March) Current: 37%
Unchanged. No ‘one-third’ increase.
CBS (including CBS/NYT)
Lowest: 31% Current: 33%
Still no sign of any ‘one-third increase’.
AP-Ipsos
Lowest: 33% (3rd May) Current: 35%
Not a ‘one-third increase’ is it?
Cook/RT Strategies
Lowest: 37% (9th April) Current: 37%
Unchanged.
As for your ludicrous claims that the RCP average was down around 30% – a claim you made more than once – that is obviously untrue (hat tip to Dave P for catching you out there).
ONLY one poll showed Bush dipping below 30. Only one other poll had him as low as 31. No way could these have brought the average down anywhere close to 30 while other polls at the same time had him at 35 or higher.
You just made it up.
Just as you made up the absurd claim that there had been a ‘one third increase’.
You have tried to disguise the essential deceit in comments both to me and to Dave P claiming that polls mysteriously ‘drop off’ the RCP site. Luckily that isn’t the only aggregation site. They don’t drop off this one – it has ALL polls for this year…and more.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
The figures are irrefutable.
Bush’s average was NEVER close to thirty.
There has been NOT ONE instance of a ‘one-third increase’ recorded by ANY pollster at ANT time this year – let alone sufficient instances of such a thing to offer evidence of a trend.
The BBC was right not to report it because it didn’t happen.
You just made it all up.
I forgot to source the most recent Harris Interactive. It’s here:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-09-2006/0004377782&EDATE=
Reith: While you’re at it, please help us dolts with the context — your analysis of the plummeting popularity of Chirac and Angela Merkel would be a good start. Then work it in with Bush’s better numbers. Just so we can all be clear. We all trust you, you know.
John Reith,
I’m no statistician but I can do simple arithmetic. So I had a look at your figures from 01.07.06 – 2:23 am and 2:46 am and calculated the average percentage increase in presidential approval ratings across all the polls, including, of course, the two polls that showed no change.
It’s 11%.
Now that may only be a third of a third but it doesn’t seem statistically insignificant to me.
And no doubt it would be significant to the BBC if the trend were downwards.
Come on, John Reith. Stop trying to sanitise the BBC. Everyone knows that the Bush administration is one of its pet hates.
.
“What’s the world coming to when people are being banned from flying the St George’s flag yet this sort of day is allowed? If it must be held, then why not on a weekday rather than a busy weekend?”
“It’s hardly encouraging integration.”
Muslim-only Day at Alton Towers
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006300314,00.html
,
reith
I have said twice now that the nadir of Bush’s approval ratings was around the end of April/early May.
That is when the BBC kept saying that Bush’s support was abysmally low.
Virtually all the polls you cite either don’t have a reading in that period, or don’t have a very recent reading. Some of the readings you say are “current” are actually many weeks old – eg Harris Interactive polled at the start of June, CBS polled in early June, AP-Ipsos polled in early June, CBS polled in early June, NBC/WSJ polled in early June. Pew and CNN polled in mid-June.
What prompted my first comment was that the RCP average has just gone above 40%.
You say “No way could the polls have been brought down to anywhere close to 30”.
I say again – I watch the RCP figures each week and they DID go way low towards 30.
You call me a liar when I claim that I SAW this at RCP ? If I could reproduce the pages I saw I would. I don’t know how RCP weights their figures – whether they give most weight to the most recent polls, for example. This page suggests they do :
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
So if there was a bunching of very low polls back in late April/early May, they would on this basis have been showing a very very low “average”.
But leaving RCP aside, how about these stories which all talk of Bush’s approval ratings being in the LOW 30s. As far as I can see they are not talking about a single poll – they are talking about the perceived average – which you choose to dispute.
