why the BBC’s timeline of North Korea’s nuclear activities goes no further back than 2002? USS Neverdock can.
Can you guess
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate April 29, 2024 at 3:19 am on Start the Week 29th April 2024There are Children-BBC articles on it - the BBC always ensure to politicise the children: CBBC: "Why do asylum seekers...
- JohnC April 29, 2024 at 2:49 am on Start the Week 29th April 2024Watch: BBC crew captures moment migrants board small crowded boat to UK from France https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68880651 If you wa...
- Eddy Booth April 29, 2024 at 12:55 am on Start the Week 29th April 2024"Disability benefit system unsustainable and needs change, says government" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0ry09d50wo Alice Evans Dis...
- Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate April 29, 2024 at 12:40 am on Start the Week 29th April 2024From BBC Africa Rolling News: "14:59 26 Apr UN criticises Burkina Faso's BBC ban The UN Human Rights Office has...
- Nibor April 28, 2024 at 10:10 pm on Start the Week 29th April 2024This should have been posted on the earlier thread but time allows ... I caught a tail end of A...
- atlas_shrugged April 28, 2024 at 9:21 pm on Weekend 27th April 2024Why are we in the UK such pussies! The National American Renaissance Movement has presented an 82 page Grand Jury...
- Scroblene April 28, 2024 at 9:18 pm on Start the Week 29th April 2024I was just sitting here, riding this bike, and wondered what may occur! Good Evening Thoughters! May tomorrow bring you...
- atlas_shrugged April 28, 2024 at 9:18 pm on Weekend 27th April 2024Fedup > It seems that Astra Zenica is now admitting that its’ ‘perfect ‘ covid vaccine causes harm Even more...
- Thoughtful April 28, 2024 at 9:14 pm on Start the Week 29th April 2024Bleucccchhhh - Monday tomorrow.
- MarkyMark April 28, 2024 at 9:03 pm on Weekend 27th April 2024London Election Hustings: Howard Cox (Reform), Laurence Fox (Reclaim), Amy Gallagher (SDP) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxdQwH_X1oM "We e...
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Yup…
Jan. 29, 2002: Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an “axis of evil.”
of course, those photos of Madeline Albright with the “dear leader” are airbrushed out of Beeboid history…
they really are the modern equivalent of Winston Smith, arent they?
The leftists Madeline Halfbright and Bill Clintoon no where to be seen in the BBC reports? Who would have guessed?
Yes, that timeline is very deceptive, and it’s had the intended effect, judging by the number of HYS posts blaming Bush’s “axis of evil” tag and pre-emptive strike doctrine. But even the IHT timeline fails to go back far enough. DPRK first declared its intent to go nuclear back in the mid 80s.
At least channel 4 had the good grace to show the Clinton efforts, but still managed to blame Bush for NK building the weapons.
So you guys really think that someone dictated that the BBC’s timeline in order to subconsciously inciminate President Bush, holding up as an example the AP timeline?
The possibility that the writer was just lazy and/or having watched too many episodes of “24” was trying to do a blow-by-blow scriptwriters draft, stopping in 2002 because by that far back the article is already too long, does not actually strike you?
Reporters are people, people are lazy and sloppy – but somehow *this* is concrete evidence of a campaign against Bush?
You guys crack me up.
alecm –
It’s stretching credulity to say that a £3.5bn organisation cannot find space in its website for a comprehensive timeline. It’s stretching credulity to say that a piece of lazy work can pass muster when it will be proff-read and edited. Clinton is one of the liberal poster boys and his Presidencies one of the high water marks for liberalism (baffling, giving his attitude toward women) and the BBC will be well aware of his dealings with North Korea.
Even if you are right, this is damning. What is the point of a timeline which only goes back to an arbitrary date? At the least it’s extremely misleading.
“Reporters are people, people are lazy and sloppy – but somehow *this* is concrete evidence of a campaign against Bush?”
Reporters also have a worldview. In the case of BBC and European license-fee funded broadcasters in general, the reporters’ worldview is overwhelmingly leftist.
