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.
(UPDATE: I’ve bumped the timestamp on this open thread forward rather than start a new one so soon. Several new posts below.)
The BBC and half a story;
An update ref the driving whislt blind as a bat saga;
Blind driver’s instructor jailed
A man who instructed a driver who had lost his eyesight has been sent to prison for nine months.
Dlear Ahmed, 21, formerly of Andrew Gardens, Handsworth, Birmingham, admitted at Wolverhampton Crown Court aiding and abetting dangerous driving. Police stopped Ahmed and driver Omed Aziz in Oldbury in April after seeing the car being driven erratically. Judge Nicholas Webb told Ahmed it defied comprehension that a blind man should be encouraged to drive.
Ahmed was also banned from driving for five years. Aziz, 31, from Darlastan, who lost his eyesight in an explosion, was earlier given a suspended prison sentence for dangerous driving.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6034765.stm
and the Daily mirror version;
AN immigrant facing deportation was jailed yesterday for helping a BLIND man to drive.
Dlear Ahmed, 21, guided Omed Aziz for half mile as they repeatedly swerved across the road.
The pair were stopped last April in a Peugeot 406 on the ring route at Old bury, West Mids. The Iraqi-born dad got nine months at Wolver-hampton crown court for aiding and abetting dangerous driving. Ahmed is already appealing against being booted out of Britain for driving while disqualified and carrying a weapon. Last week Aziz, 31, of Darlaston, West Mids, was given a 12-week suspended sentence and banned for three years.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=blind-ride-nut-jailed-%26method=full%26objectid=17900744%26siteid=94762-name_page.html
It appears the BBC is presuming that all of us are blind when it comes to the news.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6037715.stm
“In the absence of the internet and satellite dishes, the only way for many North Koreans to sidestep the official propaganda is to tune into Korean-language broadcasts from foreign radio stations.
However, North Koreans caught listening to these broadcasts risk harsh punishments, such as forced labour.”
Don’t give the BBC ideas Kim Jong-il.
The BBC and rules for tools;
Taken from reporters without frontiers;
Islamic courts try to impose draconian rules on Mogadishu media
A list of 13 rules of conduct for the privately-owned media which the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) gave to journalists in Mogadishu on 8 October was condemned as completely unacceptable by Reporters Without Borders today.
“The result of this draconian charter which Mogadishu’s new masters want to impose on Somalia’s journalists would be a gagged, obedient press, one constrained by threats to sing the praises of the Islamic courts and their vision of the world and Somalia,” the press freedom organisation said.”
The 13 rules are:
1. The media must not publish or disseminate information contrary to the Muslim religion, the public interest or the interest of the nation.
2. The media must not disseminate information likely to create conflicts between the population and the Council of Islamic Courts.
3. The media may reproduce information obtained from credible sources, but must reveal the identity of the sources.
4. The media must cooperate with the information bureau of the Council of Islamic Courts.
5. Media directors are responsible for the news and programmes they disseminate.
6. Each media must have a physical address and contact details.
7. The media must not serve foreign interests.
8. Media employees must have good professional training and must respect professional ethics and conduct.
9. The media must not participate in seminars or programmes supported by foreign organisations without express permission from the information bureau of the Council of Islamic Courts.
10. The media must not publish or disseminate elements of a foreign culture contrary to Islamic culture or promoting bad behaviour, such as nudity on film.
11. A media cannot work in areas controlled by the Islamic courts without previously registering with the information and propaganda bureau of the Islamic courts.
12. If media are guilty of misconduct, they must make amends.
13. The media must not employ the terms which infidels use to refer to Muslims such as ‘terrorists,’ ‘extremists’ etc.
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19135
Good to see that the BBC doesn’t need to change its reporting stance at all.
and here is something that while a spoof is nearer to the truth than the BBC could ever be;
http://www.deadbrain.co.uk/news/article_2006_10_05_3918.php
Bryan | 11.10.06 – 8:34 am
Try reading the article, not just the headline. In the case in point:
“died in the attacks on black African villages” is in para 2, while:
“Sudan has always denied backing the Arab militias ”
is the very next line.