I submit that these journalists’ comments as more contemporary evidence ranks way way above the guesses of the perceived average figures you are trying to make up ex post facto :
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=89704&version=1&template_id=46&parent_id=26
(That was a reprint from the Guardian – the last para reflects the BBC comic view of President Kerry as well as the Guardian’s)
http://sixers.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2ZjOTU1NDlkZjUxMzU3NzQ2YjI3ZjdjY2E1NGQyOWM=
“barely in the 30s” –
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/14757462.htm
William Rees-Mogg –
http://www.dailyreckoning.co.uk/article/010620063.html
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/06/2bush.html
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/132173
“hovering in the low 30 per cent range in most national polls” –
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5481603
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HF23Ad02.html
http://mediamatters.org/items/200606230010
http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20060609003917423
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CAR20060607&articleId=2596
http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/ci_3959064
http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2006/06/07/opinion-7juneed-06-07.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-05-power-play_x.htm
“mired in the low 30s” –
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/060606_state.html
The RCP average is now above 40. Which I called a dramatic rebound. You really deny there has been a dramatic rebound ? Does the sun rise in the west ?
The BBC was yapping on about Bush’s low poll numbers – not even you could deny that.
They aren’t yapping on about his poll numbers now. That is the point you keep avoiding.
“Why aren’t you singing…” is the football song that comes to mind.
and there is an outstanding list of egregious instances of bias and lies from the BBC which reith is evidently too delicate to comment on.
It’s fascinating that the new editors’ blog has attracted so many excellent comments:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/06/gaza_stories.html#commentsanchor
This could be because there appears to be no limit to the length of the comments, unlike the miserly allotment for Have Your Say.
Helen Boaden is described as the “boss” of this new blog. Or the boss, full stop, since she is director of BBC News. I guess that would make her chief smoother of any stray politically incorrect hairs in the BBC’s hairdo.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/06/welcome.html
Interesting that they allowed the following commment :
9. At 03:36 PM on 26 Jun 2006, s.h wrote:
fair and accurate you really are having a laugh (at my expense)
your a left wing organ for bleeding
heart’s a card carrying marxist’s wet
dream.the tele’s version of the gaurdian or independent.
Helen Boaden is the one who apologised on behalf of weepy Arafat devotee, Barbara Plett:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4471494.stm
The BBC’s director of news, Helen Boaden has apologised for what she described as an “editorial misjudgement”.
She said it appeared Plett “unintentionally gave the impression of over-identifying with Yasser Arafat and his cause”.
Her apology was Fisked on this and other sites.
Now I suppose she’ll be instructing her staff not to unintentionally make their overidentification with Hamas too obvious.
Anonymous writing on the Muslim-only day at Alton Towers,
As it happens, I’m thinking of writing a quick Samizdata piece defending Alton Towers’ right to do this.
Stricktly speaking, it isn’t Muslim-only (which would violate race discrimination law). Rather it’s that the whole park has been booked that day by a company called Islamic Leisure.
OK, back to the BBC now.
how low can the BBC mandarins get ?
This Times article has a BBC spokesman saying that the Jonathan Ross/David Cameron episode was “on the edge of what is tasteful”.
On the edge ? It was pure smut. As well as being typically BBC anti-Thatcher in a disgusting way.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2251285,00.html
Natalie Solent | Homepage | 01.07.06 – 9:30 am
Stricktly speaking, it isn’t Muslim-only (which would violate race discrimination law).
How so? Is Muslim a race?
“Rather it’s that the whole park has been booked that day by a company called Islamic Leisure.”
islamic “leisure”
war is peace.
freedom is slavery.
stop Natalie. my sides are splitting with laughter.
“They aren’t yapping on about his poll numbers now. That is the point you keep avoiding.”
agreed. it is a tad incredible that such a bounceback has occured – considering the war in iraq, and american deaths over there.
wars are , generally, a very unpopular thing to be involved in,for any U.S. president, if one takes account of the traditional American ethos of isolationism.
archduke
bounceback ? reith says there hasn’t been a bounceback.
Factors for the improvement probably include the capture of Zarqawi, the forming of a new government of unity in Iraq, anger about the mutilation (not reported by the BBC) of those two captured US soldiers, an easing in oil prices, some action on illegal immigration and guarding the border, and the Democrats making fools of themselves on Iraq. Plus good figures on the economy.
