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.
Time for a bit of Fisking.
Mid-East conflict: Who stands where
Monday, 7 August 2006, 16:00 GMT 17:00 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5253146.stm
====
ISRAEL
“Israel sees this war as another part of its long effort to establish itself in the region.”
Upstart crow’s indeed.
“It has treaties with Egypt and Jordan and would like one with Lebanon.”
Says who? All israel wants is for lebanon to fulfill the requirements of the UN Resolution 1559.
“However this war has put that prospect off, possibly for many years given the level of casualties in Lebanon.”
Conjecture, perhaps the level of casualties in Lebanon, will stimulate interest in a peace treaty.
“In the meantime, Israel wants Hezbollah removed as a threat since Hezbollah is hostile to Israel’s existence.”
Please ignore the rockets and kidnappings.
HEZBOLLAH
“Hezbollah sees itself as in the vanguard of the opposition to the state of Israel, which it regards as a Zionist intrusion into Muslim lands.”
Fascinating that BBC refuses to elucidate that Hezbollah see’s killing jews as an end in itself.
IRAN
“Iran’s President Ahmadinejad has said that the “elimination” of Israel is the solution to the Middle East’s problems so clearly Iran would like to see Israel (and through Israel, the United States) diminished by the conflict and Hezbollah strengthened.”
Diminished as in a puddle of melted glass.
“In that way, its own influence would grow not just in Lebanon but also in the region and among the Middle East’s Shia population.”
Kindly ignore the large Oliphant of World Jihad.
SYRIA
” Syria does not want to get drawn into a war, even a limited encounter with Israel. It could not win. It prefers to play a very long game.”
By fighting israel via a Hezbollah proxy.
Note that the BBC ignores the fact that Syria supplies weapons to Hez.
PALESTINIANS
“Over the years they have concluded that they will have to make their own arrangements so when the dust has settled from this war, their own struggle will come to the fore again though of course it has not gone away.”
How romantic, in due time their earnest labors will be rewarded.
UNITED STATES
“The risk for the US is that its efforts are seen as aggressive by some and might be counter-productive in that they could provoke more opposition to US policy.”
Names please? Who see’s these efforts as agressive and counter-productive?
Note Bene: The BBC forgets the 240 US Marines killed a Hezbollah terrorist in 1983.
“However, Israel’s own strategic relations with the US might also come under close examination if the conflict ends without Israel achieving its stated aims.”
We can but hope.
FRANCE AND BRITAIN
“France has emerged with increased influence”
France has never emerged with increased influence.
“It has also maintained its philosophical opposition to the Bush administration while forcing the US to take it seriously.”
Evidence that the US takes France seriously?
“Britain has generally followed US policy. It has thereby attracted criticism but hopes to recoup some of it losses if a long-term agreements can be made.”
Can a tally of British losses be made and accounted for? The only loss, that I can see is that Blair is now starkly a Churchill among chamberlains.
Watching the 10 o clock news last night, I was sure I saw “green helmet” and “white tee shirt” again, but thought my eyes were playing tricks. Seems from the comments above that I was not the only one who saw them. Who are they?
BBC Today programme this morning:
The IDF say they killed 30 Hezbollah militants, but this has not been independently verified.
Yesterday: In Tyre forty civilians were killed when an Israeli bomb……..
Interesting distinction, particularly since the latter was a 4000% overestimation.
Montaquinn interviews an Israeli spokesman and she gets all het up (screechy voice, high pitched) about his absolutely preposterous idea that without careful controls, Hezbollah will take advantage of aid convoys to move men and weapons around.
Then, when she turns to a UN spokesman, she is among friends and her voice goes down a couple of octaves as she agrees in solemn terms with the usual UN slop.
Same interview, and the BBC’s moral equivalence tactic shines through. Ther Beeboid brain says to itself, if we can’t make Israel out to be the villain, we can at least make it look as bad as the terrorists.
So MontaQuinn asks of the UN guy:
“How far do you think the violation of international law is continuing ON BOTH SIDES”
Note the assumption there. Breathtaking really, and very revealing. And we are, in effect, forced to pay for it.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20041082-601,00.html
from s.pollard’s site.
