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.
“The didn’t report Blair’s staterment in the Commons after 7/7 straight,”
dumbcisco – thats interesting. i wasnt aware of that. (and i find it quite astonishing…)
have you got links about it?
re – stephen pollard…
VERY interesting quote :
“Need to keep following Palestinian story, and reminding people what’s happening in West Bank and Gaza.”
now THATS agenda setting. that isnt about reporting the friggin’ news.
interesting debate going on here in the comments of this article
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/salma_yaqoob/2006/08/not_so_bright_martin.html
On the BBC’s world weather site, Japan, they use “Fujiyama” to describe Mt. Fuji. “Fujiyama” is incorrect on two levels:
1. The text is exclusively English, so use of loanwords is inconsistent, proving that as far as the BBC is concerned, a little knowledge is dangerous thing.
2. Mountains in Japan take either “yama” or “san”, although the kanji is the same. Confusing yama with san was something the American forces did at the beginning of the occupation, some 60 years ago. I think cultural imperialist is the term I’m reaching for, in the case of the BBC. Judging from US Forces Radio, the US has got yama and san sorted out. In the case of Mt. Fuji it’s Fujisan (or Fuji San), while the mountain I live in the shadow of is Mt. Asama (Asamayama). You have to learn each one individually or accept you have a 50% chance of being right.
I always feel the term “active volcano” is bandied about indiscriminately. The last major erruption was in 1919… WTF was that?
Archduke,
I don’t have the link unfortuately. But the BBC changed the text of the PM’s speech, to take out the word ‘terrorist’ and replaced it with ‘millitant’.
Thanks to USS Neverdock for this link to more media manipulation coming out of Beirut…
http://www.slublog.com/archives/2006/08/the_passion_of.html
Shock loss shows US anti-war mood
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5258582.stm?ls
By Richard Allen Greene
BBC News, Washington
I’m sure Mr. Lieberman is very disappointed he lost but no one is shocked, or even surprised, with the election results. The possibility of Mr. Lieberman losing has been in the US press for a while. He has already prepared to run as an independent, highly unusual, not the kind of thing he would have done unless he was losing.
Lamont Leads Lieberman by 13 Points in New Poll
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300597.html
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 4, 2006; Page A05
Sen. Lieberman to Collect Signatures for a Possible Independent Campaign
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201953,00.html
Monday, July 03, 2006
Also, even if the US was 100% against the war, a Democratic primary election only shows the Democrat’s mood.
Brilliant stuff from John Derbyshire, in the NRO
—————
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWE0NjRkNjRjMzkzZjliMTI4NDVkZDYwYjhhMzllMzA=
If— (you want to be a true jihadi)
By John Derbyshire
For some reason my imagination was caught by the news last week that Osama bin Laden has sent his son Saad off to fight with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Having Mozart-ized this little snippet in last week’s Radio Derb, I thought I might as well Kipling-ize it, too.
Perhaps Rudyard Kipling’s best-known poem, and surely the best-known hortatory poem in the English language, is “If—” which appeared in a 1910 volume of historical stories for children. The two children who are principal characters in the book are generally supposed to be based on Kipling’s own children Elsie and John, then aged 14 and 13 respectively. It is, therefore, hard to believe that Kipling did not have his own son in mind when writing the poem. To the best of my knowledge Kipling never admitted this, though, claiming only that the poem was written for his friend Dr. Jameson. John Kipling was killed in action at the Battle of Loos in September 1915, aged just 18.
Well, here is an updated version of “If—,”** suitable for Osama bin Laden to read to his son before the lad is sent off to fight the infidels.
