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.
DaveP | 01.07.06 – 1:44 pm
reading and analysisng polling data is part of my job and I don’t take to being professionally rubbished.
Dumbcisco couldn’t have known it was part of your job any more than he could have known you would be so ineffably pompous about it.
Fitzgerald: Death of a ’settler’
I listened to the BBC last night. The announcer could not get enough of that word “settler.” The “Palestinians” had executed “an Israeli settler.” The “settler” had been kidnapped. And so on. One would have no way of knowing, unless one already knew — and how many do? — that this “settler” was a young boy, that he had “settled” on land that was in the original League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, even after all of Eastern Palestine (that is historic Palestine, east of the Jordan), was unilaterally closed by the British to Jewish immigration — an act that infuriated the members of the League of Nations’ Mandates Commission.
Read the whole thing.
dumbcisco
Now the poll stuff has been settled (BIG hat tip to Dave P), can we get back to what we were discussing before that long winded (though illuminating) detour?
I mean: Alan Dershowitz
You took the BBC to task for failing to pin a political label on him.
You wrote:
he is a rabid democrat and should have been introduced as such.
dumbcisco | 30.06.06 – 4:09 pm | #
You repeated the ‘rabid’ slur on two or three subsequent occasions.
What would Dershowitz have said, I wonder, if the BBC had introduced him as ‘a rabid democrat’ – or even a plain Democrat? Maybe he’d have repeated this – which is a matter of public record:
” I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans. I have registered in the past both as a Democrat and an independent. I am completely independent of all party affiliations in my decisions and in my voting patterns.”
http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/121300election-dershowitz.html
Now, let’s be clear that I am not saying Prof. Dershowitz isn’t a liberal. Just that the real world is often more nuanced than you acknowledge.
If, for instance, you were to check out Dershowitz’s political contributions (I’m sure you know how to do it) you’ll find that, in addition to the payments you’d expect (Hillary. Barack Obama) he made three campaign contributions to the senate runs of Sen. Arlen Specter (a Republican) as well as one to Senator Orrin Hatch’s (Republican, Utah).
Hatch made his Presidential run in 2000. So, though Dershowitz represented Al Gore AS A LAWYER in the matter of Florida recounts etc., EARLIER he’d supported a Republican runner.
How do intelligent Republicans regard Dershowitz? Do they call him ‘rabid’?
Tony Blankley is a Brit who’s been in Washington a long time. He used to be Newt Gingrich’s press secretary and now works for the conservative Washington Times. Writing in Jewish World Review, Blankley says:
“Next week a vastly important book will be published: “Preemption, A Knife That Cuts Both Ways” by Alan Dershowitz. ….. And but for my lack of his legal scholarship, there is nary a sentence in the book that I — a very conservative editor of the Washington Times, and former press secretary to Newt Gingrich — couldn’t have written. The premise of his book is that in this age of terror, there is a potential need for such devices as profiling, preventive detention, anticipatory mass inoculation, prior restraint of dangerous speech, targeted extrajudicial executions of terrorists and preemptive military action including full-scale preventive war.”
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/
Are you sure you should have been saying things like:
“Dershowitz was a lowlife ………….He is rabid..”
Was it accurate? Was it justified?
gordon-bennett
…..fair cop g-b, I was being insufferably pompous. (my wife often says the same thing).
dumbcisco couldn’t have known. what riled me was that he wasn’t very civil. I was genuinely trying to help but he bit my head off.
…and he was talking through his a*se. (sorry Natalie)
……oops….sorry in last comment it should have read: Orrin Hatch’s (Rep. Utah) Presidential campaign fund.
John Reith,
The poll issue will be settled when you answer the following simple two-part question:
By what percentage does Bush’s approval rating have to climb before the BBC will report same?
And how much greater is that percentage than the percentage drop in ratings required for the BBC to report same?
Once you’ve answered the question, greater minds than mine will be able to come up with a statistical formula for the BBC’s bias against Bush.