So the two points you keep saying are so important are both made near the top of the story.
In this case the collusion of the Sudan government was the peg. That’s why that came first.
The BBC and half a story;
Bachelet to visit torture camp
Chilean President Michelle Bachelet will visit the detention centre where she was tortured in the 1970s.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6038950.stm
Did anybody pick up this little snippet right at the bottom of the story;
On Wednesday Ms Bachelet also said she does not believe a military cooperation agreement between neighbouring Bolivia and Venezuela posed a threat to Chile’s national security.
Military co-operation BBC?
Here is how Lima sees that military co-operation.
“Peru, like Chile, is worried about a military alliance between Venezuela and Bolivia. The Peruvian Congress summoned Foreign Minister José García Belaúnde to brief on the extent of such an agreement that has prompted “suspicions and mistrust,” authorities in Lima said.”
http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/10/10/en_pol_art_10A788947.shtml
and here is the view from Santiago;
(October 10, 2006) Chilean officials have expressed growing concern about a military agreement between Bolivia and Venezuela that envisions construction of 24 military bases along Bolivia’s borders.
In the agreement, signed last May, Venezuela promises to fund and advise Bolivia’s military and to help coordinate military strategy between the two nations. According to the agreement, the aim is to “improve and complete the defense capacities of each country.”The military bases will be built along Bolivia’s borders with Perú, Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina and Chile. The first two bases will be placed at the Paraguayan and Brazilian borders, costing some US$49 million, paid for by Venezuela. Later, Chile will be facing a military base at its border with Bolivia on the Silala River.
The most controversial clause in the document is the ambiguous “Article 4,” which gives Chávez the power to intervene in Bolivia in times of crisis, and vice versa..
http://www.tcgnews.com/santiagotimes/index.php?nav=story&story_id=11798&topic_id=1
Now why would Chile and Peru get all upset about ‘Morales ‘ playing two little boys with ‘Chavez’
Could it be that Boliva would like to regain the land it lost to Chile during the Saltpetre war? And that Chavez upset at how his money and support failed to put his man in the chair in the recent elections wishes to put the scare on Peru.
I mean why else would Boliva wish to build military forts on the border with those two?
But here taken from my last link is how the rest of South America are looking at these two;
”Chávez’s close relationship with Cuba’s Fidel Castro has provoked fears that military agreement could be part of a greater alliance directed from Havana that could destabilize the southern continent. Chilean Sen. Roberto Muñoz Barra, of the Party for Democracy, has gone so far as to say that the aim of the alliance is to promote Bolivian-style revolution in other South American countries.”
The BBC and really half a story.
Correction;
The BBC and half a story;
Bachelet to visit torture camp
Chilean President Michelle Bachelet will visit the detention centre where she was tortured in the 1970s.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6038950.stm
Did anybody pick up this little snippet right at the bottom of the story;
On Wednesday Ms Bachelet also said she does not believe a military cooperation agreement between neighbouring Bolivia and Venezuela posed a threat to Chile’s national security.
Military co-operation BBC?
Here is how Lima sees that military co-operation.
“Peru, like Chile, is worried about a military alliance between Venezuela and Bolivia. The Peruvian Congress summoned Foreign Minister José García Belaúnde to brief on the extent of such an agreement that has prompted “suspicions and mistrust,” authorities in Lima said.”
http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/10/10/en_pol_art_10A788947.shtml
and here is the view from Santiago;
(October 10, 2006) Chilean officials have expressed growing concern about a military agreement between Bolivia and Venezuela that envisions construction of 24 military bases along Bolivia’s borders.