If— (you want to be a true jihadi)
If you can hack the head off from a hostage
Who’s kneeling bound and helpless on the floor;
If you can purge yourself of each last vestige
Of decency, morality, and Law;
If you can hate and never tire of hating,
Or, faced with truth, still hold fast to your lies,
Or, while you’re hard at work decapitating,
Show no trace of pity in your eyes:
If you can teach your kids the “victim” story,
Stir Muslim losers trapped in English slums,
Fill youthful heads with crackpot dreams of glory,
And urge them on to fiery martyrdoms;
If you can use religion as a cover
For deeds no man could pardon or excuse,
Or claim that all the ills we humans suffer
Are machinations of the evil Jews:
If you can use the fruits of Western science
(A science that your culture cannot match)
To broadcast all your hatred and defiance,
Or carry out your crimes with more dispatch;
If you can put aside sectarian violence,
Co-operate with Shi’ites from Iran,
Unite Islam; intimidate to silence
All Muslims who won’t sign up to your plan:
If you can fly a plane into a building
Filled with harmless folk you’ve never seen,
Or seize a school that’s full of little children
And murder them when rescuers break in;
If you can fill each precious living minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of evil done,
Yours is heaven, and all the virgins in it,
And then you’ll be a real jihadi, son!
——————-
** The title of the poem appears as I have shown it, with a dash, in The Definitive Edition of Rudyard Kipling’s Verse, but the dash is often left out when the poem is reproduced. The format of the poem, by the way, was inspired by the last three stanzas of John Donne’s “The Undertaking.”
Sorry, I should have said that while Mr Derbyshire’s superb parody is very little to with BBC bias, it was simply too good not share.
Cheers.
archduke
On 7/7 Blair and Bush were at Gleneagles for a G8 summit.
Blair and then Bush made statements that day. The statements were carried live by Sky, ITN and CNN, BBC 24 did not carry them live and the bit the BBC used later for Bush was NOT the central point he was making.
On the following Monday Blair made a long formal statement to the Commons. He used the T word umpteen times. The BBC excised the T word from its reports on his statement.
That is not STRAIGHT reporting. The BBC mindset doesn’t really accept the notion of a war on terror – actions like 7/7 are all our fault anyway say many BBC reporters. So when Blair or Bush try to link 7/7 directly to the WoT, the BBC either fails to report exactly what they said = or doesn’t cover their statements at all even when all the other media are carrying them live.
Pounce wrote: “In fact BBC I can’t find just what Mel said from looking at your website. Was it that bad that you have to shield poor little old me from the words of a racial bigot (who also has a by-line in hating my country)”
Mel’s ‘anti-semitic remark’ was ‘The Jews are responsible for all the wars.’ a sentiment one can hear at any Hollywood party.
This rather anaemic remark is getting tremendous play in the US as a way of discrediting the director/producer of that horrible ‘The Passion’. Hollywood will never forgive Mel for making a successful Christian movie.
*This* Jew certainly isn’t buying their sudden ‘concern’ with anti-semitism!
Look who’s looking back at you…
Blogging the conflict in Lebanon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4775393.stm
Grimer | 09.08.06 – 2:17 pm | #
“I don’t have the link unfortuately. But the BBC changed the text of the PM’s speech, to take out the word ‘terrorist’ and replaced it with ‘militant’.”
No, Grimer. The ‘urban myth’ that the BBC bowdlerized the PM’s text is, in fact, a lie peddled on the net by none other than our very own dumbcisco, though sometimes he uses his alter-ego ‘johninlondon’ to do it. (Eagle-eyed readers here will remember that in the middle of an exchange a few weeks ago dumbcisco failed to change his name after posting elsewhere • revealing that he and johninlondon are one and the same).
Here is the BBC’s text of the PM’s statement on 11 July 2005 together with the 10 Downing Street version and the Hansard report.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4673221.stm
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page7903.asp
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm050711/debtext/50711-06.htm#column_565
They correspond, don’t they?
So where did the ‘BBC falsified the record’ meme start?
Well, Melanie Phillips on her blog complained that a BBC Online ACCOUNT of the PM’s speech (ie a report written by a BBC Online journalist ABOUT the main points of the PM’s speech) had left out the T-word. This was picked up by Tom Leonard in the Telegraph. The report Melanie/Leonard were referring to was this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4672749.stm
she did not accuse the BBC of falsifying the text.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001320.html
Nor did Harry’s Place • which at the time was posting screen grabs of any stories changing terrorist to militant etc.
