or, Tuesday night laugh.
According to this press release, the BBC is launching its first major publicity campaign since 1997.
Rather like this blog, the campaign “will feature real life examples of extraordinary BBC achievements, large and small.”
Oh joy. (via Stephen Pollard)
Amazing!
I`m in North Korea!
I did not see that coming.
The BBC.This is what we do.
WE liberate Kabul.
Now over to where the British and American armies are losing control of{insert region}
No, seriously. We really are in North Korea
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/5276190.stm
Telly tax funded beeb gives you the Taxer in Chief in soft focus.
How did this happen to us?
SiN -> Room 101 for you. O’Brien wants to re-educate you.
Dont do it to me. Do it to Julia!
We spend 90 thousand pounds a year of your money on a “diversity Officer”. We sub-out our transmitters to Hezbollah to broadcast their PR. We run a left wing agenda even the Guardian would be proud of, and grovel to our New Labour masters. We are your BBC. This is what we do. And you sad suckers are paying for it.
This is like the old Soviet Union boasting about it’s elections in which only Communist Party members could stand.
” Alan@dale | 22.08.06 – 10:55 pm |”
somebody should stick that on a t-shirt.
“Mr Brown’s eagerness to share the photograph with others is in sharp contrast to Prime Minister Tony Blair who has closely guarded any images of his youngest son Leo. ”
hmmm.. interesting contrast there.
But has Broon’s boy had the MMR jab?
Nice of Broon to surface again – notice how he ALWAYS hides whenever there are difficult things happening?
“Nice of Broon to surface again – notice how he ALWAYS hides whenever there are difficult things happening?”
like Gollum?
“Nice of Broon to surface again – notice how he ALWAYS hides whenever there are difficult things happening?”
like Gollum?
..except that WE’re paying his department our “Precious” earnings !
Guess which two words are missing from this al-bbc report on the sending down of a Pakistani – born muslim terrorist ?
“An Australian man has been sentenced to 20 years in jail for plotting bombing attacks in Sydney.”
yep, al-beeb give us three hundred words or so without once mentioning the words Muslim & Islam. Why ? Surely this is extremely important to the case. The man isn’t an Australian Christian, Budhist or Jew, he is a muslim and his offence was plotted as part of an Islamic jihad against the West. So gutless, al-bbc, so gutless …
terry -> i’m beyond trying to understand that sort of reporting – it boggles the mind.
if he was white supremacist Nazi , bombing Jewish centres, then it would be blantantly obvious that Nazism influenced his terrorism.
if he had bombed London in the 1970s, and was Irish, then it would be obvious that his membership of the IRA would be a major factor.
its like saying that he was a Basque , guilty of planning to bomb Madrid, without mentioning that he was a member of ETA.
as i said – i simply cannot understand that sort of reporting , where the primary motivation for acts of terror are deliberately left out by the BBC.
It goes further than that, archduke. Every time a black or Asian person is killed it usually takes about a nanosecond for the BBC to start talking about racism, even if there is no evidence to back it up. Were it the other way round of course….
terry johnson
you ought to deduce from the State Broadcasters reluctance to mention Islam or Muslim when reporting these stories that the situation in respect of Islamic terrorism in the UK is far worse than we are being told. Also that the probability that ordinary people are on the verge of a backlash is far greater than we are being led to believe.
This is a State Broadcaster, keeping the peace and implementing government diktaat is job Number one.
What is the point of the BBC advertising itself? I would stop paying for advertising for my small business right now now if my customers were forced to pay for my services whether they wanted them or not.
I just want to watch football on Sky? Why is the BBC invoved with me at all?
In fact they have considerable trouble mentioning “black” too. Even when to do so would help the police, as in the case not so long ago when “youths” beat up and killed someone, but they were only referred to as “youths” Some days later it came out they were “black youths”. Had people in the district known that from the time of the first report, something like 40% of the local population could have been ruled out as possible suspects. But often political correctness seems to matter far more to the BBC than helping to uphold the law, decency, or even common sense.
The NUJ’s Code of Practice says:
10. A journalist shall mention a person’s age, sex, race, colour, creed, illegitimacy, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation only if this information is strictly relevant.
http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=59
The Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice says:
{the press} must avoid publishing details of a person’s race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability unless these are directly relevant to the story.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/displayPopup/0,,1885,00.html
The BBC operates under similar guidelines.
Discretion is left to the individual journalist • but phrases like ‘strictly relevant’ and ‘directly relevant’ set the threshold high. Unsurprisingly some are over-cautious as a result.
John,
Given that the BBC is a public service surely providing the public with as accurate a description as possible of the perpetrators of a violent crime in their area forms part of the service they should be providing??