In the agreement, signed last May, Venezuela promises to fund and advise Bolivia’s military and to help coordinate military strategy between the two nations. According to the agreement, the aim is to “improve and complete the defense capacities of each country.”The military bases will be built along Bolivia’s borders with Perú, Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina and Chile. The first two bases will be placed at the Paraguayan and Brazilian borders, costing some US$49 million, paid for by Venezuela. Later, Chile will be facing a military base at its border with Bolivia on the Silala River.
The most controversial clause in the document is the ambiguous “Article 4,” which gives Chávez the power to intervene in Bolivia in times of crisis, and vice versa..
http://www.tcgnews.com/santiagotimes/index.php?nav=story&story_id=11798&topic_id=1
Now why would Chile and Peru get all upset about ‘Morales ‘ playing two little boys with ‘Chavez’
Could it be that Boliva would like to regain the land it lost to Chile during the Saltpetre war? And that Chavez upset at how his money and support failed to put his man in the chair in the recent elections wishes to put the scare on Peru.
I mean why else would Boliva wish to build military forts on the border with those two?
But here taken from my last link is how the rest of South America are looking at these two;
“Chávez’s close relationship with Cuba’s Fidel Castro has provoked fears that military agreement could be part of a greater alliance directed from Havana that could destabilize the southern continent. Chilean Sen. Roberto Muñoz Barra, of the Party for Democracy, has gone so far as to say that the aim of the alliance is to promote Bolivian-style revolution in other South American countries.”
The BBC and really half a story.
Hurrah! “It’s” is now “Its”!
The power of biased-BBC.
Back to pedants’ corner for me…
John Reith,
Strange that you would think I didn’t read the article. Of course I read it. I don’t comment blind. And I took into account the points you mentioned. The BBC is beginning to act in a very peculiar fashion re Darfur. It starts to report what is actually going on there, but then it pulls back, as if from the brink. You might have noticed that I gave it some rare praise here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116041137029483371/#311317
amimissingsomething responded here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116041137029483371/#311327
On the World Service yesterday they had a clip on Sudan, part of which was gleaned from an aged article on the website that dealt (honestly, I concede) with personal accounts of two Africans from two separate tribes, one of which was the Fur tribe, of the wholesale massacre of Africans by Arabs. The Fur tribesman described the attitude of the police who, though nearby, habitually take ages to arrive and then, instead of tracking down the Arab attackers, question the Africans as to where they’d got hold of weapons to (inadequately) defend themselves.
Well and good, though I don’t see why the BBC journalists can’t get hold of more recent first-hand accounts since it’s their job. But then, instead of expanding on these themes in a subsequent analysis, the reporter took us through some of the complexities of the conflict for quite some time without once mentioning the racial dimension to the attempted genocide or exploring the oil factor.
Racial purging and oil are the main points here. And I reiterate, in common with pounce, that the BBC is curiously reluctant to explore these issues.
So, in addition to simply quoting a UN report on the massacres, maybe the BBC would like to bring us some of its famed background analysis, this time examining the racial and religious (Muslim against Muslim) aspects to the massacres and letting us know where and how and why China and oil come into the picture. Come on BBC, let’s have some real journalism here.
Oh, and Mr. Reith, for goodness sake do something about your headline writers.
John Reith
Popped back again have you? Well make yourself useful and enlighten me. Here’s a ‘thisworld’ piece analysing the prospects of an Israeli attack against Iran. Indeed, its introduction states: This World investigates the debate going on in Israel about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear project, which divides the diplomatic world.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/5409816.stm
What follows is pretty much even handed. Just one thing – why did the BBC see fit to accompany the piece with a photograph of a ‘so-called’ Israeli bomb attack on a Beirut ‘suburb’? Relevence please?
Charlie,
Funny thing is, when I read your first post, I thought they would stealth edit the it’s.
Ain’t no doubt by now that they monitor this site quite closely.
They should damn well reimburse us for our trouble.
Pete_London,
It’ll take Mr. Reith a couple of months to answer that one!