Here’s a couple of links to interviews about Reuters with Charles Johnson of LGF :
http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/08/07/video-charles-johnson-talks-shop-on-cnn/
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/08/hezbollah-planted-disabled-children-in.html
which mentions other dodgy photos, and also mentions the death threats that Johnson was getting from a Reuters employee in London in May. This interview gives a good gloss on the role of bloggers in scrutinising the media.
EUReferendum comments on last night’s Newsnight piece :
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/death-is-commodity.html
good link from marc’s site showing sizeable proportions of UK Muslims believe 9/11 was a Mossad or CIA fake, 7/7 was justified and Britain should be under sharia law.
This is a load of bigoted crap. But what proportion of the Muslims repeatedly interviewed by the BBC, or given soft-focus treatment on the website, peddle this crap ? With or without disguising their idiotic beliefs ?
And what proportions of the Muslims working at the BBC ?
Jon Snow’s Channel 4 prog last night was a belated wake-up call to the hatred of Britain and British values that is simmering away just beneath the surface in a goodly slice of the Muslim community. The BBC gives far too little attention to this cancer.
K
“I just wanted to say that this blog is amazingly effective at countering BBC bias. There have been so many instances, I’m surprised you don’t present Reith with the same 10 point list of most indefensible bias every time he turns up to snipe.”
Already done K. BBBC has a link to my round up on the right side bar. But here is a direct link.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-is-turn-off-its-official.html
here is the link to marc’s link about the ideas festering among many Muslim youth in this country :
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1145782006
And of course Jon Snow and the opinion poll never touched on the rampant anti-semitism.
“The BBC gives far too little attention to this cancer.”
hezbollah use the same sort of language when referring to Israel.
just thought i’d point that out.
in a democratic and free society, people have all sorts of weird ideas. to be honest, i thought jon snow’s docu reeked of sensationalism.
if you surveyed the London Irish during the 1970s you would have found pretty much the same thing – a rather large minority who were bitterly against everything british,but living in britain itself.
maybe we could do well to stand back a bit, take a deep breath and learn from the lessons of the 1970s.
“And of course Jon Snow and the opinion poll never touched on the rampant anti-semitism.”
i grant you that. it was quite odd how that was avoided, but homophobia was explored. (the young muslim girl who had no gay friends – nor did she want them).
BBC wait til the sixth paagraph before saying the word Islam and another paragraph before they manage muslim.
Any normal person would have headlined the piece using one or both words.
In the piece we get on going violence and innsurgents but nowhere do we see terrorists.
Funny That!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5252528.stm
“Watching the 10 o clock news last night, I was sure I saw “green helmet” and “white tee shirt” again, but thought my eyes were playing tricks. Seems from the comments above that I was not the only one who saw them. Who are they?
Eamonn | 08.08.06 – 8:02 am |”
if you are looking for the clips online, “green helmet” turned up in john simpson’s report from Tyre
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/green-helmet-goes-under-cover.html
and i’m pretty sure that white t-shirt made an appearance in Orla Guerin’s report from Beirut…
One problem with doing the massacre near Tyre is that bodies could be getting a bit shopworn and fragrant.
Market Participant
Powerline has pics which suggest that Hez move wrecked cars from one photo opportunity to another.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014929.php
Archduke:
maybe we could do well to stand back a bit, take a deep breath and learn from the lessons of the 1970s.
The Irish in the 70s weren’t fundamentally opposed to British ideas, rather the British government (and probably protestantism as an adjunct depending on who you asked). British and Irish values and mores were and are essentially the same, modified only by some relatively minor differences in belief. We shared the same basic ideas of freedom and law, individuality and equalit before god. I don’t think that situationis really comparable to the one we find ourselves in now, where a sizable proportion of the population want to bring an end to much of what we hold dear. They aren’t merely opposed to our government or our politics. They aren’t even holding any legitimate grievances against this country beyond “it’s not muslim enough”. They aren’t asking for better treatment, or equality. Farbeit it from me to lecture you about what the Irish wanted, but I suspect they were only after justice and retribution for past crimes against them.