@dumbcisco,
That interview with David Cameron is disgusting. A complete lack of judgement in broadcasting it the first time.
Even better, the BBC has made itself a fresh enemy so that when the tories do come to power, there will be a score to settle.
Bryan
pace dumbcisco….the BBC doesn’t often do stories that are ‘poll led’ – in the sense that the substantive story is ABOUT approval ratings and this is reflected in the headlines.
I believe the last really big one was this. I’d be interested to know what you think about it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4544444.stm
More often approval ratings get mentioned in passing as background context to other stories. Though sometimes the poll element is important enough to get into the headline:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4924810.stm
or:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5061838.stm
Do these seem okay to you? They seem to cover the territory, commentwise.
As to your particular questions:
I don’t think it’s a numbers, so much as a context thing. I’d have no problem with a report now – but it wouldn’t be full of trumpet blasts. There seems to be a rise, but it’s a modest one. PRNewswire headlined their story on the Harris poll in early June : ‘President Bush’s Approval Rating Rises Slightly From All Time Low”.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-09-2006/0004377782&EDATE=
That may be understating it a touch…..but the story still is far less dramatic than dumbcisco’s ‘dramatic bounceback’ claim.
Given that the December story was the last big poll-focussed one – what is it that’s given you the impression that BBC people have been accentuating the negatives?
Further to what Reith says I think it might be interesting to consider how journalism tends to work.
Hacks are drawn to phrases like “All Time Low” but whatever the context “Slight Rise”just doesn’t get our juices flowing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5136810.stm
BBC
A gun battle has erupted between Hamas militants and Israeli troops in Gaza in one of the worst clashes since Israel launched an offensive there on Tuesday.
Why not…
A gun battle has erupted between Hamas terrorists and Israeli troops in Gaza in one of the worst clashes since Palestinian terrorists kidnapped an Israeli soldier and executed an innocent civilian .
At least the WP has it right.
Washinton Post…
Hamas’s War
The movement defended armed attacks and hostage-taking; now it’s complaining that Israel is fighting back.
Yesterday it again postponed a larger operation aimed at stopping the launching of rockets at Israel from northern Gaza in order to allow more time for mediation by Egypt. Meanwhile, the rocket firings continued — another act of war that Hamas has encouraged, if not sponsored.
Saturday, July 1, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001499.html
John Reith | 01.07.06 – 5:56 pm
The ever-present flaw in your defence of the beeb is that you answer back when you feel you have a case but otherwise ignore our points. You often make the point about research but there have been literally dozens of instances where bloggers have quickly found important, relevant viewpoints that the beeb has clumsily missed.
One set of instances was to do with Katrina, where the beeb concentrated on doing down Bush and missed out on a lot of obvious data which gave the lie to that and which they have not reported even up to now.
Another set is coverage of Israel/Palestine. I think Israel acts as a civilised nation but the beeb always readily believes the PR from the palis. Israel, wanting to do the right thing in the right way (which takes time) are always left on the back foot by the unwarranted credibility given to palis. The beach explosion is a recent case in point.
Also do the beeb yet know of Pallywood, like we all do? As someone else said, how can professional film and tv editors possibly be taken in by the obvious fakes from Pallywood, even to the extent of editing out the most obvious goofs.
I think you are knowingly participating in a deliberate deceit of the public, relying on your past reputation, gained before there were bloggers to find you out, to carry your point of view with the public.
John Reith 01.07.06 – 5:56 pm,
From your first link, dated December 2005:
‘Sharp rise’ in Bush popularity
An opinion poll, carried out for ABC News and the Washington Post, shows his approval rating has risen to 47%, from an all-time low of 39% in November.
From your second link, dated April 2006:
Mr Bush’s job approval ratings have slumped dramatically, partly through growing public disillusion with the Iraq war, but also over sharply rising energy costs.
The latest survey, in the Wall Street Journal, suggests his rating has now slipped eight percentage points since January to a new low of 35%.
The common factor in those two reports is, of course, the eight percentage points.