Incidentally, how does News of the Screws style “minor footballer in sordid sex romp shocker….busty Tracy, 19 said…” reporting fit these guidelines? Surely her age is irrelevent as long as she looks nice in the double page photo spread??
Cockney
I agree.
As for how the Screws gets away with it…..beats me.
JR, surely the ethnic and cultural background of the ‘Australian man’ is relevant if it were the reason(s) for his attempted crime. After all, if I were a neo-nazi and I went out of my way to kill a Jew, then my neo-nazi background would be relevant because it provides information as to the ‘why’.
The BBC is deliberately and consistently obscurantist in this respect and accordingly can be assumed to have a political agenda which its Charter forbids it having.
“{the press} must avoid publishing details of a person’s race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability unless these are directly relevant to the story”
So I guess it’s not relevant that someone planning a terrorist attack in the name of islamic jihad should be identified as a muslim ? Only muslims are obligied to wage jihad therefore the person’s religion is completely relevant to the story.
A large segment of the global muslim population has been brainwashed by their death cult, Islam, into believing that they are at war with the West. Until al-bbc informs the British people of this fact and that many muslims see the world as being big enough for only ONE religion then they are not fulfilling their stated duty to INFORM the public. By now every person watching al-beeb should know that Islam divides the world into two parts – the House of Islam and the House of War. The House of War is where the world’s 5 BILLION infidels live , it is called the House of War because Islam says that muslims must turn these places into the House Of Islam by either conversion or WAR. That most Britons are unaware of this is damning proof that al-bbc , from the very top level down, has chosen to misinform, conceal and whitewash the nature of the “religion” that is locked in a battle to destroy our civilisation. That al-bbc wilfully follows this course gives the lie to it’s status as a public broadcaster. By hiding the truth it has, in fact, become a willing tool of political islam in it’s attempts to subvert, weaken and erode our culture. The bbc has embraced dhimmi status without a struggle and only those of the islamic faith should be forced to pay for it’s services as it has become their mouthpiece. The rest of us ,the 95% of the UK who are “infidels” , should refuse to pay for a “news broadcaster” that is actively working against us. We should not have to pay for our own destruction as a culture.
Reith:
…phrases like ‘strictly relevant’ and ‘directly relevant’ set the threshold high.
No they don’t, they just require that editors exercise judgement. The values that rule in the BBC’s newsrooms lead in one drearily predictable direction. Balanced it ain’t. The effect, though you are too smug to admit is, is zero credibility.
Unsurprisingly some are over-cautious as a result.
Nonsense. The only surprise is that you expect folks to swallow the drivel you serve up on behalf of your employer.
Not sure whether that makes you a fool or a liar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/bareall/condomgiveaway.shtml
They do this too.
Good points Knacker and TJ. Don’t expect a response from JR (he of the fascist nomme du guerre) outside office hours though…
Bombard people with hate mail. Prosecute single mothers. Threaten law-abiding citizens with search warrants. Fabricate evidence. Pervert the course of justice. Assault householders.
This is what we do.
[By “we” I naturally mean the BBC by proxy, through its bagmen and fellow Zanu-Labour travellers at Crapita/TVL.]
Bastards. Added to which they are increasing the threat to our very civilization from towel-headed savages.
See that the Beeb’s running a series next month called “Peacemakers”, featuring the usual suspects. One surprise is that they include Rigoberta Menchu, whose book, despite being comprehensively (and unarguably) fisked, still clings on to her Nobel peace prize because the lefties find her emotionally satisfying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigoberta_Menchu_Tum
Rehabilitating lefty liars and using them to promote a world view that suits our anti-American prejudices?
That’s what we do!
I just like the fact that the BBC has a Blow Up Porn Doll to read the news now……they know people are turning away in their millions…….so they get desperate, and try to put on a woman that looks pretty to pull in the punters….
Trouble is, she’s got lips like a rubber dingy, and has no credibilty…..”Game Show Hostess reads News at BBC”…..
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What a sad bunch of amatures………
The BBC is hated, and obsolete……
The Licence fee is a human rights abuse, and no-one should pay it…….
The BBC are vile bullys…but weak ones….they have no real power…..all they can do is pick on single poor single mums and grannies……
Thats how people like Reith get paid…by threataning old women and poor people….sounds like he should be a Muslim…….lolol…..
I’ve seen the future…and it’s bad for the BBC and their sad Meeja Studies drop outs……..
They are only listened to and supported by extremists and bigots…….
The British people do not want the BBC……shite programming, shite news, shite reporters, shite shite shite……….
The BBC is like the sad Drunk Uncle at a wedding, that thinks he is cool and can dance…, and thinks he is liked…but in reality…everyone is just laughing their arses off at him making a drunken stupid fool of himself……..lol.
