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.
I don’t buy it, Knacker. One of the things that marks Brits out is a perpetual disatisfaction with the status quo. There’s absolutely no chance at all of the current bien pensant “consensus” lasting. Just watch.
“Brits generally are now so whipped and passive”
Or maybe we’re just perfectly happy with our extremely pleasant lives in our very nice country and don’t feel the need to constantly whine like a f**king jet engine or indulge in excessive god bothering. What are we denying exactly? Cheers for your concern though.
>Hilary Armstrong – Labour – leftwing
>Theresa May – Tory
>Chris Huhne – Lib Dem
>Hardeep Singh – Sikh actor, writer
>Salma Yaqoob – Respect.
>
>Hardeep Singh also presents Newsnight >Review, so he’s in the >liberal/elite/chatterati group.
>
>so , the left to right ratio , >assuming Theresa May is “right wing”, >is 4 to 1.
I’m sure I read in yesterday’s paper that historian Andrew Roberts was to be on the panel. I wonder what happened to him?
I had to switch QT off after about 5 minutes. I couldn’t take any more.
archduke | Homepage | 19.10.06 – 11:01 pm
but then, Ms May isnt on the right of the Tory party. so the real ratio is
5 – nil.
6 – nil, archduke, – you overlooked dimblebore.
“6 – nil, archduke, – you overlooked dimblebore.”
ah yes. of course.
and the veil thing is , groan, yet again, the front page headline
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
one wonders – arent there more important things going on in the world now?
Amazingly narrow subject coverage on QT. They spent over half an hour on the veil, and over ten minutes at the end on Iraq. There was a question on a celebrity adoption and not a lot else.
“but then, Ms May isnt on the right of the Tory party. so the real ratio is 5 – nil.”
Why posit “left” and “right” to suggest they are equals when the “right” component is clearly only a part of the mainstream right wing party?
Trolling eh. dave_t claims that human rights watch agreed with the IDF and said that it was almost certainly a Palestinian explosive store that caused the gaza beach incident. When I correct him, he obviously finds he can’t maintain his position so what happens ? The next post is from “bored_with_anon”. Followed by suggestions I change my moniker to “wanker”.
All this from such esteemed commentators who trade in “the truth” as well. I’d say I was surprised or disappointed, but this is generally what happens with you lot.
D Burbage | 20.10.06 – 10:34 am
Amazingly narrow subject coverage on QT. They spent over half an hour on the veil, and over ten minutes at the end on Iraq. There was a question on a celebrity adoption and not a lot else.
I might be being over-analytical (ie paranoid) here but I got the impression that they filled the front seats – the separate blocks at the left and right of the audience – with pro muslims.
Given that people have to fill in a questionnaire so that the beeb can ensure that there is a majority of lefties and muslims in any audience, are they also arranging where people should sit?
I am continually surprised by dimblebore’s amazing facility for picking lefties out of the audience and have always assumed that he had a map with “our people” marked out on it.
Given also that the questions are pre-selected and often worded so as to disparage the Conservative Party, I reckon the beeb have got this whole production pretty well all sewn up.
“Germany’s 16 states agreed on Thursday to introduce from January 1 a licence fee of 5.52 euros (3.70 pounds) a month on computers and mobile phones that can access television and radio programmes via the Internet.”
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/19102006/80-91/german-states-agree-phone-internet-licence-fee.html
I vow to damage any organisation that directly taxes the internet.
Anon, you seem to enjoy it, you keep coming back for more.
Do you self harm as well?
Did anyone notice on QT that one of the few people who questioned the veil (the muslim name escapes/doesn’t bother me) looked as though he’d just left the pub after a 3 day bender. He didn’t look like the sort of person who would apply to be in the audience. I suspect the BBC plucked this person off the street with his ‘extreme’ views so he could be made a fool of.
gordon-bennett | 20.10.06 – 11:15 am
“I got the impression that they filled the front seats – the separate blocks at the left and right of the audience – with pro muslims.”