A sharp rise of eight in a month is in doubting quote marks while a drop of eight in three months is a dramatic slump sans quotes.
You ain’t gonna win this one, John Reith.
Alan (the other one) | 01.07.06 – 6:27 pm
I take your point but there is still context to your claim. Here’s an example.
I used to have to suffer will hutton frequently reporting on newsnight during the Conservative goernments about how bad the economy was performing and how wrong privatisation was.
We haven’t had anything of that type of discussion while the FTSE hardly moved up at all under nulab (until recently).
Incidentally, has there ever been an instance of a beeb programme praising privatisation? I seem to remember that the Cosrvatives turned the public sector industries around from costing the taxpayer £5 billion pa to paying the taxpayer £5 billion pa in tax.
Reith knows he is losing……..he knows it is all spin…he will soon vanish and another BBC minion will take his place…..he is begingin to understand though, that the BBC is just a little TV company…it;s does’nt rule the world….and no matter how much screaming and crying the lefties do…Bush is still in power, and America will still dominate the world…….
Reith has Zero credibillity left on this forum….I just laugh when I read his posts now, and the only real mystery is, does he think we believe his hopless manipulations? Or has he indeed convinced himself that he is telling the truth….???
Either way, I think he needs to seek proffesional help….lol…..
Anonymous | 01.07.06 – 8:04 pm
That was mine.
mick in the uk,
We should rewrite the BBC’s headlines and lead paragraphs for them. Maybe that’ll get through to John Reith and crew.
gordon-bennett,
I dunno about Reith vanishing. He has shown a good deal of dogged determination to present the BBC as something other than a propaganda outfit.
And I wish the BBC were just a little TV station. Unfortunately it ain’t just that. It has more range than any other media and it wields a tremendous amount of power and influence in this world. Much of it to the detriment of said world.
Bryan | 01.07.06 – 8:34 pm
I was the other anonymous @ 8.04 pm.
Bryan | 01.07.06 – 8:34 pm
I was the other anonymous @ 8.04 pm.
Also, I should have said, I agree with you about reith.
Nothing gets past our johnny (as Durex might have sloganised).
So reith is a sheath? Wonder what he’s trying to protect the BBC from then?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5136810.stm
Not a thing about the poor 18 year old laddie snatched ,shot and then burned by the Palestinians in this article….
Sod Israel and the Palestinians. Stuff BBC ‘bias’.
Today, England lost; and they lost in a very depressing – predictably depressing – manner.
By Darwin, I hate football.
dave t | Homepage | 01.07.06 – 10:12 pm
The real world.
Bryan | 01.07.06 – 8:00 pm
“A sharp rise of eight in a month is in doubting quote marks while a drop of eight in three months is a dramatic slump sans quotes.”
You are quite right.
As a broadcaster, I’ve never had much professional use for quotation marks and have never paid them much attention. I have heard of sneer quotes and get the idea. But I’m not being disingenuous when I say that what you call ‘doubting quote marks’ are a new one on me.
When I originally read the story concerned, I assumed that the reason that the words in the headline were in quotation marks was that they were…literally…a quotation and that somewhere in the body copy they’d be attributed to someone.
I suppose it is conceivable that at some stage in the story’s gestation there might have been a quotation involving those words that got edited out of the main text leaving the headline high and dry…… but then, maybe not.
They certainly do have the effect of undercutting the story, the minute you notice them.
I can’t see any place for doubting quotes, sneer quotes or distancing quotes in good journalism. I think the BBC should ban them. They are at best lazy and at worst deceitful. Quotation marks should be used to attribute words to a speaker/writer and for nothing else.
Is this sort of thing common?
Ok, enough about Bush’s poll numbers. Back to more ‘bais’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5136988.stm
I myself have butchered meat, and the solution to potentially spoiled meat is to cook it.
BTW, note the oddity of “food shortages” in gaza if the butcher has plenty of meat, and boys are sitting on sacks of UNRWA grain.