Not so these muslims. They’re demanding to rule us. They want to abolish everything we hold dear, our “ancient freedoms” as magna carta puts it, and replace it with a fundamentally different sort of law. They hate our entire way of living without any justification beyond the fact that it’s not the way they want uys to live.
Certainly there are muslims that are quite sane and rational, and just want to get on with their lives. THey may even be in the majority, though my experience hasn’t shown that. I know they’re a sizable minority, and I don’t like to tar all muslms with the same brush, but there comes a point when one has to acknowledge that there is, indeed, a “cancer” amongst us. Shallow moral relativism doesn’t work. Hezb’allah might call Israel a cancer, but we know that’s a silly thing to say because Israel is a democratic state. By it’s nature it is largely benign. These particular muslims can rightly be compared a cancer because they drain resources without really putting anytyhing back, and every convert to their cause increases this drain. They even metastatise from place to place.
THose Irish you mentioned wanted, above all, to get on with their lives the way they saw fit. At hart their desire was entirely compatible with living here because, apart from some cosmetic differences, Irish values are the same as British values. These muslims… Well, I’m sorry, but the comparison simply isn’t there. They want to overthrow everything and enslave us.
Of course, even after all that, it’s still necessary to take a step back. Ultimately Islam isn’t the problem. The root of all this is multiculturalism, the idea that incompatible cultures can live alongside each other without conflict. It’s not possible. Something has to give, some absrption and assimilation of ideas has to take place so that they become compatible with each other. It won’t be a one-way street but, in this case, Islam has to give up some of its ideas about running the country in order to become compatible with British values (and Irish; lets not forget there’s a lot of muslims living there too, now).
In fact lets say the values of common law, personal freedom and the right to do what you please for starters. Islam must allow for these things or it will always be in conflict with us.
archonix
I agree with all that you say. The IRA etc wanted secession of a small part of the UK, its absorption into another democratic state with broadly similar values, rule of law, free press etc. It did not want the destruction of all our values, the overturning of British social mores and freedoms.
archonix -> yes indeed – all good points you make.
i did notice that jon snow talked a lot about “integration”.
but the thought occured to me that in America, nobody pushes you to be “integrated”. a good example of non integration would be say the Mormons in Utah, or the Amish. And nobody is wailing about their “non integration”
the thing is though – America has something to fall back on – its called nationalism.
“lets not forget there’s a lot of muslims living there too, now)”
indeed – there are about 30,000 of them in Dublin now.
bit dangerous , if you ask me, to be mixing Muslims with the decommisioned IRA weapons that are floating around over there.
not bbc related – but i had to post this , as i’m staggered by the weakness of sentencing in this country
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5254786.stm
“The paedophile, Leslie Ford-Thrussell, 72, is currently serving a 12-year jail term for 36 offences including seven counts of rape.”
12/7 works out at around 1.7 years per rape.
I hate to say it , but when i see sentencing like that, i can begin to see why some British Muslims want sharia law.
Eamonn,
Who is this Montaquin and can one access the interview? apart from the actual content of what Beeboids have to say, body language and tone of voice is so revealing.
Newsnight displayed a map drawn by the cartographically-challenged. They have the area between the border and the Litani river in blue.
Any schoolchild knows that blue represents water on maps. The area looks like a big lagoon/lake. What else does the BBC know nothing about?
I noticed during ‘Newsnight’ that the BBC is now cheerfully pushing the lie that Sheba farms belongs to Lebanon. They didn’t even mention Syria, leting the lebanese PM groan on about the area being some controversial point in the conflict with Israel, though thankfully he wasn’t weeping at the time.
And ‘World Have Your Say’ had an interesting panel on, consisting of the SA judge Goldstone, Israeli general Ayalon and an ex-IRA murderer who’d served 18 years in jail and appeared to be more anti-Semitic, er….I mean anti-Israel than your average Arab:
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=i&q=world+have+your+say&go.x=14&go.y=10
Click on ‘Audio’, top right.
Er….that should read are so revealing.
This is a useful summary of the blogstorm over “altered images” and staged images.
Right now, the whole Qana business should be up for review. It is being used iconically – Kofi Annan referred to it again yesterday, the BBC frequently references it.
