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)
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.
Two posts from the indefatiguable and Neverdocking Marc– one of which linked by LGF- highlight just what kind of an organisation the BBC are nowadays.
There is the extraordinary admission by Jim Muir that they were warned by Hezbolla that by showing Hezbolla firing from civilian sites they were endangering Lebanese lives and would have their equipment confiscated (oh the irony of such humanitarian concern!).
It’s extraordinary because in the first few sentences Jim Muir has said “There have basically been no restrictions on reporting as such – there’s been no pressure in any direction with regard to anything we actually say”
Note the “as such” bit, and the careful wording of “anything we actually say”. One wonders what the situation would have become like had the BBC actually said the things that their cameras weren’t allowed to show. In any case we live in a pictorial age. What people can’t see they don’t believe- and they believe sometimes far too much of what they’re shown.
If the BBC were not going to film Hezbolla firing from civilian centres (even some days delayed, for instance), how would the world know that the Israelis were often highly justified in hitting towns and villages? Well, as far as the British Broadcasting Corporation was concerned they wouldn’t.
The BBC with their Orla Guerinesque broadcasting (where they show selectively and comment disingenuously) have ensured that such shelling was seen in the worst possible light, reinforcing Hezbolla’s moritorium on showing their civilian warfare tactics by questioning the Israelis’ right to target such areas- when clearly they knew the shelling had good reason.
Marc’s other recent post illustrates just how the BBC is “onside” with the Hezbolla. I am not surprised to find a little boy thrust into the scene of a bombing to put it into a perspective negative to the Israelis. Many would say that ’twas ever thus in war areas and not to be naive. But there are two responses to this I can think of.
One is to say that the BBC, while clearly now playing up the Israeli bombing damage to Lebanon, have obviously played down the “pin-prick” Qassams and “maddening” Katyushas that have fallen on Israel.
Another is to say that when, as in the Blitz, poses were sought (I found this nice dramatic photo, for instance), it was our land, the British land, that was being bombed. If the BBC were Hezbolla TV then cute little boys beside big unpleasant unexploded Israeli bombs would be perfectly understandable.
Yet the BBC are the supposed neutrals in this. Now actually believing that would be naive. Today’s BBC “citizens of the world” choose with whom to identify on far more devious grounds than simple patriotism.
PS: Here’s David Vance’s take on the same BBC article that prompted Marc’s observation about BBC photo-staging. It begins, “Here’s an outrageous example of pure BBC bias”…
:
“They see no march
The BBC seems somehow to have missed thosuands of Muslims marching through London supporting terrorists and calling for the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate over much of the West. Strange. Can anyone out there think why they would not report on this particular item of news?”
Is he right? Can it be that the BBC have failed to notice this? Failed to report it? Failed the British public interest? Surely you can reassure me it isn’t so.
Thanks to Pounce (again) I notice that they did a little bit of background work on today’s little Islamic jamboree in Manchester.
Note how it was “Jewish concerns” they reported about the man Tamimi, when really the headline could have been ‘”Islamofascist” given platform by “moderate” muslims’. Well, if the cap fits…
This was a man who, captured on video in Trafalgar Square recently, called Israel a “cancer” that must be removed and likened it to a baby conceived by GWB and Tony Blair (!!historical memory lapse!!) which was destined for abortion, all to robotic chants of ‘Allahu Akhbar’. I’d say on the evidence it fits.
I’ve listened to it again and again, and Tamimi is quite clearly calling for the eradication of Israel, by violence if necessary- as he glorifies Hezbolla and Hamas and declares it only a “matter of time”. Says Tamimi, “you count my words, and you remember these words” . Well I have, and I shall, and suggest everyone out there, and especially anyone working for the BBC, does too.
Funny how the Beeb give all the best lines to the UNmeisters. Malloch-Brown gets away with saying gets to say that “something very ugly was brewing” in Darfur. Meanwhile the Beeb registers that the UN is “extraordinarily concerned”. Not sure where that rates on the scale of things. I guess that they’re more than just concerned, or very concerned. Their concern is beyond all such ordinary concerns. It is indeed most high and moral concern beyond all usual bounds. But what is the point of all this layer upon layer of concern except to reassure us that there are good people working on this and we can rest easy just as long as we pay our UN dues and subscribe to its authority? That’s the solution: once the UN pros have absolute power all things will be ameliorated. Yeah, right.
And the trouble is that it’s not where the news is, either. As Pounce pointed out, there are really two bits of news that prompted this wonderful outpouring of concern
1)The President of Sudan says he will welcome foreign peacekeepers the way Hezbullah opened their arms to receive the Israelis.
2)His army will fire on any intrepid do-gooder who tries to interfere while he’s brewing things up.
As Pounce concludes:
“Meanwhile the BBC news brings me on the minute reports from Lebanon on how the French are sailing warships on the horizon and how they are ready to deploy 50 soldiers.
Yup breaking news alright…….”
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.
The BBC once again fails to distinguish between the nations of the United Kingdom when it comes to university top-up fees. Alfie at Waking Hereward gets cross.
Yes, Republican Senator George Allen (likely 2008 presidential candidate) has gotta be a racist (not just stupid), no doubt about it. The BBC has learned from public sources that he put his foot in it the other day during a political event. The BBC has scoured his high school yearbook and discovered more incriminating evidence: George Allen at age 17 wore a Confederate flag pin on his lapel and had the flag on display in his home!
Old News you never got on the BBC: Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat Senator from West Virginia and former Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan, lives on as a legend in his time with nary a mention by the Beeb of anything questionable about his former life. Byrd has repudiated his Klan past but if you rely on the BBC, there was never anything to repudiate.
Interestingly, the above-mentioned Justin Webb piece on Senate filibusters which features Byrd has this quote:
“And so when I filibustered 14 hours and 13 minutes in 1964 I never got off the germaneness of the subject.”
Anyone care to guess what the good Senator’s subject was on that date? Yes, he was filibustering in an attempt to defeat the Civil Rights Act. It was eventually passed through the strong support of Republicans. Byrd also voted against the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now why would the BBC not mention any of this history, a matter of public record? Did I mention that Senator Byrd is one of President Bush’s fiercest critics and is vehemently against the War in Iraq?
The BBC determines what is so. Senator Allen, pro-war, pro-Bush Republican, must be a racist. Senator Byrd, anti-war, anti-Bush Democrat approaches beatification by the day.
The BBC is setting up a rival to al-Jazeera and this is what it promises:
“It will maintain the BBC values of accuracy, editorial independence, impartiality, while balancing a wide diversity of views.”The BBC yesterday said its new television service would be “free from commercial, political and religious affiliations or pressures”.
I suppose it’s possible that some BBC people really believe this nonsense. I’ve watched the Beeb for long enough. Will they refund my licence fee so as I can try the competition for a while?
Orla Guerin’s truth.
“the more we walked, the worse it got… this town used to be home to 7000 people.”
Her report from the town of Bint Jbeil included an unmistakeable hint about prosecuting Israel for war crimes.
It’s a good job there are other sources. Drinking from Home has put her to shame, with the help of Channel Four’s Alex Thompson, who reported from the same town.
From Thompson we get the reality: “the centre of the town destroyed on a really wholesale scale, more so than since the last civilians left here, though it has to be said that on the outskirts, the suburbs – pretty much untouched by the Israeli attack and invasion.”
Hey, the outskirts, the suburbs- isn’t that where most people generally live? Yes indeed, Alex Thompson, it had to be said.
I agree with Ian Dale. The BBC Should Fire Orla Guerin.
(hat tip to Rog in the comments)
