Had an interesting time using Google News recently. An hour or two ago I saw an article about Rowan Williams, the Arch-Bish of somewhere, who was quoted saying that Hezbullah was using Lebanese as a human shield. This was accompanied by numerous links reinforcing the fact. Reuters provided the lead article, I think. I also saw this.
Later, trawling the BBC I came across a more than slightly different emphasis:
“Bishop slams UK over Middle East
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has joined calls for the UK to press for a ceasefire in the Middle East.”
I went back to the Google page and found the emphasis had changed, with the BBC and the Guardian in the vanguard. Now the newsmen were queueing up to condemn the UK for failing to pressure Israel (of course they were mainly just lifting the reports from the Beeb and Reuters, but guess what, the BBC were winning). Examining the time sequence, it seemed the BBC were pivotal in the change of emphasis, and looking at the article the people of Britain will be thoroughly ignorant of the balancing factor in Williams’ speech- there is no mention of the Hezbullah-human shield condemnation. Williams may be a kook, and Reuters may deserve the prefix “al-“, while Google in my view merit no prizes, but the BBC is the swaggering transnational bully that conforms its reportage to the latest axis of UN-French speak.
Update:I still have the original BBC article open on my computer even as the stealth edit has kicked in- radically. Luckily I quoted the intro [ edit: change of headline spins it very differently]. Anyone who can offer screen captures or Google caches and/or give me and others some simple instructions as to how to obtain them will have performed a service.
By now every two-bit media organisation has repeated the BBC mantra. Most current BBC readers will now conclude (unwittingly) that the BBC is adopting a balanced line compared to them whereas in fact much of the media, especially the British local media, has simply been following their BBC ‘leader’. This is classic BBC- spread a radical agenda and then stealth edit their way out of the blame. The question is begged as to why the BBC ran a story for such a short time before changing it radically. They neutered the Reuters line, and then modified their own. Surely they are not responding to a changing news situation but are gerrymandering the headlines for the coming 24 hours.
Fascinating. The BBC leading the pack into the arms of the Islamofascists.
Needless to say the Archbishop’s comments on Hiz didn’t feature in R4’s 1pm news, although his ceasefire calls did.
Cheers.
Which version is this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/
0810 The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams tells us why he condemns the escalating violence in the Middle East.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_williams_20060721.ram
Natalie – I’ve recorded the whole Today interview with His Bishopness and converted it to MP3. Its about 6.7MB. If you would like it say so and I’ll email it to you. It is actually quite pro-Israeli, in that he refuses to be drawn into condemning Israel’s actions and places the blame squarely on Hezbollah.
Ed, For screen capture have you tried snagit?
http://www.techsmith.com/snagit.asp?CMP=KgoogleSpcmag2
The BBC report still doesn’t mention the human shield bit, which is pretty strong language from the ArchBishop, for some reason. I wonder why that is – maybe it gives too clear a picture from someone who speaks with a degree of independent moral authority?
D Burbage, the BBC report is a complete travesty of the interview. Do listen to it and decide for yourself.
Before they decide to make it disappear:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5201696.stm
Also this report – they report the defiance of the Hiz leadership, but the headline implies that Israel’s actual attacks have been ineffective. I wonder why? Why not say “Hizbullah leader defiant”?
Ed, press print screen (a key on your keyboard), then open Imaging (in the start> accessories menu (or any other image program), open a new document and paste (ctrl+v). Then save it as an image.
Hope that helps.
I have now listened to the interview. It starts off with the Today interviewer stating “Britain and the US stand alone in not calling for a ceasefire”. The interview with the ArchBishop doesn’t talk about this until the very last question. How curious that the actual headline attributed to the ArchBishop, is that which is the same as the stated concern of the BBC at the beginning of the interview…. and also only an opinion that was expressed in direct response to a question rather than “joined calls for the UK to press for ceasefire”?
Another thing, you can choose file in the browser menu> save as (with images) so you’ll have it on your hard drive in case the capture doesn’t succeed.
“Britain and the US stand alone in not calling for a ceasefire”
err Canada, Australia and a heck of a lot of other nations also stand alone then….
If you need to take a screen capture of an image:
1) Press ‘Print Scrn’
2) Open up some imaging software (photoshop is great, but expensive. gimp is free http://www.gimp.org/
3) Create a new image (choose the resolution of your monitor e.g. 1280×1024)
4) press ‘ctrl’+’v’ to paste the screenshot
5) Save it as a jpeg
6) upload it to photobucket
Does anybody know anything about programming? I have a plan for catching the BBC when they try and stealth edit.