“The international community cut aid to the Palestinians in March when Hamas took office.”
Why did the international commnity do this? Context please.
“In Beit Hanoun, a town in northern Gaza, residents are tense about a major Israeli military operation. This is the site from where many of the rockets are fired by Palestinians into Israel.”
More passive voice?? At least change it to “This is the site where Palestinian militants launch rockets into Israel.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5131228.stm
Worn-out Gazans fear war
“Beit Lahia in northern Gaza is a poor, dusty and overcrowded town, like all communities in the Gaza Strip. Now it is preparing for war.”
If we ignore the “overcrowded” canard, how can the BBC generalise to “all communities in the Gaza Strip”?
Note also the touching lead photo, from getty images given without any context.
“Battered-looking cars and donkeys pulling carts negotiate their way with difficulty around mounds of sand piled in the streets.
It is a miserable attempt by local residents to stop the most powerful army in the Middle East.”
How quaint of the dusky natives to make attempts at defense.
“This is all part of Israel’s campaign to pressurise Palestinian leaders – it wants its captured soldier back and for Palestinian militants to stop firing crudely-made rockets at Israeli towns – but to Gazans it feels like collective punishment.”
The rockets used to be “home-made” now they are crudely made? How do we know how it feels like to Gazans?
How does it feel like in Sderot with Qassam’s raining down?
“Israel has sealed off the Gaza Strip. No food, bottled water or fuel supplies are coming in. There are frequent power cuts.”
So everyone is starving to death in the streets? Not will all those UNRWA handouts.
Why has Israel chosen to seal off the Gaza Strip? Just to be punitive, or perhaps there is logical reason?
“Gazan families worry about getting caught in the crossfire.
Most here say they support Sunday’s attack on an Israeli military post by Palestinian militants but that they wish they hadn’t brought a captive Israeli soldier – and all this trouble – back with them to Gaza. ”
Well, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5134116.stm
Bitter Gazans await their fate
“[Gaza] is mired in despair and badly divided. There are too many guns, too many armed factions – and not nearly enough hope of something better to come.”
How are guns the source of problems? Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
“The best of governments would struggle here. And Hamas came to the task with an attitude towards Israel that guaranteed that it would quickly be engulfed by problems.”
At least that is an honest observation. Well done BBC.
“In the past Hamas suicide bombers have hammered at Israel’s cities, taking hundreds of lives. Hamas called the bombs in the cafes and the buses resistance to occupation. But the West called it terrorism.”
BECAUSE IT IS TERRORISM!!!!
Note again the indirect voice “taking hundreds of lives”. Vs the much simpler. “Hamas suicide bombers have killed hundreds of people in Israel”
“It plunged the new government into economic and diplomatic isolation. And it will remain an international pariah until Hamas renounces violence and recognises Israel’s right to exist.”
What is this mysterious “it”?
“Hamas is so desperate that one of its spokesmen was caught trying to smuggle hundreds of thousands of dollars into Gaza in his underclothes.”
Thereby violating the trust of the EU and Egyptian observers who maintain the open crossing between Gaza and Egypt.
“But you cannot run a government like that, and the economy is starting to seize up.”
Just now starting to seize up? Unlike Tony Blair, the BBC won’t blame the previous government for anything wrong.
“The attackers killed two soldiers and led away 19-year-old Corporal Gilad Shalit.”
I take it he decided to go voluntarily? To join them for a smoke?
“A few days ago the body of another Israeli teenager was found – killed in the West Bank by Palestinian militants.”
Again, proper use of Subject-verbs and adjectives. The BBC constantly uses passive round-about sentances to dilute the link between actors and actions.
“A few weeks ago the Israeli air force struck at a leading militant on a busy street in Gaza. The blast caught the Amin family as they passed in their car.
A little girl called Mariyah had her spinal cord cut by a bit of shrapnel. She will never move her arms or legs again, she will never even be able to breathe again without the help of a machine, and she is only three years old.”