In my mind the whole of the coverage by the main newswires – AP, Agence France Presse and Reuters – is suspect right not.
As with the BBC, we simply do not know how much Hezbollah are leading them by the nose in Lebanon. How much is real news, how much is re-hashed Hezbollah propaganda ?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/media_manipulating_the_war_new.html
here’s Kofi Annan using Cana to imply that Israel has commited war crimes. The BBC repeated Annan’s remarks today.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007746.php
That is why the photo staging at Cana is so important – and all the other issues surrounding Cana. Cana is the main stick with which Israel is being hit in the propaganda war.
sky news reporting from experts Hezbollah dont use human shields there all friends. sky news terrorists new best feiend
v. interesting blogpost from bahrain
http://sillybahrainigirl.blogspot.com/2006/07/ass-wipes.html
covers the slavery system there. a topic you *wont* see mentioned on the bbc, because of Pallywood.
Anyone wanting to comment directly to the Beeb about Qana, Reuters or the use of propaganda in the Israeli/Hizbu’llah conflict, then this site was up-and-running from this morning…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
Bryan
The Quinn interview comes in the prime 8.10am slot on the Today programme, after the piece from Kim Ghattas, about 6 minutes in. Quinn was one of the aNCHORS THIS MORNING :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/
I agree with Eamonn that Quinn’s tone was ridiculous – lacking common sense – and definitely with a tinge of bias. “When will you stop beating your wife” was her tone to the Israeli representative, who had to demolish her silly suggestions and straw men with a series of cool answers.
Steve E
Thanks for the tip. I posted a comment at the BBC thus :
“The comments on Qana by Phil Coomes are highly equivocal. Anyone with eyes to see can agree that a lot of the photos there were deliberately staged. Including some by the photographer who has been sacked by Reuters – which have been used by the BBC. Why isn’t this mentioned by Coomes. Why doesn’t Coomes talk about the famous Green Helmet man – who appeared yet again in slightly different costume in John Simpson’s piece yesterday – making Simpson look a real stooge.
My impression is that the BBC takes its “tone” from left-wing newspapers – its staff would regard checking out what the right are saying is infra-dig. This story has been running for over a week now, the only coverage the BBC gave it before Reuters crumbled was by Peter Marshall on Newsnight – and he completely missed the point that there is ample evidence that photos were staged.
The BBC has 8500 journalists, apparently. Don’t any of them do research on the leading blogs, keep them under review ? Apart from Paul Reynolds, the BBC seems very very blinkered. And the BBC has already been forced to withdraw one of the photos from its website from the infamous Adnan Hajj – the woman posing crying outside her demolished house – and then posing crying outside another demolished house over a week later. There are more and more issues bubbling up about some of the images and reporting from Lebanon. Try googling “Green Helmet Man” – get up to date, for goodness’ sake.
Let’s be blunt – Hezbollah has a very tight grip on who can go there, what they can report or show. CNN have had the honesty to report this in detail. Why isn’t the BBC mentioning these reporting restrictions ?
The NY Sun takes apart the BBC’s friends at Human Rights Watch :
http://www.nysun.com/article/37473
Archonix,
The comparison with NI is more ludicrous for another reason. In the 70s and 80s virtually everyone in the province was affected by the Troubles because such a large proportion of the population was directly involved. Hundreds of a small population were killed. The military were out in force. There were paramilitary proxy police forces roaming the place.
Thus far the ‘clash of civilisations’ in the UK (popn 60m odd) has yielded 2 major incidents, a couple of mini riots and a lot of piss and wind. There’s a problem there to be addressed but f**ing hell, sense of proportion. I note that many of the more vitriolic commenters hail from semi-rural Britain or obscure parts of Scotland – frankly I doubt if they’ve ever seen a Muslim.
I also note that the term ‘Londonistan’ appears to have been extrapolated from a not unreasonable criticism of government anti-terrorism policy by the French to some sort of inference that the capital is overrun by bearded maniacs screaming jihad and beheading all and sundry. Not the case as I’m sure any fellow Londoner will testify – curry in Whitechapel, kebab up the Edgeware Road, bit of accountancy, extravagent spending in Stringies…other than that it’s good old secular alcoholism that rules this City.