No, it was johninlondon/dumbcisco who twisted the facts to allege that:
[the BBC]edited out nearly a dozen mentions of the T word from Tony Blair’s formal Commons statement on 11 July.
Posted by: JohninLondon at July 19, 2005 08:31 PM
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/07/19/wonky_moral_compasses.php
i.e. the whole story that the BBC had changed the official record of the text of the PM’s speech was one invented by dumbcisco.
From Steve E’s link
A number of pro-Israel blogs alleged that agency photographs of the recovery of bodies, mainly children, from the bombed building had been staged, under Hezbollah direction.
Pro-Israel, not pro-truth, not anti-media manipulation, not anti-dual standards by media (i.e how they would howl if anyone in the first world sought to use corpses as props)
Must one be pro-Israel to find the grim parade disgusting?
Steve E
A the end of the article it says:
“The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites”
Especially the “pro-Israeli” ones. If only it could be a bit more responsible about it’s own.
Oh look – Mr Reith has popped in to make a quick attack and a minor point but failed to actually answer (a) any of the various questions he has been asked over the last few months and (b) not made any comment on the Middle East and the way things are being reported by the BBC – I wonder why? Why DOES he always fail to answer the real questions……?
PS An account should be as accurate as the real thing it is describing should it not ? An account of what the PM said about TERRORISTS cannot be called an accurate account unless it uses the same words he did….after all he called them terrorists, so why not use such a word in the account?
Radio 4 – It’s Linda Smith memorial time again.
Jeremy Hardy, miner’s strike, Bush is a Nazi, Mark Steele, working class, Stop the War, blah blah blah……
I wouldn’t mind if they were funny.
“A number of pro-Israel blogs alleged that agency photographs of the recovery of bodies, mainly children, from the bombed building had been staged, under Hezbollah direction.”
The BBC labelling the blogsites ‘pro Israel’ is rather like the habit of labelling certain figures ‘Tories’, but leaving out political tags when it doesn’t suit a favoured leftist ideology (a topic thoroughly discussed under another BBBC thread). I’m sure if the blogs had a story that was pro Hizb’allah/ anti Israel the BBC would describe them as plain old ‘blogsites’ without caveat, inferring they were neutral. In the beeboid universe ‘pro Israel’ implies that the evidence is from a tainted source. But the BBC should face up to the fact that a fraud is a fraud is a fraud. Those that are exposing these frauds are scrutinising the evidence and revealing the truth. Those that concoct and spread them are liars out to manipulate public opinion. This is forgery in the bad old tradition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If the BBC had any decent journalistic instincts left they should be pouncing on fraudulence. But as they don’t have any decency what do they do instead? They try to chip away at the credibility of the fraud busters. Well John Reith and chums , you can try but you won’t succeed.
Oscar,
“The BBC labelling the blogsites ‘pro Israel’ is rather like the habit of labelling certain figures ‘Tories’, but leaving out political tags when it doesn’t suit a favoured leftist ideology ”
-just like the BBC expunge any of the “pro-Hezbollah” content from coverage of last Saturday’s Stop the War Coalition march.
Eamonn | 09.08.06 – 6:46 pm
What struck me was that nearly all the contributors (including LS herself) went to such pains to emphasise that they are working class.
My question is: If they are so proud of their roots, why dont they say it like it is and use the term “lower class”? It seems so cheesy for these oh so self righteous empty vessels to use a euphemism for their origins.
Can you say “hypocrisy”?
Possibly in poor taste, but amusing given her part in Hezbollahywood.
http://greenhelmetguy.blogspot.com/2006/08/weep-oh-heathens-at-this-shaheedi-sha.html
Is this her yet again?
http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=main/8/22013391910.jpg&s=f10
LGF has found yet another photoshop fraud
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22017_Down_the_Rabbit_Hole&only
I’ve just got round to uploading all the Newsnight clips I recorded over the last few days.