It requires conscious effort to provided balanced reporting if your ideological dogma tells you that it’s all Bush’s fault.
This explanation does not require the existence of evil leftist conspiracy.
I agree that sloppiness in a money-heavy organisation is a bad thing, but bad journalism is not uncommon – in fact it’s probably the norm – and it certainly does not equate to “bias”.
If you want to take the “arbitrary date” argument, why don’t you chide AP for not going as far back as 1953 and the partition of Korea after the Korean War?
“I agree that sloppiness in a money-heavy organisation is a bad thing, but bad journalism is not uncommon – in fact it’s probably the norm – and it certainly does not equate to “bias”.”
BBC bias is created by omitting essential information related to the subject. The result is that you do not get an accurate picture of the issue at hand but a severely distorted one.
BBC consistently omits information that contradicts leftist, green, multi-culti, pro-EU and pro-UN worldview. This is bias, but the question whether this is conscious editorial policy or the result of reporters’ sloppiness or ideological background, remains open. I would say that it is all of them to some degree.
If you want to take the “arbitrary date” argument, why don’t you chide AP for not going as far back as 1953 and the partition of Korea after the Korean War?
AP doesn’t presume to have me prosecuted for not paying the BBC for the right to own a TV. 1953 doesn’t seem relevent to the questions of how, why and when North Korea came to have ambitions to be a nuclear power and act upon those ambitions. As a starting point for such a timeline, GWB’s ‘Axis of Evil’ speech makes as much sense as last Tuesday week.
You missed out the rquirement for “intent” for something to be actively biased. If it’s passively biased, it’s just “sloppy jounalism”.
There is a one-sided assertion in your final paragraph, begging the question whether the BBC ever omits information that contradicts right-wing, industrial, integrationist, anti-EU or anti-UN worldviews… however aside from that I believe we can actually agree on the “it’s a bit of everything” position.
Alas the issue most people have with journalists is that if it’s done properly, then *nobody* ever gets the write-up they wanted in an article, and *everybody* complains about it, and mostly reacting by assuming the journalists are allied with their opposition.
As an aside, I still await a response to my “why not 1953?” question.
Pete_London: so you’re defending and permitting the selection of any arbitrary date, and then complaining about the actual one that the BBC *chose*?
Anyway: I would have thought that the creation of the totalitarian dictatorship in 1953 under Kim Il-Sung was an idea time to start a timeline. It defines where DPRK came from.
Incidentally – have you guys actually *read* the BBC timeline at which you and others here froth and complain?
It does not actually mention the “Axis of Evil” speech anywhere. The BBC timeline starts on Oct 3rd, 2002.
Load up the page, go look. Use your browser search function for either word Axis, or Evil.
However the Jan 29th 2002 speech *is* mentioned on the AP timeline, because it goes back further.
So I really must ask: what precisely are you complaining about with regard to the BBC, or did you just reflexively sympathise to the first comment in this forum, by “mick in the uk”, without checking the facts?
I saw a discussion on BBC News 24 last night on the subject of North Korea. They had a UK Korea-specialist academic in the studio (whose views were entirely predictable from his attire) and a Korean-American or Japanese-American woman from some US think tank on the video screen, whose view seemed to be that we should somehow make the North Korean people aware of what was going on so that they would apply internal political pressure on lil’Kim. After the discussion had proceeded for a while, the BBC presenter butted in with something like “But did not President Bush’s labelling of North Korea as part of the “Axis of Evil” just encourage them to speed up their nuclear weapons programme ?” Imagine my surprise when the UK expert agreed. And the American think tanker also agreed that it had been absolutely disastrous. This vigorous exchange of views concluded with the UK expert saying that this had been the worst decision by a US President since the Korean War, while the other two nodded in agreement.
“You missed out the requirement for “intent” for something to be actively biased”
Not true. Institutional bias requires no such intent. Just a biased world view which colours all BBC output. As the quote at the top of the blog states
“”It’s not a conspiracy. It’s visceral. They think they are on the middle ground”, Jeff Randall, former BBC Business Editor”
JG: Yes, I’ve just gone and read that article.