Would the fact that Al-Beeb has been given permission to run a stool-pigeon service for the Islamofascists in Teheran have anything to do with Al-Beeb having bradcast its ghastly “Iran Uncovered” series on Radio 4 recently? It was probably the most remarkable exercise in self-deception since, oh, the description of Hezbollah terrorists as “civilians”.
Rueful Red, a month or so ago there was some news on the blogosphere about the BBC doing some kind of major deal with Iran. If we are really charitable (we’re not of course) we could pass most BBC bias off to an endemic, unwitting favouritism of the liberal, left, statist, anti-US and Israel, pro-EU as a way of getting at the US stance that they might not know they’re doing; but these deals with Iran raise a far more serious issue of impartiality.
Has the BBC been deliberately misreporting the facts – either by half-truths or omission – in order to smooth the process of the deal; does the nature of the deal mean that we can expect impartial coverage on Iran with criticism and negative reporting where necessary?
As a tax-funded organisation, all the information on this should be in the public domain, and we should be entitled to full and honest answers on it.
I won’t hold my breath though.
The BBC and the sum of extrapolation;
In mathematics, extrapolation is the process of constructing new data points outside a discrete set of known data points. It is similar to the process of interpolation, which constructs new points between known points, but its results are often less meaningful, and are subject to greater uncertainty.
Iraqi war death toll ‘at 655,000’
An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion, according to a survey by a US university. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6040054.stm
And which University has come to the above findings?
John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Heath,
Why only the same Uni which 2 years said this;
” Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a “climate of violence” have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3962969.stm
So let me look at that again. 2 years ago the death toll in Iraq was 100,000 and now it is 655,000. ½ Mil deaths in 2 years BBC.
And how did they come to that vastly figure BBC? Extrapolation
“Researchers spoke to nearly 1,850 families, comprising more than 12,800 people in dozens of 40-household clusters around the country. Of the 629 deaths they recorded among these families, 13% took place in the 14 months before the invasion and 87% in the 40 months afterwards. Such a trend repeated nationwide would indicate a rise in annual death rates from 5.5 per 1,000 to 13.3 per 1,000.”
In case anybody didn’t read the last report. (I did) the figures included deaths at hospitals of complicated births. Criminal acts such as muggings, home accidents and even the beating to death of one man by Saddams police before the invasion.
Put another way BBC by using extrapolation and the criminal acts of a few misguided idiots last July in London can I presume that all Muslims are terrorists?
More to come when that report is aired.
Israeli bomb attack on a Beirut ‘suburb’? Relevence please?
Pete_London | 11.10.06 – 12:31 pm
I dunno why they chose that pic. So here’s some speculation:
1. Because there were no dramatic pics of Israel’s strike on Iraq’s Osirak facility (which would have been most apt)……
2. ….so they settled for a pic that confirmed Israel’s willingness to project air power abroad when it feels it necessary….(not SO apt; but not irrelevant).
Why don’t you write and ask the picture editor?
Bryan
“If you’re listening, you can’t compare the BNP (or, in this case ex-BNP) to Muslims”
Ah for once we can agree ! But they can be compared to violent racists which some muslims are too.
“The vast majority of terror around the world is Islamic terror.”
Is it now ? How do you define terrorism ? Is it the use of violence to frighten opponents to acquiesce in order to acheive political goals, or would it be the assasination of leading figures of a movement ideoligically opposed to your own ? Anyway, on what evidence do you base your claims ? There are millions of chinese and north koreans who so far as I’m concerned are not muslims and are victims of state terrorism.
“The problem with you Muslim-friendly crowd on the left is that you have lost the ability to discriminate – if you ever had it in the first place.”
On the contrary – they problem with YOU is that you discrminate against millions and millions of people because they are muslims. Feeling uneasy about what is effectively little more than glorified racism does not make someone a “left wing loony”.