The latest antics of the New York Times and LA Times showing them carrying their anti-Bush bias to the exctent of revealing more secrets on terrorism-tracking could well improve Bush’s figures further.
“As it happens, I’m thinking of writing a quick Samizdata piece defending Alton Towers’ right to do this.”
fair enough – Alton Towers is a private company, and they can hire out their park to whoever they like.
but , one wonders, would you write a Samizdata piece, if the Carolina branch of the KKK hired it out and promoted a “white Aryans only” day there.
sometimes, private companies do have to make value judgements within the context of the wider society they operate in. (not that i am saying for one minute that the government should be involved. not at all – this is matter for shareholders)
“The latest antics of the New York Times and LA Times showing them carrying their anti-Bush bias to the exctent of revealing more secrets on terrorism-tracking could well improve Bush’s figures further.”
indeed -and yet, it could actually backfire and give Bush higher ratings because i would hazard a guess that most Americans would be pleased that their government was being so pro-active in tracking down terrorist financing – considering how asleep at the wheel their security services were prior to 9/11.
archduke | Homepage | 01.07.06 – 10:16 am
fair enough – Alton Towers is a private company, and they can hire out their park to whoever they like.
If it’s a legal organisation. But surely that organisation could not issue tickets on a discriminatory basis where such discriminisation would be against the law?
but , one wonders, would you write a Samizdata piece, if the Carolina branch of the KKK hired it out and promoted a “white Aryans only” day there.
If the KKK is a legal organisation, then why not?
However, you would have to take account of intolerant demonstrators who might turn up.
Bio They must take comfort from comments like this:
54. At 08:27 PM on 29 Jun 2006, Steve H wrote:
One good rule of thumb to use is that if you’re receiving complaints of bias from both sides (as evidenced in these comments), then you must be doing a good job overall of being unbiased.
Well they will get complaints from supporters of the present government (if any) & Conservatives as questioning is always from a position left of both. Always softer on terrorists & criminals and always wanting more government services & regulation.
Anon on Alton Towers:
This part is rather strange.
“Abid Hussan of Islamic Leisure insisted the day was open to all faiths, although Islamic laws would apply.”
Could someone explain exactly what it means?
If someone pushes into the queue for a ride will they be stoned to death?
Well, the piece is up so you can judge for yourself.
But to answer your question, I think the KKK ought to have the political right to hire a theme park – and a theme park to have the political right to refuse admission if it so wishes. And it ought to so wish.
Now I feel a bit guilty for encouraging off-topic discussion here, so why not comment further on Samizdata?
Oi Mick! ROTFL
I’ve just spent five minutes cleaning tea off my keyboard and monitor thanks to you…
Perhaps we could have Monty Python and the Spanish Inquisition in attendance just for parity
Why didn’t David Dimbleby interrupt on Question Time to point out that the Gaza beach deaths were not down to the Israelis ? Isn’t he briefed these days ? He must have known that issue would be raised.
Or would he rather let the sliming of the Israelis go through on the nod ?
“If someone pushes into the queue for a ride will they be stoned to death?”
and will there be a chop chop square?
public entertainment and all that.
“But to answer your question, I think the KKK ought to have the political right to hire a theme park – and a theme park to have the political right to refuse admission if it so wishes. And it ought to so wish.”
i wonder what would happen if i turned up in a St George costume?
actually, there is a certain Monty Pythonesque comedic angle on this “islamic leisure” thing – i cant help wondering what Eric Idle would have to say about it.
On the daily Politics an Islamic spokeswomen was saying that everyone she knows is flying a St George’s flag on their car. To show loyalty to England.
Oh really ?
I walked past a local mosque yesterday, dozens of cars, not a single flag.
Mind you, the row of houses and flats opposite had flags in every window. And I mean every window.