The URL is http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1686504,00.html if you want to review it.
The quote is a “soundbite” in text at the bottom, shorn of any context; I find it interesting to contrast it with other quotes from the same article:
* I fought the BBC’s bias against “toffee-nosed gits”.’
* ‘On the whole, they treated business as if it was a criminal activity. I was there to rattle cages and, if necessary, make myself unpopular to force business up the news agenda.’
* Because I was the first BBC business editor, the corporation accepted that how I did business journalism was the right way.
– the first of which suggests anti-elitism that would cause them to take pot-shots at anyone in government irrespective of political colour; the second of which expresses a potential for dynamic change rather than robust “institutionalism”, and the third moreso, in that he set a new agenda for business reporting.
So when he says “it’s visceral, they think they are the middle ground”, I suspect he’s reporting the truth.
Being visceral, any BBC bias would be unconscious.
Thinking that they are the middle ground is an affliction of anyone who takes potshots at everyone else.
So where’s the beef? Or is that quote in the sidebar just there because it sounds good out of context?
joc At least channel 4 had the good grace to show the Clinton efforts, but still managed to blame Bush for NK building the weapons.
Lee Moore “the BBC presenter butted in with something like “But did not President Bush’s labelling of North Korea as part of the “Axis of Evil” just encourage them to speed up their nuclear weapons programme ?”
& we had Humphrys interviewing Beckett on “Today” yesterday, where of course it was all to do with Iraq.
Isn’t it tiresome, the endless stream from BBC folk, & those they choose to interview, implying that all the crazies & tyrants in the world would become peaceable democrats if only Bush showed a little sensitivity?
They never seem to be required to come up with any specifics for world peace, except more meetings (just like in any bureaucracy, eh?).
Anyway, how come Iran went over to the crazies when that budding Nobel peace laureate Carter was president?
alecm: “If it’s passively biased, it’s just “sloppy jounalism”.”
I don’t disagree with that. However, part of the bias is a result of editorial policy. For example, avoiding the use of ‘terrorist’ and using the phrase ‘so-called War on Terror’.
And I think BBC sincerely believes it is doing a good thing by portraying the religion of islam in a positive light and downplaying the negative aspects. They probably think they are doing a service to the public by promoting understanding between communities.
alecm
OK, lets look at more from that article
“he holds the BBC in high regard. Even so, he was always going to clash spectacularly with what he regards as the corporation’s liberal-left consensus.
‘I never really felt like a BBC person. I was always an outsider looking in. I challenged a lot of values. There are certain issues the BBC regards as basic truths.’
The NHS is one example, he says. ‘Most people at the BBC would think it’s a good thing for the government to spend more money on the NHS and it goes unchallenged. There’s a section of opinion out there who think it’s throwing money down the drain.’ But surely the BBC’s journalists give the government a hard time? ‘They attack Labour ministers, but usually for not being sufficiently left-wing.’
Immigration is another bugbear for Randall. ‘At the risk of sounding immodest, I think I changed the terms of the debate. Whenever we had an anti-immigration interviewee, it was a Nazi with a tattoo on his face who looked like he’d just bitten the head off a cat. I pointed out that it’s the white working class who have to make immigration work. Immigrants don’t move to Hampstead, mate.'”
Hmmm, no evidence of bias you say?
Anybody want to check out alecms website can go here. Warning extremely boring.
http://www.crypticide.com/dropsafe/
alecm
whether it is unconscious bias or conscious bias, it is still bias and the BBC is STILL getting paid for PUBLISHING BIASED articles as “information.” Thus, in any case it is wrong and it is manipulating the public, whose intentions are of getting informed and learning facts, not getting bias as facts.
If you want to justify a wrong action because of good intentions, it does not change the fact that the action is wrong.
Besides, if the BBC had GOOD intentions they would not be sloppy or lazy in the first place because they would have aimed their articles at informing the public, and NOT at meeting a deadline, or being politically correct or finishing it as fast as possible.
Just went Jon, should have listened to you, zzzzzzzz!
Simply put, the timeline should begin at the time when NK decided to go for the bomb, not before and not after.