Has this been independantly verified by the BBC correspondent? Yes or No?
Call me callous, but this sounds to me like an Arabian fable calculated to pull at the heartstrings.
John Reith | 02.07.06 – 3:07 am
Well, thank you for that admission, John Reith.
Is this sort of thing common?
Unfortunately, yes. On a recent thread a commenter posted numerous BBC examples of the practice and queried the need for it. And it’s often difficult to know exactly why quotes are used. By ‘doubting quotes’ I simply mean that the BBC is sceptically distancing itself from whatever is quoted. Similar to ‘sneer quotes’, though not as strong.
I take your point that the ‘sharp rise’ could have originally been in the body of the article, but I find that unlikely. And even if it were the case, the quote marks should then also have been edited out of the heading.
There is no need for the BBC to distance itself from verifiable, obvious facts. It should be able to bring itself to fall in line with them, even when they favour those whom the BBC despises.
Market Participant,
Good Fisking in those last three posts.
I see that in the following sentence the BBC’s ‘crudely-made/home-made rockets’ default has a bug in it and ‘rockets’ amazingly, stands alone:
“In Beit Hanoun, a town in northern Gaza, residents are tense about a major Israeli military operation. This is the site from where many of the rockets are fired by Palestinians into Israel.”
But Martin Patience balances this omission by also omitting ‘militants’. This appears to be a new trend for the BBC. Terrorists who deliberately attack Israeli civilians, whether by means of rockets or suicide/homicide bombs, have long been transformed into ‘militants’. Now they’ve become ordinary ‘Palestinians’.
The BBC should just call them ‘rocket launchers’. That would be ideal, since it would appear that the rockets were launching themselves and nobody could claim that rockets are capable of evil intent.
Hmmm, maybe I shouldn’t give them ideas.
Article from CAMERA:
BBC News or BBC Propaganda?
If you glance at BBC’s Middle East Web page at any given time, chances are the majority of the feature articles (non-breaking news, human interest stories) on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will reflect Palestinian grievances. Rarely will you find a story about Israeli victims of Palestinian violence or their families. Such is the case during the kidnappings of Gilad Shalit, a young Israeli soldier, and Eliyahu Asheri, a teenager from Itamar who was murdered by his captors and left near Ramallah. One of the “background” articles featured at this time was not about the family and friends of the kidnap victims but about Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons, for whom the Palestinian Authority wants to exchange the surviving kidnap victim. The article, entitled “Palestinians back prisoner release call” by Martin Patience began:
For Walid al-Houdaly, 46, the capture of an Israeli soldier by Palestinian militants offers the opportunity that his wife and their 18-month-old child will be freed from prison.
What is perhaps even more disturbing than this overtly partisan story choice was the reliance on Houdaly’s questionable claims, and the omission of pertinent context and information, thus misleading readers with a false, propagandistic version of the situation.
What information did BBC provide?
to continue reading see:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=12&x_article=1139
the conclusion of the above article linked to by Rachel:
“By presenting only the Palestinian justification for terrorist activities and war crimes, and providing a propagandistic, selective version of events, the BBC is acting less like a news organization and more like a representative of Palestinian terrorists.”
Rachel,
The World Service interviewed Eliyahu Ashri’s father Yitro shortly before he was to leave for his son’s funeral.
Here’s a ridiculous, PC, stirring-the-pot question from the BBC. Note the absence of the word ‘kidnap’:
World Service: You clearly blame those who took him for his death.
Yitro Asheri: The total responsibility for my son’s death lies with a group of people who make it their business not only to kill for what they call political purposes. These people, they practice murder, and they do what’s called ‘dry runs’.
This is what Israel is up against. Not that the BBC would ever understand that or ever publish the fact.
Its Arab friends would object.
Archduke,
So true.
From Middle East Truth:
Post subject: BBC is definitely schizophrenic
Check this out:
I just discovered that if one goes to the BBC News page, http://news.bbc.co.uk/
they have two different settings: a “UK version” and an “International version.” And each version has slightly different content, even at the same time.