And as always, it is the drunk idiot alcholic that is the last to realise what a pathetic sight they have become.
lol
🙂
.
Imagine what Iraq would look like without Muslim terrorists
http://tinyurl.com/3kjl3
.
It seems to me that the NUJ instructions about not mentioning age, sex, race, etc are counterproductive. I now naturally assume that all crime reported on television is committed by blacks or Muslims. Logically, I doubt that this could possibly be true, but to prevent everybody else in the country turning into a bigot, journalists have a duty to tell us the truth.
Do you know, I’ve got to feel the same way too? And I don’t feel good about it, because I’m not a racist. But the BBC has this tiptoe-round-the-subject approach so one always has these suspicions, never allayed, never addressed. If only they could just give us the facts.
Now I think about it, in a multi-culty society, isn’t it necessary for each “community” to know what members of the other ommunities” are doing? Including crime?
Terry H:
that’s it, exactly. The BBC has devalued language, and played with suspicious silences, to such an extent that any intelligent person always expects the subtext, usually for the worse. Now everyone is a militant or a hardliner rather than a terrorist, everyone who hears one of the former terms automatically substitutes ‘terrorist’, thus (at times) maligning some group that really might have legitimate aims… all in the name of glorious Beeb PCspeak
“Hizbollywood” – it is you who are blinkered.
The latest chapter of the conflict between Israel and Palestine began when Israeli forces abducted two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from Gaza. An incident scarcely reported anywhere, except in the Turkish press. The following day the Palestinians took an Israeli soldier prisoner – and proposed a negotiated exchange against prisoners taken by the Israelis – there are approximately 10,000 in Israeli jails. The BBC didn’t report this kidnapping either, that’s because like all western medai they are biased in favour of the US not against it as you seem so convinved.
An incident scarcely reported anywhere, except in the Turkish press.
Clive Williams | 25.08.06 – 3:21 pm
Give us a link to that story and we can see what happened.
Here you go link
cheers,
Clive Williams,
If the Palestinians did not have the blood of Israeli civilians on their hands there would be no need for Israelis to enter Gaza and arrest them. Palestinian prisoners are not “abducted.” They are arrested, tried and imprisoned for crimes of terror against Israeli civilians. The Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hamas, along with other terrorist gangs, was innocent of any crime.
Apart from the BBC, I’m sure western media like the Guardian, the Independent, CNN, Reuters, AP, AFP and a truckload of others will be rolling on the floor in helpless laughter at the thought that they are considered pro-America.
Hmmm
The petition’s signed by the Stalinist Eric Hobsbawm, a man with an olympic capacity for self-deception and picking the wrong cause.
Bryan – of course this is hotly deabted and these people were described as “civilans”. It’s pointless debating here whether every prisoner taken by Israel is guilty of the crimes they are supposed to have committed. What is important is the coverage of the western media – including the BBC and they were noticeably silent, I suspect because it happens so often.
Interesting site but I would no more believe them than I would have believed the Mitfords when they were sucking up to nazis.
No organisation supported by hobsbawn and pinter is credible and there’s nothing worse than a self-loathing jew foaming at the mouth against Israel.
gordon-bennet : Let’s leave aside the merits of the signatories of that site and whether they are cowards or not. Again you seem to be quite nasty about anyone who has an lternative world view, but let’s move on from that and concentrate on how it relates to this site.
It’s media coverage of this event that is important and it wasn’t reported in this country, I want to know why that would be ? Surely the BBC if it is indeed bias as you assert would be popping champagne corks at what appears to be an inflamatory action ?
Clive Williams,
I had a recent debate on another thread over whether the BBC’s lack of coverage of Palestinian deaths in Gaza is due to pro-Israel bias, as indicated by the Israeli-Palestinian Impartiality Review. That notion is, of course, absurd. The BBC will cover what it is allowed to cover by the Palestinians. No doubt Alan Johnston, chief BBC propagandist in Gaza, would be able to tell us what the guidelines are. If you want to know what the Palestinians want you to know via the BBC, listen to Johnston on the World Service.
gordon-bennett,
I second that motion. Ha’aretz and its motley fellow-travellers work against Israel in much the same way that the BBC works against Britain and the New York Times against the US.
But why would the palestinians not want that reported !? In light of terminology I used the word “abducted” because no one knows these peoples names or what happened to them since. This is in stark contrast to the Israeli corporal who was kidnapped by the Islamic Jihad or whoever it was. I think it’s fair to describe people who are taken against their will and held without charge as having been “kidnapped” do you not agree ?