Robbie:
Minor point but actually there ARE lots of Muslims up here in the Far North of Scotland – we too have kebab and curry houses despite also having the choice of haggis pudding suppers. But do you know what the difference is?
They live WITHIN and throughout the community, one or two in a street and are thus spread all over the city etc. There are a few places in Scotland (Glasgow is one) where Muslims congregate and live in large groups. THAT is the major difference and probably why we don’t have as much of a problem of US and THEM up here although obviously there can be incidents same as anywhere. (In fact the poor old English get more grief than the Asians/Chinese up here). My Muslim neighbour but one down the street has ten people in his house, (three generations) his girls are in my school and wear what the other teenagers wear. They and their brothers are typical teenagers although I don’t think they are keen on some of our fiddle music! The grandmother and mother wear the hajib and other dress but again, they don’t force their girls to dress the same way. Just a hard working father with a nice family. Everyone knows them and chat to them in the street etc along with the other families from Asia, Poland and elsewhere.
The bigger problem remains down South: if the communities MIXED rather than keeping to themselves then the potential for stirring up mischief by self proclaimed community leaders will be lessened. That is actually WHY my neighbour moved up here – to get his family AWAY from that sort of thing!
Are both the BBC blog comment cut’n’pasters off sick today?…. or do they not like the comments that have been sent to them about the doctored photos?
‘Trusting Photos’ (an article about the Quana doctored pictures) was posted on the BBC blog site this morning at 09:59AM. Number of comments just now at 3.10pm? Nil. None. Nada.
What a pathetic excuse for a blog.
Trusting Photos
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/08/trusting_photos.html
Oh dear, Steve Herrmann (Editor of the BBC News website) still can’t be bothered to post any of the comments that his column this morning (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/08/trusting_photos.html) may have generated.
Still, he’s managed to post his own update
UPDATE (from Steve Herrmann): I should have said at the start – we didn’t use the Reuters picture on the BBC News website.
But we have had some emails about another picture we used yesterday of a Lebanese woman in front of damaged buildings. We got the picture from AP and it was dated last Saturday but a reader pointed out it bore a resemblance to another picture – which we hadn’t run – attributed to Reuters and dating from July.
It wasn’t the same image, but conceivably could have been the same place and time. We weren’t in a position to get to the bottom of this immediately ourselves so we decided to update the picture with a different, more recent image. But not before it was picked up by at least one blog.
Steve E.
My thought’s entirely – are we expected to believe the BBC have received no comments at all on this? At least he gives a ‘hat-tip’ to drinkingfromhome blog. About time.
“But not before it was picked up by at least one blog.” Heh.
Check out the BBC’s interpretation of UN forces injured by a Hezbollah mortar attack.
DFH – that’s B-BBC ‘Hall of Fame’ material – if that’s not bias, i’m a banana.
How can “hit by Hezbollah mortar rounds” according to both UNIFIL and XINHUA be changed by the BBC to become “cross-fire between Israeli troops and Hezbollah fighters”?
Actually, that’s not bias. That lies.
Why do the BBC ‘stealth edit’? Why not just update the report time stamp to say ‘Updated at xx:xx’ ???
As I suspected Newsnight focussed only on the manipulation of some photos by one Lebonese photojournalist COMPLETELY MISSING the opportunity to come clean about how the BROADCAST media as in the British BROADCASTING Corporation are being cajoled, directed, guided, protected or ‘managed’ by Hezabollah in Southern Lebonon.
Kudos to CNN. Shame the AlBeeb can’t do the same.
There were any number of posts about this disclosure on the BBC Editor blog after the Newsnight Deputy Editor raised propaganda last night here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/08/whos_telling_the_truth.html
Radio 5 Live Beeboid asks, in response to incidents in Gaza:
“and have Palestinian militants been retaliating?”
So there you see, all the trouble is caused by Israelis and the Palestinians have to “retaliate” to it.
A hilarious post from Harry’s Place. It seems Al Beeb suddenly ‘lost’ this inconvenient story about Netanyahu praising Blair’s handling of the conflict.