When checking out the two different versions a few minutes ago, I found two different headlines — saying the EXACT OPPOSITE thing! About Hamas recognizing Israel! So I kept two windows open, each with the contradicting headline, and overlapped them, them took a screenshot getting both simultaneously. Here it is:
BBC: Hamas does and does not recognize Israel. http://www.zombietime.com/BBC_UK_Int.jpg
So, for the UK version, it says “Hamas ‘implicitly accepts Israel.” And the International version says “No recognition of Israel – Hamas.”
Both these pages were online at the same moment! Unfortunately, BBC has already changed the pages, but at least I got a screenshot of the crazy contradiction!
source:
http://mideasttruth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5203
captured BBC’s schizophrenia:
http://www.zombietime.com/BBC_UK_Int.jpg
Well, the BBC could always fall back on the excuse that the ‘no recognition’ article was ‘breaking news’ so it didn’t matter that it contradicted the UK article.
Except that we know how hard the BBC has been trying to legitimise Hamas and spin it as a reasonable negotiating partner for the unreasonable Israelis.
So we wont be fooled.
http://www.zombietime.com/BBC_UK_Int.jpg
Oh, those BBC people are teases, aren’t they?
Imagine if they applied a similar principle to their football coverage?
“England implicitly win penalty shoot-out to clinch World Cup semi-final berth.”
“England implicitly lose World Cup quarter-final after penalty shoot-out heartbreak.”
Bush’s approval ratings rose to the low forties last week after a long spell in the mid to low thirties. Gallup said more than 80% of Republicans now view him favourably once again.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2252579,00.html
Two PARAs killed in Afghanistan yesterday and THIS is what the BBC chap who must be the best military expert since Wellington says:
“BBC correspondent in Kabul, Alastair Leithead, said the latest deaths were a “severe blow” to the British military commanders in Afghanistan, who were now considering their options.
He said: “There are lots of heavy discussions gong on at the moment to decide exactly what to do.
“To have such heavy losses in such a short period of time has obviously shaken the military command in southern Afghanistan.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5137956.stm
I know the CO of 3 PARA and Stuart ain’t going to be shaken and endlessly talking about what to do – he’s going to mourn his men, and with his men, (and women) carry on fighting the evil and defending the weak which is what the Army does. Five Soldiers dead in 3 weeks and the Army is in heavy discussion? We lost more than three times that in one day at Warrenpoint but the lads brushed the hay and blood off and got back to work (and without taking it out on the local population). 20,000 in a day at the Somme 90 years ago. One is too many but we know the risk when we join so stop treating soldiers and their officers like kids you BBC wombat!
Time and time so called BBC journos offer advice or claim that the Army are or will do this to fit in with THEIR views not those of the Army. ‘Heavy discussions going on to decide what to do’ Does this clown think we do things by committee or have a meeting everytime some thing happens? No, the CO looks and sees if there is room for improvement or a change in tactics and carries on the fight. This sort of rubbish (and it is deliberate language that he uses to imply the Army are panic striken or worried) would have lead to ‘Army thinking about withdrawal’ after ten minutes on D Day.
God I hate these b@*ers!
RIP to the Toms who died.
Cuimhnichibh na suinn nach maireann.
Mairidh an cliu beo gu brath.
(In memory of the Heroes who are no more. May their Fame live on forever)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2252723,00.html
Excellent article on the guys in Afghanistan.
On the Army Rumour Service they are saying (some strong language)
“Good story, good reporting – Page 2 is a good balancer between the firefight and the overall mission, and they get some good digs in about equipment and support levels. When the Press get it right, they do a really good job, it’s when the armchair “specialists” do it that it goes pear-shaped.
The image of the Paras on an “Aggressive picnic” will now be stuck in my mind! ”
and:
“A rare thing that, a decent report that does not claim our troops are murderers but the brave soldiers they are!”
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=41531#747520
Can we have this lady reporter as the new Head of News at Al Beeb please?