Their discussion of the Reuters fake photos can be found here:
I’ve started making playlists for each day. If you’re looking for something from the last couple of weeks, it may be here:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=grimer1
Click on the ‘playlists’ if you know what you’re looking for.
i wonder when al beeb will report this
one.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=399741&in_page_id=1770
Grimer,
Someone was looking for the ‘Bowen picking the teddy up from the ruins’ snippet earlier today. Thought that you may have posted it at Youtube?
The BBC and how it reports for Hezbollah;
Israel’s offensive one month on
By Martin Asser
BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4777337.stm
The BBC takes the time to retell tell the story of David and the goliath.
It pits the region’s most powerful and technologically advanced army against a small, lightly-armed guerrilla force galvanised by a taste for engagement with the enemy and martyrdom
I do love how the BBC loves to portray Israel as the regions most powerful army in which to sell the image of a large bully
Er BBC you left out of the story how Egypt (That huge country a few miles to the south of the current conflict and also in the region) has a huge modern fighting machine which dwarfs the Israeli one. They have over 1000 American M1 tanks, they have the Apache helicopter gunship, they have the F16 fighter jet, they have the patriot missile system and have a much larger standing army.
The Syrians have over 4700 main battle tanks granted 2000 are of T55/62 vintage. But they also have around 2000 T72 tanks.
(Also you seemed to left out the fact that Syria deployed a special forces division to the border with Lebanon 2 weeks ago.)
Jordan has in place the Challenger 1 tank and have replaced the manual 120mm gun with an automatic one. So please spare me this crap about how Israel is the most powerful army in the region. It has a more effective army and that is because her soldiers are promoted on merit and not nepotism.
I’ll give you the technologically advanced bit, but you know what BBC not by much.
As for trying to claim that Hezbollah is a small lightly armed guerrilla force.
Small/I wouldn’t call 10,000 gun carrying members small.
Lightly armed? Here is what the BBC had to say about Hezbollah;
at the start of hostilities on 12 July Hezbollah had an estimated 13,000 missiles,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5242566.stm
It also fields the C-802 anti ship missile (more potent than Exocet)
Lets not forget the Kornet Anti tank missile
http://www.defense-update.com/products/k/kornet-e.htm
That is the only (proven) missile in the world which can kill the M1 and IDF MERKAVA 4 tank. (Only the most heavily protected tank in the world)
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/
As for trying to claim that Israel hasn’t a clue in fighting Hezbollah lets look to history shall we. The Battle of Monte Cassino
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino
in Italy lasted a good few months and held up the advance of the Allied army. The Germans had a few months to prepare the ground. Hezbollah have had 5 years in which to prepare the ground. Think about it.
But before I sign off BBC here is a picture which you haven’t shown;
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/080601mideast/im:/060809/481/1c6771a7ed18432a8624ae91654ee1a6;_ylt=Aqa6lfJOAw89WibB_Dh8N1VgWscF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3dmhrOGVvBHNlYwNzc20-
When is racism not racism?
When the BBC deems it traitor abuse;
England paceman Sajid Mahmood said he refused to let abuse from sections of the Headingley crowd get him down. During England’s Test victory over Pakistan on Tuesday he was targeted by some fans who accused him of betraying his Pakistani heritage. “I heard them calling me a traitor during my second spell, but I didn’t let it affect me,” said Lancashire’s Bolton-born fast bowler.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/4775149.stm
Shouldn’t the BBC be displaying this outrageous behaviour as unacceptable to the Muslim population of the UK. I mean the BBC has no problem reporting racial abuse on the football pitch against non whites. So why is it different when the abusers are non whites.
CAIR to comment BBC?
dumbcisco | 08.08.06 – 11:36 pm,
Of course, by 7am tomorrow today’s edition of Today will actually be yesterday’s. And tomorrow’s will be today’s. Today’s yesterday has already gone down the Memory Hole
I dunno, I think one can go back and listen to the previous week’s ‘today’. I saw same on ‘Listen Again’.