“And God gave us the capacity..”
Watch it there, you’re giving a bit much of you’re typically boring and predictable conservative self away.
There certainly are stills of the Osirak plant – I remember them well. Al-Beeb couldn’t be a*sed to access them?
Or would it rather present Israel as being serial suburb-bombers?
Really, they’re getting close to the confines of reason.
I’m reading the current fuss about people being in prison ‘who shouldn’t be there’. Lord Phillips added his tuppence worth and I have to ask whether people like him live in the real world. However, one must also ask whether he may have a small point and consider how many are in jail as a result of not paying the TV tax. Can anyone advise?
I’ll bet that the liberals who run the BBC don’t take their liberal beliefs as far as not jailing non-payers of the TV tax.
I dunno why they chose that pic. So here’s some speculation:
1. Because there were no dramatic pics of Israel’s strike on Iraq’s Osirak facility (which would have been most apt)……
John Reith | 11.10.06 – 1:23 pm
There’s some very ‘dramatic’ cockpit footage of the IAF hitting Osirak!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4774733.stm
Cockpit footage
Lefty discussion style in its purest form:
“Ah for once we can agree ! But they can be compared to violent racists which some muslims are too.
1) Demonstrate moral equivalence
“Is it now ? How do you define terrorism ? Is it the use of violence to frighten opponents to acquiesce in order to acheive political goals, or would it be the assasination of leading figures of a movement ideoligically opposed to your own ? Anyway, on what evidence do you base your claims ? There are millions of chinese and north koreans who so far as I’m concerned are not muslims and are victims of state terrorism. ”
2) Further demonstrate moral equivalence, blur the issue and introduce irrelevant sidetracks to the discussion.
“On the contrary – they problem with YOU is that you discrminate against millions and millions of people because they are muslims. Feeling uneasy about what is effectively little more than glorified racism does not make someone a “left wing loony”.
3) Demonstrate your own moral superiority.
“Watch it there, you’re giving a bit much of you’re typically boring and predictable conservative self away.”
4) Execute character assassination.
“The vast majority of terror around the world is Islamic terror.”
Is it now ?
Anon | 11.10.06 – 1:30 pm
Yes it is.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
OT:
Doughty street interview with Aussie PM John Howard is now available in both streaming and downloadable formats..
http://www.18doughtystreet.com/blog/?p=75
Anon wrote;
“is it now? How do you define terrorism? Is it the use of violence to frighten opponents to acquiesce in order to achieve political goals, or would it be the assassination of leading figures of a movement ideologically opposed to your own? Anyway, on what evidence do you base your claims? There are millions of Chinese and North Koreans who so far as I’m concerned are not Muslims and are victims of state terrorism.”
Sir, the question you answered with the above was the following;
“”The vast majority of terror around the world is Islamic terror.”
The last I looked China and Korea are not the world.
Biodegradable –
Thanks for the link to the BBC footage of the Israeli Air Force attack on Osirak.
John Reith –
So I ask again, why would the BBC use a photograph of a rather large explosion, attributed to the Israelis and apparently in a Beirut suburb, to accompany a piece on the prospects of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities?
Alan Mann
What exactly is the problem with an attempt to demostrate moral equivalence when Bryan was trying to suggest that one form of supremism/racism is better than another. You’ll have to do better than simply trotting off a few glib cliches.
“Lefty discussion style in its purest form:
Since you are such an accomplisehed linguist, you should have realised that bleating about character assasination is somewhat dim witted when you open your post with an attempt to discredit it’s author.
Pounce
the clue is in the word “millions”.
“On the contrary – they problem with YOU is that you discrminate against millions and millions of people because they are muslims. Feeling uneasy about what is effectively little more than glorified [b]racism[/b] does not make someone a left wing loony”.
Islam is not a race.
And just because “millions and millions” of people follow it, doesnt make it , as an ideology, any more valid.
Pete_London | 11.10.06 – 2:12 pm
Beats me.