A wonderful choice of picture of Ken Clarke in this story about Tory plans foe restrictions of Scottish MPs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5137930.stm
The Politics Show had some rabid Labour MP laughably claiming the Tories wanted to pull apart the UK and wasn’t challenged on how silly that claim is.
podgy and greasy haired shihab ritansi of cnn is not a fan of israel.he goes out of his way to emphasise his dislike of the state.
this morning he started with a bit of nothing on israel and then way down his reading list he came to 64 butchered in iraq.
The BBC is talking up the effectiveness of the Taliban “fighters” and their correspondent is bemoaning the loss of five soldiers. Whilst the loss of these soldiers is serious (I know a couple of troopers who are en route to Afghanistan), the BBC avoids mention of the casualties that the British soldiers inflicted on the Taliban. Can you imagine such reporting in 1940 (say September 15th): “the RAF has lost up to 3o aircraft” whilst not mentioning the losses inflicted on the Germans? This is utter defeatism, and is close to treason.
Reporting like this just encourages the Taleban. It is, in effect, an on-line military intelligence service for them, paid for by us.
Today’s The Business Letters Page
Sir • Roger Mosey is wrong (“Openness: an obligation of the digital age”, 30 April/1 May) when he says that the BBC now treats its correspondents with respect.
BBC World Service (radio) still has a programme in the Points of View mode (called Write On) and there was, a couple of months ago, a letter that was treated with scorn by that week’s presenter.
The writer complained about the poor English of some of the people on the BBC World Service these days. It’s something I’ve noticed myself. People with clearly Russian or Polish accents are used for items that have nothing to do with Russia or Poland and some of the British people have really terrible (and I don’t mean regional • I mean sloppy) accents.
Yet the letter wasn’t treated with the seriousness it deserved. Instead the presenter, himself a Manchester ex-West Indian (who, by the way, didn’t have a terrible, sloppy English accent) seemed to regard it as an attack on himself and treated it with disdain and as a foundless complaint.
A long way indeed from Mr Mosey’s “surprise among some viewers and listeners now when they are treated as adults and there is a dialogue of equals”. And much nearer to his story of earlier Points of View (“your comments being read out in a silly voice”). Even being read out in a silly voice might be considered to be an improvement on being treated as “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells”.
Mike Walsh
Helsinki, Finland
brussels journal is reporting on a historic court ruling in Denmark, in regards to a “honour killing” case.
not only was the murderer sentenced – but the entire family was too.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1143
in fact, the head of the family got a heavier sentence than the brother who commited the murder.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn02.html
Try this one for lunatic lawyers
From the Radio Times 1-7 July, p59:
“Truth, Justice and American Dramas
“…three dramas… that give an insight into the triumph of democracy and the American way.
“24 – …has two hours to prove that spineless, vacillating President Logan has betrayed his country. Nothing like real life, then.
“West Wing – …beginning of the end for Jed Bartlet, the best president America never had. But at least he’ll be succeeded by another liberal in Matt Santos. Well, they can dream…
“Deadwood – …democracy arrives in the 1870s town with local elections – along with chicanery, corruption and blood-letting. Has anything changed?”
Casual anti-US boilerplate from the Beeb in print.
Sorry, I should say anti-Bush/Republicanism. Assuming of course that the Deadwood comment wasn’t referring to the Democrats…
This mornings Marr show had Chris patten on as a guest,who said that Cameron shouldnt pull out of the European Peoples Party because they will lose influence(again?)and the proles arent interested anyway.
“Absolutely” concurred the unbiased BBC hack.
SO…Tories stay in EPP and end up associated with far right parties from Poland etc and then wonder why the BBC start crying Nazi at them during the election?
Whose side is Patten on nowadays coz it sure ain’t the Tory Party!
@Bryan
Has the story of “Mariyah” who was so tragicly paralysed by a stray bit of shrapnel, been verified by the BBC yet?
Or is the BBC just echoing the latest palestinian sob story?