I listened to Montaquin. She was definitely hostile to the Israeli rep and then her tone changed when talking to the UN guy as if she was now back on familiar, friendly ground having sparred with the enemy. The BBC is pathetic.
Whilst some are cloning details into their pictures, the BBC are airbrushing details out of their ‘stories’.
Analysis: Terrorism and freedoms
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4776297.stm
“Take the recent botched anti-terrorism raid in East London’s Forest Gate which led to the shooting of 23-year-old Mohammed Abdul Kahar.
That raid, which uncovered nothing untoward ….“
Err, not quite. Nothing ‘untoward’ oh, except a computer full of child porn:
as reported by the BBC here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5242564.stm
“Meanwhile, Mr Kahar has been arrested by police on suspicion of making pornographic pictures of children.
Police said he had been bailed to return to a London police station on a future date…”
Whilst some are cloning details into their pictures, the BBC are airbrushing details out of their ‘stories’.
Especially when it’s unfavourable and concerns the ‘Brothers’.
How the BBC reports executions from different countries.
America;
UN attacks US execution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/802967.stm
Pakistan;
Pakistan hangs ‘Islamic militant’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4776349.stm
Somalia;
Somali boy executes dad’s killer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4967108.stm
Iran;
Iranians hang two Ahwaz bombers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4765962.stm
China.
Well I’m unable to find anything from the BBC on a story on a Chinese state execution
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?tab=ns&q=China+execution&edition=d&recipe=all&start=1&scope=all
Saudi Arabia;
Same as China.
Yet the BBC only berates one country on here for executing prisoners.
Guess which one?
So ‘British Residents’ are planning to blown up airliners (courtesy of R5).
56 million; one hell of a hunt for the Plod.
Is there something the BBC isn’t telling us?
paulc -> 18 “people” were arrested overnight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4778575.stm
and
“According to BBC sources the “principal characters” suspected of being involved in the plot were British-born.”
sky news has more details:
*********************
Sky News’ Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt said he had been told the threat was imminent and those arrested were mainly young, British-born Asian men.
*********************
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1230417,00.html
Barker John,
Do you know what day the ‘Teddy Bear’ report was broadcast? I have some clips that I haven’t uploaded yet.
It may be among the ones I have uploaded. I haven’t watched them all.
If you can give me more details, I’ll be happy to have a dig around and upload the clip.
grimer -> apparently it was jeremy bowen, walking around some ruins (beirut maybe) and finding a teddy bear on the ground.
grimer -> apparently it was jeremy bowen, walking around some ruins (beirut maybe) and finding a teddy bear on the ground.
I don’t remember Bowen doing that (I’ve only seen him framed against the Beirut skyline displaying his hairy chest), but that sort of thing did feature in Fergal Keane’s reports – toys on top of rubble etc.
According to BBC sources the “principal characters” suspected of being involved in the plot were British-born. Arrests were made in High Wycombe, London and Birmingham.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4778575.stm
Thursday, 10 August 2006, 09:03 GMT 10:03 UK
On BBC radio 4s Today programme we were told
“British born men involved in the plot” (7.48)
Again on BBC News 24
“they were all born in Britain” (9.25)
BBC news reporting on a terrorist plot but whatever you do don’t mention plumbers! And in interviews don’t bother to ask who these people are, or what sort of “group” this is. Actually, it’s so amusing, and almost qualifies for bbc comedy rather than news, because the majority of the British people know damn well who it is, but the premier news organisation is so pc that it can’t bring itself to say so. It’s rather like watching a well known Fawlty Towers sketch, and imagining bbc personal and editors seated around a table, “please don’t mention the M word, it upsets us so” As Archduke points out above Sky, a competing news organisation told its viewers,
“all those arrested were British Muslims”(8.55)
Knock knock. Who’s there?
reith
Firstly, it seems very odd that when you pop up here you seldom answer any of the questions people have put to you. Instead, there seems to be a patterm of you picking on something I have said. Not other people – you seem to be fixated on me. Hundreds and hynndreds of comments week by week here, but you choose to jump on mine ? Is it getting to you – is it something I have said that has really needled the Beeboids ?