This is what the script/macro/program would need to do:
1) Download every webpage from their news section that was created yesterday
2) Save it to my HDD
It would need to do this on a daily basis
3) Compare the pages on the hard drive with the new downloads and look for differences.
4) Discard any of the new pages, that haven’t been changed
5) continue doing this on a daily basis and identify any changes made
I know nothing about programming, so I don’t know if this is a 10 minute job, or impractical nightmare.
I have a 16mbps ADSL connection and 300GB of free HDD space, so I think I have the tools for the job.
Any ideas?
Perhaps a job as a BBC reporter will get hm a visa!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=396876&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5
The BBC online report states
The US and UK have condemned Lebanon but not Israel
Lebanon? Is that true? Surely not.
Socialism is Necrotizing
I’ll lay a fiver that he’ll be back in the country next week. Remember who’s in government here, remember how left wing and anti-British the judiciary is. He’ll be back, he’ll be in clean underwear and we’ll be paying for him.
Socialism Is Necrotizing:
Perhaps a job as a BBC reporter will get hm a visa!
They don’t say whether he passed the audition:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/
0740 The Muslim cleric Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed who fled Britain for Lebanon claims he has been refused entry into the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_2006072_bakri_.ram
Grimer,
I’ll think about it.
Thanks to all those who’ve offered screen capture advice- I will experiment and I’m sure to get the hang of it.
Re: Will’s comment about the UK/US condemning Lebanon but not Israel- I noticed that and felt the same way. It was an error of fact probably motivated by prejudice, I think. I stand to be corrected on that. It’s a really bad one if we’re right. It just shows that in a bad BBC report there’s more to say against it than one approach can include.
Grimer
Maybe this is what you need?
http://www.dirfile.com/mm3_webassistant_private.htm
Hope it helps
Grimer | 21.07.06 – 4:29 pm
You missed an important test.
Only save pages which have changed where the time stamp has NOT changed.
One practical difficulty is that there will probably be many pages where spelling/grammar mistakes are corrected and the timestamp is not updated. It would probably be a huge burden checking all those out.
Don’t forget that a comparison program would find only the first change in the page – after that the comparison would be out of sync and useless.
You would therefore have to check every page which is flagged as changed and if the indicated change is minor you would have to restart the comparison program from a selected point and try again (and again, and again) as each difference is detected. Lot of manual work for (probably) not much reward.
“Any ideas?
Grimer | 21.07.06”
off the top of my head
1.regular cron job triggering a wget
2. pump the wget’ed file into a wikipedia engine
3. you can then use the wiki to see the changes (rather like the “history” section in wikipedia itself)
of course , the BBC might block your ip address.
another way might be to use the google cache + one of google’s APIs.
unfortunately , programming experience in all of this is required – but its not that difficult. a bit of PHP will do the job to glue it all together.
“One practical difficulty is that there will probably be many pages where spelling/grammar mistakes are corrected and the timestamp is not updated. It would probably be a huge burden checking all those out.”
a regular automated grab every 15 minutes or so should take care of that.
the PHP Snoopy class can strip out the html , leaving raw text.
then feed that content into your wiki engine – the wiki will take care of the diffs automatically.
rather like this kind of thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BBC_News&action=history
its certainly doable.
RE: The US and UK have condemned Lebanon but not Israel
I agreee with Ed on this. Neither the US nor UK have condemned Lebanon. They have condemned Hezbollah and its backers, Syria and Iran.
php snoopy
http://sourceforge.net/projects/snoopy/
I downloaded a free program called WinHTTrack. There is no problem capturing the BBC Middle East section of their gargantuum website. Unfortunately, it captures everything. If this is going to be practical, I need a way of starting on a certain day (e.g. today) and just capturing any new content from this point onwards.
There is a timestamp built into each page. I’m just not sure how to use it for filtering purposes.
http://server6.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=page%20info2.jpg
In fact, I just noticed that the ‘OriginalPublicationDate’ in Firefox is exactly the same as the BBC’s ‘Last Updated’ field.
That could make it easier to spot pages that have been stealth edited. If the dates match, but the text is different, flag it up for another look.
yeah – but “Last updated” isnt really “last updated”
you’re forgetting about the stealth edits that dont update that “last updated” field.
learn linux mate.
cron job + wget + php and yer sorted.
Grimer
I use a prog called ‘beyond compare’ to compare files side by side which flags up every difference even in Html files.