Maybe whoever did it was too young to remember Osirak, but old enough (just?) to remember Lebanon ’06.
Anon, are you the same anon who several days ago said that hizb., hamas and 7/7 bombers were not terrorists because not everybody thought so but who is now saying that the Chinese and Korean governments are terrorists because you think so.
Discussion and debate are great but not with you I’m afraid.
I caught the end of a BBC2 documentary last night about a possible Israeli strike against Iran. Just thought that Pete_London and John Reith would like to know that they did indeed use footage of the aftermath of the raid against the Osirak nuclear facility to illustrate the point that the Israelis act in their own, national self-interest.
(Apologies posted this on the other board by mistake. Cat came in all wet and sat on the table in front of the screen like only cats can)
Anon wrote;
“the clue is in the word “millions”.
Nice try,But you simply moved the goalposts in which to support your stance.
Trying to equate anybody who speaks out against Islamic terrorism doesn’t mean he is wrong, it means he is currently discussing a hot topic around the world;
But if you wish to play the numbers game I can do just that using the BBC as my cornerstone;
United Kingdom 1.5 million Muslims;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6039496.stm
Somalia 9 million Muslims
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6032907.stm
Iran 68 million muslims;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6038932.stm
Syria 15 million Muslims
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6034665.stm
Bangladesh 145 million Muslims
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4161786.stm
Pakistan 160 million Muslims
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6038206.stm
The above are but a small selection of the worlds Muslims. Yet each and everyone of those Muslims risks getting killed if he/she leaves the faith. Now they are 1.5 Billion Muslims on this planet. You mentioned State sponsored terrorism. How about religious sponsored terrorism which refuses the right to self determination to everyone of those 1.5 billion people.
Before you play the numbers games it kind of helps if you can count.
P.S
How many Koreans and Chinese did you see up in arms over Charlie and the chocolate factory/Nobel House and Flash Gordon.
I rest my case.
Francis That’s fine, I’m sure I wouldn’t learn a great deal from you anyway. For what I thought it would seem pretty obvious from all my arguments that I’m attempting to underline how nebulous a term “terrorism” has become.
pounce
Please explain how counting the number of muslims in the world defeats the argument that more people suffer at the hands of the chinese government than there are islamic terrorists ? That’s the point, sorry if you thought I moved the goalposts.
I posted this on another thread but being as though people are discussing the Iran/Israel program last night, this is how the radio times described it.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116046778480519770/#311426
It’s amazing, even Iran says it has nuclear weapons but the BBC still won’t tell it as it is.
Cash help to root out extremism
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6039496.stm
“Muslim groups which prove they are trying to outlaw extremism within their ranks are to receive financial support, Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly says.”
I thought it wouldn’t be too long before we started subsidising mosques and ‘muslim groups’. We’ve (the UK taxpayer) been sending £millions to the Palestinian Authority for years – that’s really helped the security situation there hasn’t it?
Will the left ever learn?
Totally OT
From Bryan “The Fur tribesman described the attitude of the police who, though nearby, habitually take ages to arrive and then, instead of tracking down the Arab attackers, question the Africans as to where they’d got hold of weapons to (inadequately) defend themselves”
Doesn’t that remind you of this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/10/nswear10.xml
Just a thought.
I once popsted on here that Moqtada al-Sadr’s rise following the Iraqi elections was evidence of the failure of US policy there, given his previously professed hatred of america. I was rounded upon because a less selective interpretation of his utterances reveals contradictory messages, and therefore one couldn’t really assume he was anti-american at all but just an opportunist.
Isn’t this exactly the same as is going on with Irans nuclear claims and counter claims ?
Ritter
“Muslim groups which prove they are trying to outlaw extremism within their ranks are to receive financial support, Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly says.”
It’s a startling admission for the government to say, in effect, that the only way to get Muslim organisations to outlaw Muslim extremism is to bribe them (with taxpayers’ money BTW).