Most popular Alton Towers rides;
Rita – Queen of Speed ›
Air ›
Nemesis ›
Oblivion ›
Ripsaw ›
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: The Ride ›
Corkscrew ›
The Blade ›
Bob the Builder ›
Submission ›
I particularly like the last one!
all from here http://www.alton-towers.co.uk/themepark/guide.asp
I wonder if Alton Towers has a well – you know – the sort that Borat sings about?
could be very entertaining for the Islamonutters.
yes folks – islamic leisure really does have a website.
http://www.islamicleisure.co.uk/
they must be really happy that they wont have us untermenschen around on at that Alton Towers day.
Israeli soldier ‘seen by doctor’
Mr Abu Aen revealed the condition of the soldier at a news conference in the West Bank city of Ramallah.
“He was treated by a Palestinian doctor. He is fine now.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ News ticker now says “Palestinian militants deny that a doctor has seen captured Israeli. More soon.”
That’s what happens when you believe everything the first Palestine tells you, like the Gaza beach “shelling”.
should be; “… the first Palestinian…”
(Q:How can you tell when Saeb Erakat is lying?
A: His lips are moving.)
Hey, you guys, why don’t you all discuss BBC bias at some randomly chosen blog unrelated to the subject? That will confuse ’em.
Alton Towers are having a gays only day in September you know!
*sound of B-BBC exploding*
Natalie – isn’t that called “trolling”? 8)
No, Bio. It’s called sarcasm.
… Oh
;-Þ
dumbcisco
last night – trying to be helpful – I posted a comment giving you a steer in your spat with reith about Bush’s approval ratings. you made two rather sniffy replies which, frankly, made me a bit miffed. this was one of them
dave p
You suggest that apart from the very low poll of 29% there were no figures that could have pulled the RCP average down to about 30%.
That is rubbish…
dumbcisco | 30.06.06 – 10:13 pm |
reading and analysisng polling data is part of my job and I don’t take to being professionally rubbished.
I have just spent an interesting morning in the garden with my laptop calculating Bush’s approval averages. I have included all the polls during the period you several times alluded to in comments as the nadir period during late April and early May.
as you seem unsure on what precise dates you saw the realclearpolitics.com average down at close to 30, I have taken a series of overlapping snapshots which should cover more or less any date during that period. I have also double-checked to see there weren’t any low polls just outside the reference period which could have impacted on the realclearpolitics averages. (There weren’t.) All decimals have been rounded up/down to nearerest integer.
Bush Approval Averages:
Apr 14 – May 14 – 34%
Apr 20 – May 6 – 35%
Apr 24 – May 3 – 35%
Apr 26 – May 10 – 34%
Apr 30 – May 4 – 35%
This shows that I wasn’t talking ‘rubbish’. So please retract.
As a general point, it doesn’t do B-BBC’s reputation any good to hand reith the moral victory on a plate by making assertions that aren’t supported by the data.
dumbcisco + reith
…. and just so you 2 can focus your argument properly., I worked out when it would be statistically respectable to report a bounceback of the order of magnitude you are debating.
It will be when Bush’s approval rating reaches 45%.
This will probably happen closer to the mid-terms. let’s see what the BBC says then…..
I dunno, DaveP. John Reith ain’t got no moral victory, as far as I can see.
I don’t know if you saw the post where I demonstrated that Reith’s own figures showed an average 11% increase in approval ratings for the president. That doesn’t seem negligible to me.
So Reith may be able to grimly dig his heels in and prove that there was no one-third increase in approval ratings, but he is concentrating on the small stuff precisely because he has no answer to the bigger questions of BBC bias.
For argument’s sake, let’s say that, on average, the approval rating increased over the past few months by 10%. Was this not a significant enough factor for the BBC to report? And if so, why wasn’t it reported?
These are the questions that John Reith will not answer.
Conversely, if it can be shown that the BBC jumped to report a similar decrease in ratings over a similar period, would John Reith care to explain why that would be the case?
No, he wouldn’t. And even if it turns out that he can claim a victory on the question of percentages, he certainly can’t claim any kind of moral vicory on the substance of dumbcisco’s observation.
But I guess this is between you and dumbcisco so I’m going to butt out now and mind my own business.