Let’s put it this way: Israeli intelligence is second to none. They don’t arbitrarily abduct people. Israelis have been fighting the war against terror for decades before the rest of the planet even knew there was a war going on. The Israelis thwart terror attacks, practically on a daily basis, by nipping them in the bud.
Your attemts to draw a false equivalence between the kidnapping of an innocent Israeli soldier and the arrest of people almost certainly implicated in terror will down well in many quarters but will fail miserably on any forum interested in uncovering the truth.
By the way, Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails are provided with meals that hundreds of thousands of Israelis who are battling poverty simply do not see.
As to why the Palestinians would not want it reported, hell, I don’t know. Maybe they are Fatah boys and Hamas doesn’t want them to achieve status. Could be any number of reasons.
One thing’s for sure. If the Palestinians wanted it published and pushed, the BBC would have obliged.
Clive
That is exactly the point – no one knows anything about the people taken. Were they terrorists, or fraudsters, or shoplifters, or selling dodgy medical supplies? How can any news organisation report something with so little detail?
But the point here is that although you may state that Israel has never falsely arrested anyone, which is dubious to say the least, that is clearly a subjective message. You don’t know that anyomre than I do although you strongly believe it to be the case. Any news agency that reported this topic along such lines would b rightly accused of bias which is probably why the BBC do not.
Your attemts to draw a false equivalence between the kidnapping of an innocent Israeli soldier and the arrest of people almost certainly implicated in terror will down well in many quarters but will fail miserably on any forum interested in uncovering the truth.
And there’s a difference, incidentally, between abduction of civilians and abduction of soldiers. Even international humanitarian law makes that distinction, if soldiers are captured, they are to be treated humanely. But it is not a crime at the level of capture of civilians and bringing them across the border into your own country. That’s a serious crime. And that’s the one that’s not reported. I don’t have to tell you that there are constant attacks going on in Gaza, which is basically a prison, huge prison, under constant attack all the time: economic strangulation, military attack, assassinations, and so on. In comparison with that, abduction of a soldier, whatever one thinks about it, doesn’t rank high in the scale of atrocities.
You don’t know that anyomre than I do.
I think it should already be apparent that I know a helluvah lot more about this conflict than you do, Mr. Williams – you who’ve popped in here armed only with your prejudices and an article by a bunch of misguided, anti-Israel Jews.
On the soldier issue, note that corporal Gilad Shalit was kidnapped from inside Israel (though you’ll seldom find that reported on the BBC) not in the course of an action inside Gaza.
You really should come to a debate like this better prepared. You can quote international humanitarian law all you like but that wont turn Gaza into an actual country with statehood rather than a terrorist nest.
It’s difficult to know where to start to rebut your sad, predictable cliches about huge prisons and economic strangulation and Israeli atrocities and I’m beginning to doubt that you are worth the trouble so I would just point out that Gaza has a border with Egypt. It must be the only prison in the world that has an entry/exit that is not monitored by the prison authorities. Take a close look at how the Egyptians handle the flow of Palestinians either way across that border. (If you are interested in learning about anything that you can’t blame on the Israelis, that is.)
Wake up, Mr. Williams. The Palestinians have brought their problems on themselves through their endless acts of terror against Israeli civilians.
Bryan, you are a bit full of your own self importance are you not ?
Israel’s leading specialist on the West Bank, Meron Benvenisti, who writes that ‘the separation walls snaking through the West Bank will create three Bantustans (his words): north, central and south, all virtually separated from East Jerusalem, the center of Palestinian commercial, cultural and political life. And he adds that this, what he calls the soft transfer from Jerusalem, that is an unavoidable result of the separation wall, might achieve its goal. Quoting still, ‘the goal of disintegration of the Palestinian community, after many earlier attempts, have failed.’ ‘The human disaster being planned,’ he continues, ‘will turn hundreds of thousands of people into a sullen community, hostile, and nurturing a desire for revenge.’ So, another example of the sacrifice of security through expansion that’s been going on for a long time.
I suppose they brought on all of this themselves ? To say I am predjudiced is not true anymore than to say that you are prejudice, we both come to the topic with different view points, but I didn’t start calling you prejudice.
There is near unanimity that all of this violates international law. The consensus was expressed by U.S. Judge Buergenthal in his separate declaration attached to the World Court judgment, ruling that the separation wall is illegal. In Buergenthal’s words, “The Fourth Geneva Convention and International Human Rights Law are applicable to the occupied Palestinian territory and must therefore be fully complied with by Israel. Accordingly, the segments of the wall being built by Israel to protect the settlements are ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian law,” which happens to mean about 80% of the wall.
Predictably you will say that “they made Israel build the wall to defend herself”. it is difficult to see how it is not a land grab
obviously I missed a closing out there but hey.