Re more funding of Muslim groups: I assume that, in accordance with present practice, the proof (as in “Muslim groups which prove . . .) will be judged by “leaders of the community” which completes a very satisfying circularity in the disbursement and control of taxpayers’ money.
Francis – I’ve not seen anyone claim Iran has nuclear weapons. Care to enlighten us?
I’d be the first to admit that the BBC is perceptably left of centre in much of it’s coverage. It irritates me when they drop in sentances like “the only country to suffer nuclear attack” when discussing Japans response to NK’s claimed nuclear test. But scouring their output for this sort of thing is like shooting fish in a barrel.
My beef with this site is that by the same standards e.g. todays condemnation that the BBC wont drop the word “alledged” when covering news about Irans nuclear weapons programme, then there are very few elements of the media that could not be considered equally if not more bias. It’s my opinion that most of the commentators on this site are pretty far to the right and really most of the discussion centres around Israel and a universal hatred of Islam and Muslims.
Equally, if the BBC did espouse the views of people on this site then I expect that you wouldn’t all be so keen to attack its “Bias”. Correct me if I’m wrong. You are perfectly entitled to their opinion, but the name of this site hardly justifies or suggests the anti-islamic far right enoch powel-esque scare mongering that goes in. Complaints regarding the nature of the licence fee are perfectly valid but a different matter than scrutinising the BBC’s output for evidence of support for islamic fundamentalism and the trotskyist leanings of it’s journalists. Personally, I think the BBC are fairly liberal in their output and they pretty well reflect the generally liberal and welcoming nature of the majority of britons to other cultures. It’s far fetched to say they support islamic fundamentalism. If you don’t like the BBC, don’t watch it and protest to your MP about the licence fee,
You’d get much much more support if licence fee abolition was your goal rather than attempting to destroy the credibilty of the entire BBC and all of its journalists.
Anon wrote;
“Equally, if the BBC did espouse the views of people on this site then I expect that you wouldn’t all be so keen to attack its “Bias”. Correct me if I’m wrong. You are perfectly entitled to their opinion, but the name of this site hardly justifies or suggests the anti-islamic far right enoch powel-esque scare mongering that goes in.
Hang on there. The vast majority of posters here bitch about how the BBC whites washes Islamic terrorism. Exposing the bias the BBC shows towards Islam doesn’t make them guilty of being racist (myself included) it makes us guilty of asking why the BBC refuses to acknowledge that Muslims can be guilty of racial hatred just like everybody else.
I’m sure you’ll agree that John Simpson’s descriptions of the Terrorists who killed over 52 people in London last year as misguided criminals was wrong, as was the hatful audience on questions after the WTC and the London bombings.
Please feel free to refer to me as a racist. The irony being according to the BBC I can’t be.
As for this;
If you don’t like the BBC, don’t watch it and protest to your MP about the licence fee,
Yer having a giraffe.
My beef with this site is that by the same standards e.g. todays condemnation that the BBC wont drop the word “alledged” when covering news about Irans nuclear weapons programme …..
The exasperation comes from watching the BBC over a period of time and seeing how it throws around such terms without reciprocation. EG:
Israel’s nuclear programme
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3340639.stm
While Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons, few international experts question the Jewish state’s presence on the world’s list of nuclear powers.Its nuclear capability is arguably the most secretive weapons of mass destruction programme in the world. Unlike Iran and North Korea – two countries whose alleged nuclear ambitions have recently come to the fore – Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, designed to prevent the global spread of nuclear weapons.
You see? Israel – certainty. Iran/North Korea – ‘alleged’. And for good measure, insunuate that Israel has no regard for nuclear proliferation whilst Iran and North Korea, signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, are. A complete inversion of morality and truth in a couple of sentences. If I were a liberal I’d be proud of producing nonsense such as this.