Back to the substance of your attack this time, your allegation that I fabricated an urban myth.
Blair used the T word a dozen times in his statement to the Commons.
The main BBC report on its website excised the T word. I raised it at the time at this blogsite, and no-one challenged it. I SAW what the BBC did, and I HEARD what they said in their reports on his statement on the Monday following 7/7.
You notably FAIL to link to their main website report that day. So you FAIL to disprove what I said.
Quoting Hansard or the No 10 press release is NOT quoting what the main BBC reports said, their headline reports.
Yes, the BBC linked (after a time) to the full text of his statement. But that was not the main BBC report that was carried on the website and on the BBC airwaves. ie the BBC report that was “above the fold” on their website “front page”.
BBC 24 also failed to carry live the statements from Gleneagles on 7/7 by Blair and Bush. ITN, Channel 4 and Sky cut their broadcasts to carry them live. You evidently do not dispute this.
These were editorial decisions at the BBC at the time of a terrorist attack on our country.
You mention the screennames JohninLondon and dumbcisco. The latter is what I have used for years on the US investment sites I visit. I started using JohninLondon on some US news sites after 9/11 to indicate that I was commenting from Britain. I later saw a reference there to Biased BBC and so I used the same moniker here. I go abroad most years for a couple of months, often far away from Internet access. Last year when I returned and checked back in here I simply used the dumbcisco moniker I had been using that day on the Yahoo US investment sites I visit.
So Mr reith – back to the substance. can you please find us the BBC main report, its FRONT PAGE report, on Blair’s Commons statement. Stop ducking and diving, stop referring us to non-front-page Hansard-type links or No 10 press releases which by definition give Blair’s words verbatim. Show us what the BBC’s GLOSS was, what it reported above-the-fold to the wide world. Show us that it did not excise the T word from Blair’s Commons statement.
(Oh – and you mention Melanie Phillips as apparently following what you think was my delusion about the BBC excising the T word. You refer to what she published about it. Why not read what she actually wrote. Do you really think that Phillips as an experienced journalist would not have checked exactly what the main BBC report said ? Here is what she posted – it says specifically that Blair used the words “Islamic extremist terrorists” whereas the BB report said “Islamic extremists”. You say Melanie Phillips did not accuse the BBC of falsifying the text. But that is exactly what she said. (And tThat was just one example of the excision of the T word that day.)
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001320.html
You also refer to Tom Leonard at the Telegraph reporting on this. My my, you really have been digging, haven’t you ? So where is Tom Leonard’s report ? Why should he be saying the same as what I was saying about the BBC and Blair’s statement ? Are you accusing him of making up the urban myth ? Would you like to elaborate a bit on your reference to Tom Leonard ?
Dumbcisco | 10.08.06 – 10:55 am
You are weaselling and obfuscating once again to try to disguise the fact that yet again you have been caught out in a lie direct.
You have accused the BBC a number of times • in terms • of falsifying the record of Tony Blair’s Commons Statement. Your words on one occasion were:
“[the BBC]edited out nearly a dozen mentions of the T word from Tony Blair’s formal Commons statement on 11 July”
http:// hurryupharry.bloghouse.ne…l_compasses.php
The BBC did no such thing.
Both Melanie P and Tom Leonard (see below) chided the BBC for failing to use the T-word in their reports of the Commons statement. These reports (or ‘accounts’ • MP used the word account) were written by BBC journalists working to the controversial guidelines on use of the T-word that have been endlessly debated here. Many think the BBC were wrong to apply these guidelines in these circumstances. Fair enough. But that kind of controversy is very different from accusing the BBC of falsifying a text.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/13/do1302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/13/ixop.html
You went one step further than either Melanie P and Tom Leonard. A step that took you out of the realm of truth into that of lies. You said the BBC changed the text of Blair’s statement. It did not.