Whilst I’ll admit that GWB hasn’t exactly helped the situation it doesn’t give the BBC free reign to adapt the timeline to their own devices. Check this site thoroughly to see how often they try to blame Bush for all the world’s problems. It’s no wonder Chavez thinks that Bush is Satan, he’s been watching BBC World!
Don’t take this report to be excusive proof of BBC bias either. Read, not skim, all the previous threads and comments and then make your mind up. It’s definitely sloppy, lazy and incompetent journalism on a daily basis but when you look at the big picture it’s easy to see that broadcasting house should be one of the most photographed buildings in the world. After all, it does lean a lot more than the Tower of Pisa.
After all, it does lean a lot more than the Tower of Pisa.
billyquiz | 10.10.06 – 10:05 pm |
ha ha ha that’s a good analogy 🙂
If I’m reading alecm’s comments correctly, he claims that the BBC isn’t biased and, if on occasion it is, it’s just sloppy journalism. He is, I am sure, aware that the whole point of this blog is not solely that the BBC is biased but that we are compelled to pay for it.
Well alecm, you’ve asserted that sloppiness and bias are acceptable. Now convince me why I should be coerced into paying for them.
only “boring”? ha! it’s been called worse. 🙂
as for me, actually i claim something more complex, that any bias is – over the width of the whole BBC – unfocused, and over the course of time averages-out close to a zero-sum.
moreover i am unconvinced there is anything that could ever be called “unbiased” reporting, and more pertinently nobody, including yourselves, would ever be happy with it if there were.
hence the long-term irrelevance of all the hot air, here.
alecm,
Having descended on Lebanon and having shouted “Israeli war crimes” till it was hoarse, in the aftermath of the war the BBC finally got around to sending a lone World Service reporter to have a look at Kiryat Shmona, a northern Israeli town
“I see four or five damaged houses,” the BBC reporter lied.
Well, no, he didn’t actually lie. He just omitted to mention the other 1 995 or 1 996 damaged houses.
Unfocused bias? Give me a break. The BBC’s bias is conscious, relentless and practically incurable.
Quote from the BBC regarding Kiryat Shimona.
Article continues at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5264594.stm
So you were trying to make a point… ?
Ah, it seems that HaloScan swallows anglebrackets even outside the context of HTML syntax – fair enough, if awkward.
The aforementioned BBC article reads:
Quote: Just a mile and a half east of the Lebanese border, the city was battered by at least 1,000 missiles, more than anywhere else in Israel.
The battle scars are evident everywhere – shattered roofs, pock-marked walls, buildings in a state of collapse – and the residents are shell-shocked and exhausted.
Sandwiched between the Golan Heights and the Naftali Hills, Kiryat Shmona has for years been on the front line of Israel’s skirmishes with militants in south Lebanon.
It has been hit by so many rockets since the 1960s that locally the city has earned the nickname “Kiryat Katyusha”. Ironically, it is this very affliction which ultimately proved the city’s saving grace – despite the relentless bombardment in the latest conflict, Kiryat Shmona did not suffer a single casualty.
“It’s sad to say but this place is used to Katyushas. When the war started, everyone went straight into the shelters because they knew exactly what to do,” said Ofer Adar, a city official. “The missiles didn’t find anyone in their homes or on the streets, and as a result everyone survived.”
alecm,
You didn’t have to reproduce anything. The link worked fine. I remember that article. I believe I commented at the time that it was a fair reflection of what was going on in Kyriat Shmona with no anti-Israel agenda – unlike the vast bulk of BBC reporting on the Israel-Hezbollah war. (Yes, we do give the BBC credit where it’s due here.)
In my post above I objected to what amounted to blatant propaganda by omission of pertinent facts. The World Service reaches millions of people, many without access to the internet and who therefore would not have seen the article.
The BBC’s occasional fair representation of facts does little to counteract its overwhelming bias. It reported on the Israel-Hezbollah war overall like your average state-controlled media in a Muslim dictatorship. It was an absolute disgrace.
There’s abundant evidence on this site and others to that effect if you care to check.