I have not seen or heard any proper analysis by the BBC of the power struggle withing Lebanon – and within the Islamic Middle East :
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008681
I heard the Archbishop of Canterbury being interviewed this morning. I noticed that it didn’t trouble him at all to keep saying ‘Hezbollah’ (Party of God). He was pounced upon in the last question, and seemed to suddenly resemble a trout biting the bait…”….yes go on then I will say it and agree to what you have been harping on about all the time and have been wanting me to say, there!….”
I notice that both BBC & C4 news have been playing up the ‘heroic’ words of a Lebanese military spokesman to the tune of how the army will fight the Israeli’s if they ‘invade’. BBC showed images of Hezbollah supporters tearing up the Israeli warning leaflets to evacuate.
I must applaud Sky News here, unlike C4 & bbc, their correspondent, Emma Hurd in Jerusalem, poured cold water on these claims, reminding viewers of the Christians in the Lebanese military that were hardly likely to fight alongside Hezbollah! Even bbc Newsnight’s Mark Urban, appears to have been affected by the bbc’s jitters and sentiments of disproportion and imbalance.
C4 journalist Inigo Gimar (at 7.12pm), spoke of “The Hezbollah Resistance”! I know this is C4, but it appears that C4 and bbc are often interchangeable these days (think Mr Thompson) What’s the betting this becomes a term used by the BBC soon?
Also, classic quote from Ben Brown in Beirut on bbc News 24:
“Perhaps you can hear the call to prayer here. Everybody in this region prays for peace”
Oh yeh, does that include Hezbollah too, in between firing off their rockets towards Israel? Is this bbc journalist so naive that he has never ever seen Iranian images of the masses chanting death to the great Satan after Friday prayers? These bbc newsmen are mad and dangerous!
The BBC remains clueless. This is going to be a fairly long-haul. Calls for a quick cease-fire are stupid. Even if uttered on the Today prog by an Archbish.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/a_rare_irreproducible_opportun.html
The often quoted minister talking the Lebanese military up, and how they will fight to the last man, is Elias Moor? (Pro Syrian faction), and Defence minister, as interviewed by Bowen (10.25). So Pro Syrian sentiments become the basis of most BBC news reporting throughout the day-Amazing!
James Reynolds, on the ‘Israeli troops Gather’ video clip
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
informs us that Hizbullah beat the Israelis the last time they were in Lebanon.
Now I know that the withdrawal from Lebanon was a shambles, but isn’t it rather overstating one’s case (and ignoring all evidence to the contrary) to claim a Hizbullah victory here?
But then I’m forgetting who the BBC report to.
In it’s coverage of this conflict, the BBC has reduced itself to producing little more than neatly-wrapped little propaganda packages for the benefit of the terrorists.
I wonder why James isn’t telling us that Hizbullah has bitten off more than it can chew in its misguided belief that Israel would just fold and release hundreds of Lebanese terrorist in exchange for the soldiers.
And I wonder why the BBC is completely silent on the issue of Hizbullah fatalities, lumping them together with the civilian death toll.
Just heard the full interview with the Archbishop. Extraordinary.
First was the loaded nature of the questions, and the Archbishops measured response to most of them.
Next was the bit where he was allowd to just speak his mind, instead of answering the loaded questions. He put the blame fairly and squarely on hizbolla.
Finally the weird piece on the BBC website with a precis of the interview. They have given a totally false emphasis to what he says in the interview – its like they are reporting a different interview.
Horrible.
Jack Hughes :its like they are reporting a different interview.
That is exactly the feeling I have when I read and hear BBC’s coverage of the war in Lebanon–a totally different war, but that is due to one-sidedeness coupled with bias=a distorted picture of reality. They have so much to catch up with-as the Israeli Left has to.
The BBC have been so biased towards israel probably due to the news director being jewish. They did not show the many innocent lebanese civilians who had been killed only the handful of injured isrealis. A life is a life whether if people are intentionally killed (or ‘unintentionally’ killed as the israelis put it)
B:
The BBC have been so biased towards israel probably due to the news director being jewish.
Please give examples of BBC bias towards Israel, and tell us the name of this Jewish ‘news director’.
A life is a life whether if people are intentionally killed (or ‘unintentionally’ killed as the israelis put it)
Israelis intentionally kill terrorists. If they hide among women and children and they get killed too its not the fault of the Israelis.
Terrorists intentionally kill women and children, its easier than trying to kill Israeli soldiers.
Do you see the difference?
Nope, he don’t see no difference.
B is probably one of those trolls who go flitting around the internet, posting uninformed prejudice all over the place and lacking the stamina to stay and debate.
You people here are very knowledgable and, to me, do a good service.