You ask where the ‘above the fold’ story is. It’s here. You will notice that in a box about half way down there is a link to the text of Blair’s statement in full. T-word and all.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4670945.stm
You claim that I am picking on you in some way. I am not. I disagree with many things said here by a number of commenters. Sometimes I voice my disagreement. Sometimes I don’t. Usually these concern matters of opinion or interpretation. The reason I so often react to comments by you is a straightforward one • you frequently assert as fact things that are simply untrue.
sorry… that anon was me
If you were a member of a golf club and wanted to organise a game with 21 players, it would be quite difficult, and most members of the club would know that you were organising it. None of the members would be surprised that you would want to organise a game of golf in a golf club, although some might disagree with your choice of prizes etc. Nevertheless a golf club would be the best place to look for players.
So if you wanted to blow up six planes and needed 21 people willing to blow themselves and others up, where would you go? Would the non-playing members of that place complain or would they consider it normal? Well I’m sure that the BBC will investigate and let us know.
Separately, I notice that in Birmingham Airport there is a “Wudu” for Muslims. Is it appropriate nowadays for an airport to provide a meeting point for plumbers within the airport?
Referring to dumv=cisco, John Reith writes:
“….you frequently assert as fact things that are simply untrue.”
Unlike the BBC and its report on the incident at Qana, would that be?
Tim Blair’s take on a Vietnamese banker facing the death penalty for “losing state resources through economic mismanagement”.
The death penalty for only $5.4 million? The ABC chews through $750,000,000 every year, and not one staffer has even been charged, let alone executed.
Substitute BBC & £3billion?
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/taxes_lost
JR,
I remember the articles following the 7/7 bombings. The BBC did alter the text of the Prime Minister’s speech. I complained about it at the time.
It may have provided a link to the full text, but the quotes it selected had been changed as part of the great ‘terrorist purge’ in the days after 7/7.
Anyone else see the visitors to No10 during the 1 o’clock news, behind the correspondent’s back? They were all casually dressed,and all with backpacks.
Unlike the BBC and its report on the incident at Qana, would that be?
GCooper | 10.08.06 – 2:12 pm
Do you dispute that the incident at Qana took place?
The IDF disagree:
Lieutenant General Dan Halutz again expressed his sorrow for the deaths of civilians, among them children, in the incident in Qana.
Today, August 2nd 2006, the IDF Chief of General Staff was presented with the findings of the inquiry conducted into the occurences in Qana on July 30th. The findings of the inquiry were also presented to the Minister of Defense.
The inquiry confirms the information provided during the press briefing held by the IDF on the day of the incident, according to which the IDF targeted the building in an aerial attack on July 30th at 00:52 with two missiles, the first of which exploded and the second was apparently a dud.
http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?clr=1&sl=EN&id=7&docid=55484
reith
What on earth are you trying to argue ?
The BBC excised virtually every mention of the 12 mentions of the T word from Blair’s statement on 11 July last year. The article by Tom Leonard at the Telegraph reported this. Do you dispute that Leonard saw the excisions.
Melanie Phillips gave a specific example of one of the excisions. You cannout dispute this.
But you try to maintain that the BBC did not “alter” what Blair said. Excision means an alteration. Excision of 11 out of 12 mewntions means a lot of altering.
Get real, man. Some editor at the BBC did those excisions.
John Reith writes:
“Do you dispute that the incident at Qana took place?”
You can drop the straw man tactic, Reith, it’s a complete waste of time.
The point I was making was about your employer’s rush to broadcast the story in the most unfavourable light (from an Isreli standopint) and the subsequent lack of prominence it gave the questions surrounding what really happened there.
But of course, you never respond when the BBC is caught red-handed, do you? Your preferred method is to indulge in the odd spat with dumbcisco, while tossing in the occasional de haut en bas reference to the posters and commenters here, on whose numerous reports of BBC bias, you seem strangely silent.
Reith “Do you dispute that the incident at Qana took place?”
The disgusting incident of dead children being manhandled for the benefit of the media?
See
Should the BBC be party to this disgusting spectacle? Will the BBC expose the behaviour of news gatherers?