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/
Bill O’Reilly at FOX. The antidote to Bowan, Simpo and the like.
The Terror Connection
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207394,00.html
“My thought’s entirely – are we expected to believe the BBC have received no comments at all on this? At least he gives a ‘hat-tip’ to drinkingfromhome blog. About time.”
Well several of us here made official complaints so THAT and DFH’s and other blogs’ comments probably had more to do with it than the BBC’s sudden conversion to the way of truth and light…..
which goes to show – complain regularly and often (using names such as Bibal Patel or Nikki frae Warwickshire) and we’ll get through the pro leftie curtain that surrounds the BBC….
Something missing from this article – I think it begins with the letter I:
Germany gives Iran lesbian asylum
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5254854.stm
“A court in Germany has accepted an Iranian woman’s bid for asylum on the grounds that she is a lesbian.
She said she faced the death penalty if she returned to Iran, where homosexuality is against the law.
The Stuttgart court also heard that she faced punishment in Iran because she refused to wear a headscarf.”
It’s absolutely astonishing that the BBC can write an article about Islam and Sharia law, and completely fail to refer to either!!!!!!
“No Islamic/sharia law fundamentalism, or persecution to see here, move along now…..”
RobbieKeane,
Don’t try and fool people. I know Whitechapel very well. I’ve pointed some photographers at the magnificent 19 posters stuck in various places.
IMHO Londonistan is an accurate and useful term.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_5180000/newsid_5188700/5188756.stm
Here’s a question being answered on the CBBC website by a Middle East Expert
People have been blaming Iran, but I don’t see what they’ve got to do with it. Please explain.
Yasmin, 12, Glasgow
Both Israel and the United States have linked Iran – and Syria – to the current situation.
The reason is both countries believe Iran and Syria support Hezbollah, which they consider a terrorist group.
Iran has provided money and weapons to Hezbollah, including rockets, and the Iranian government has publicly supported Hezbollah.
Israel, the US and Britain are already worried about Iran because they think the Iranian government wants to develop a nuclear weapon.
Strange how they say “The reason is both countries believe Iran and Syria support Hezbollah”, and then go on to make it quite clear that it is a fact, and not a belief!
—–
I’m surprised that no-one has commented on my earlier post regarding the use of a condensed audio clip which was used to give the impression of nonstop explosions for one and a half hours in Beirut, which I found as distasteful as the doctored pictures story.
RobbieKeane:
Come to my City and we can buy some (readily available, if you know where to look) Jihad DVD’s, afterwards we can go to the site of the Jihad training camp, which was widely advertised (but, ignored by the Police) outside Hebden Bridge.
” Bill O’Reilly at FOX. The antidote to Bowan, Simpo and the like.”
If the BBC had a left-wing version of O’Reilly on their news channel, this site would have about 100 post per day.
Israeli authorities described Aziz Dweik, a member of the ruling Hamas party, as a “legitmate target”. Fiona Werge reports.
Within the first few seconds Ms. Werge tell us that “the broken lock is testimony to the force they used”. But then Mrs Dweik tells us that her husband himself opened the door to the Israeli troops dressed in his pyjamas. When told he was being arrested he asked his wife to get him some clothes, which she says she did.
So who broke the lock? The same wife who states clearly that her husband opened the door is shown pointing to a broken lock.
More Pallywodd from the Bullshit Broadcasting Conspiracy!
Mister Minit
Bill O’Reilly makes a point of interviewing people he opposes. He gave a very long interview to Dan Rather last week, for example.
Fox makes it clear that it is right-of-centre, but actually gives a lot of space to opposing viewpoints – including the hannity and |Colmesd feature every day. Its main anchor is middle of the road.
The BBC PRETENDS it is unbiased – which is claptrap as we can see and hear every day.
On the Editors blog, I posted a comment many hours ago. I have just posted another to complain that the BBC does not seem to have a clue about running blogs – and why should we be paying for such inefficiency.
PM at 5 pm on Radio 4: … Ehud Olmert speaking through the interpreter …
No, he was not. He spoke in Hebrew to Israeli audience and was interpreted by the BBC here in a London studio – a zoological aversion to true facts even in the most mundane matters.