Correction
Pounce wrote;
“as was the hatful audience on questions after the WTC and the London bombings.”
Insert ‘Time’
after Question
But you see, that sentance could be interpreted as either suggesting that Israel have no regard for international efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, or simply evidence to support the claim that Israel doesn have nuclear weapons. A claim even you would admit is almost certainly true. Bias is everywhere you look for it.
Cockney
Sorry, meant to say even Iran says it has an ‘atomic weapons programme’.
This is easily found, even on the BBC site
The BBC is correct to use the word ‘alleged’ in relation to Iran (but no longer in relation to N. Korea!) because Iran denies its alleged nuclear ambitions:
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-09-21-voa55.cfm
We can believe it or not as in:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/27/newsid_3756000/3756462.stm
Israel does not deny having such weapons.
Anon –
But you see, that sentance could be interpreted as either suggesting that Israel have no regard for international efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, or simply evidence to support the claim that Israel doesn have nuclear weapons. A claim even you would admit is almost certainly true.
I have no idea if it’s true. All I can say is that it is sometimes ‘alleged’. Too-shay.
The BBC is correct to use the word ‘alleged’ in relation to Iran (but no longer in relation to N. Korea!) because Iran denies its alleged nuclear ambitions
Khamenei defends nuclear ‘right’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6038932.stm
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, says the country will continue developing nuclear technology.
I look forward to the BBC reporting on Iran’s ‘alleged’ nuclear programme, ‘alleged’ by Iran that is.
Pete – pull the other one. In no way was that speech an admission that they Iran wants to build nuclear weapons. The difference here is that wheras Iran explicitly denies having or pursuing nuclear weapons, Israel does not.
For a man who spends much of his time taking a great interest in history and current affairs, I don’t belive that you have “no idea” whether Israel has nuclear weapons or not. Anyway, this is getting away from my point.
I see somebody at the BBC has a Bee in his Bonnet over British troops getting a tax break. By posting this board on HYS;
Should armed forces get extra payment?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=4193&start=0&&&edition=1&ttl=20061011164352
Funny thing is I don’t see anybody posting a similar article when it comes to financial arrangements for the faithful. Shria mortgage anyone.
P.S
Ref the above it’s a bloody joke.
I did my second tour of the Falklands in 1983.
The Government turned round and said anybody who went down twice within 2 years would get a huge bonus. I (as did a few others) didn’t qualify. Why? Because our first tour was before the start date. Silly me thinking I was to become rich.
P.P.S
In Germany I paid the Poll Tax. Only problem was, I lived on a camp and German civvies emptied our bins. (We picked up litter and swept the camp) Yet teachers and the like didn’t pay.
P.P.S
Hell I even got a mess bill when I was in Bosnia with the Rapid reaction force.
“Schindler’s” anyone (private joke amongst those who were out there)
The RSM sent me a snot-a-gram demanding to know if I was going to pay for using his mess.
The BBC asks;
Over the top?
So how interested are you in North Korea apparently carrying out a nuclear test? We had a heated debate in our editorial meetings. Did we do too much?
I’m responsible for the Six O’Clock News, where we did 11-and-a-half minutes. ITN did more than that, partly because they were opening their new Bejing bureau I suspect. But was this a really significant story you wanted to have explained in depth? Or was it interesting but frankly four or five minutes would have been better? I’d very much like your views. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
Hang on; this is the same public news agency which spent almost a month of Sundays debating the bloody Veil?
And here is how the very same editor’s blog answered the critics of that little BBC endeavour
“.I happened to overhear a BBC editor saying “these Muslim stories are like buses – they all come along at once”. I suppose it might have been expressed more sensitively but you get the point – there were a lot of stories about Islam in the news yesterday.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/too_many_muslim_stories.html
I wonder how Declan Patrick MacManus would describe the above?
http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Elvis-Costello/I-Can-t-Stand-Up-For-Falling-Down.html
Well at least his aim is true…