I can’t put into words properly what I want to say but what I do know is, is that what you say is what I feel.
I quote you as often as I can when I hear friends spout shit as supplied by BBC.
Keep up the good work
Supporter
PS Any chance of one of you going on to the BBC message Boards ( News and Current Affairs esp. ) and destroy the arguments some of those rabib pro -terrorist a*seholes on there?
I was thinking of the bbc’s Ben Brown’s report last night from Beirut, when, live on bbc news 24, he was emotionally moved to say:
“Perhaps you can hear the call to prayer here. Everybody in this region prays for peace”
Everybody? Of course, if he was a proper journalist rather than a stooge he should really have excluded the Hezbollah terrorists, who are actually praying for war. But, I guess this contradicts the old “Islam is a religion of peace” message that the bbc continually tries to force feed the British public. Sky news is so so much more balanced and informed than the beeb- I would not be surprised if they gather up key awards for their coverage so far. In today’s Guardian we have a concrete example of how Ben Brown’s “everybody” is thinking, namely those followers of the “Party of God” who are praying for “death”.
“The Dahiya’s warren of streets has been fortified in the past 10 days with barricades made from construction sand and rubble. Why do you have all these fortifications, I asked the bearded fighter. Do you expect the Israelis to invade? “God willing,” he said. “I hope so. We have been waiting and preparing for this for such a long time now. ..”
‘We’ll make this place a graveyard’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,1826505,00.html
Why are there no quotes for the numbers of Israeli’s displaced from the North of Israel? I understand that mass evacuations have taken place. What does the bbc mean when they say “displaced” and why should news of it only be limited to those in the Lebanon. Are Israeli civilians not allowed to be “displaced”? Does the bbc think they should stay put in their homes, schools, kindergardens, hospitals and ignore the rockets fired at them? Why this bbc bias?
Further to the talk here of stalth edit etc and the excellent idea by Grimer.
Given that bbc no doubt monitor this site is it possible to ascertain exactly how they present it ( i.e the technical stuff) and should Grimers plan be stumped in the feature then ascertain if the presentation, technically , has been altered to prevent it happening.
In the event of that happening then it would be interesting to hear their reasons for doing so.
re above
should read ‘ stumped in the future’
Bryan:
Nope, he don’t see no difference.
Just another hit ‘n’ run, drive-by troll…
john:
“Perhaps you can hear the call to prayer here. Everybody in this region prays for peace”
Everybody?
On yesterday’s Today The Archbishop of Canterbury was asked about a picture on the front page of The Times showing IDF soldiers praying. The interviewer sneeringly asked the Archbishop if he thought it was “incongruous”.
Why don’t the BBC ask the same question of the Muslims who dedicate their killing sprees to Allah (p*ss be upon him)?
Does BBC feed the wire services ? It must have a feed into newsrooms ?
Is it free or a fee-based service ?
It is funny that Al-Jazaeera resulted from an aborted BBC Project to create an Arabic News Service and that the staff were laid off and moved to create Al-Jazeera
For screen grabs, including video and audio, I use CaptureWiz Pro. It’s small, fast and works great. I keep it docked on the side of my screen and when I see something that’s not right on the BBC page, I grab a copy and put it in a BBC folder.
It’s a great program. You can try if free for 30 days. Here’s their site.
http://www.pixelmetrics.com/CapWizPro/
supporter | 22.07.06 – 9:15 am,
Any chance of one of you going on to the BBC message Boards ( News and Current Affairs esp. ) and destroy the arguments some of those rabib pro -terrorist a*seholes on there?
Thanks for your support. Speaking strictly for myself, I haven’t gone onto the message boards but I do try ‘Have Your Say’ occasionally. They publish 5% or less of what I send them. Obviously, they have the power and they can distort public reaction simply by deleting some comments and posting others.
Ed, I’ve put up a post with some screen shots of the BBC’s stealth editing using CaptureWiz pro.
The program can captue any area you designate or will scroll the page until you tell it to stop.
If the BBC heavily stealth edited the report, and not just the headline, you could use the program to capture the edits on both pages.
Here’s my post with something interesting for you.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2006/07/lebanon-bbc-stealth-edits-bishops.html
I’ve updated a post of mine in another thread about the BBC’s support of upcoming anti-Israel marches.
The original post noted that the BBC had a “billboard” in their report that gave detailed assembly point information for those wanting to attend the marches. The BBC have now stealth edited the billboard out. I anticipated this and took a screen shot.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2006/07/uk-bbc-backs-anti-israel-protests.html