And who were ‘they’, GB? Was it Mentorn, the independent production company that makes Question Time, or did the BBC send in its own crack team of bias enforcers?
“Given also that the questions are pre-selected and often worded so as to disparage the Conservative Party”
Well at least we can be sure it wasn’t Nick Pisani to blame this time. After editing QT for some years he left some months back to do the stage-management for the….er…Conservative Party conference, en-route to higher things.
“I might be being over-analytical (ie paranoid)”
You said it.
I had to switch QT off after about 5 minutes. I couldn’t take any more.
johnse18 | 20.10.06 – 10:00 am | #
I wish I had done the same….
Question Time had an air of unreality about it. I half expected to see Madonna’s baby David in the audience. Those angry semi-burka clad women reminded me of a scene from a Fellini film. I think there was a conscious editorial decision by the BBC to present a safe Liberal view. No doubt, the editors knowing semi-burka clad women and turbaned men would inhabit the audience they were very very weary of some kind of Jerry Springer moment unfolding and wanted to make sure that the whole evening was dampened down with a dhimmi wet sponge of cultural inevitability. Brave New Labour World. This moment was encapsulated by Mr Singh when he said words to the effect that “We are British, born here and we are here to stay”. Quite, I’m sure the BBC has asked him to stay around, maybe he can read the news now that the Sandhurst trained Mugabe’s brother lookalike has joined Al jazeera. Surely the question revolves around appropriate definitions and successful integration- strange how at such moments nobody likes to talk about Jewish integration, which is surely a model! Listening to Hilary Armstrong talk about how “things have changed in 20 years, 10 even” and that perplexed tone of a Labour social engineer who realises the experiment has produced a cultural Frankenstein, the whole Question Time studio took on that air of unreality, of pathetic individuals drowning, suffocating even. What was it Nietzsche said, that the people vomit up their bile and call them newspapers, what would he have called Question Time? I was reminded of a posted comment in The Guardian recently about the demise of multiculturalism and new projects :
“It’s far too late for that, the blue touch paper of the demographic time bomb has been lit. The clash of civilisations is now in our own backyard – You fools! “
John Reith
Apparantly you have the same morals as brokeback mountain and are a drunk and a bigot! Quel surprise!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/frontrow/past_programmes.shtml
Wednesday 18th October
Mark Lawson presenting
Under the Shadow of Reith
In the 80 years since John Reith became the BBC’s first director general, his name and reputation have over-shadowed his successors and shaped the debate about the values of the BBC and British broadcasting. But as a new biography (by Reith’s daughter Marista Leishman) suggests that he was an unbalanced and bigoted bully – should ‘Reithian values’ still be used as a measure of quality broadcasting?
Mr Reith, you really are a fool.
So this ‘independent production company’ doesn’t operate within guidelines set by the BBC?
Nick Pasani left ‘to do the stage-management’. IT’S A JOB, doesn’t mean he supports them. My boss is a raving socialist, I still work for him though, it helps pay the mortgage!
John Reith
Was it Mentorn, the independent production company that makes Question Time
I don’t know if you’ve ever had a job in the real world but when a contractor/’independent company’ does a job for a client, they do it to the client’s brief. Otherwise you lose the job and the contract. If you firmly believe Mentorn has carte blanche to produce whatever it wants then somebody has pulled the veil over your eyes.
John Reith writes:
“And who were ‘they’, GB? Was it Mentorn, the independent production company that makes Question Time, or did the BBC send in its own crack team of bias enforcers?”
So come on then, Reith. Instead of standing on the sidelines trying to score the occasional cheap point, why don’t you use some of that invaluable inside knowledge and explain to us just how your employer managed to come-up with an audience perceived to be about as representative of the British public as the average Baghdad omnibus?
“An Anon recently asked how the US networks were doing OK even though they followed the liberal MSM line.
NBC Universal plans to cut US$750 million in operating expenses by the end of 2007 by eliminating employees, cutting back on scripted shows, and slashing its news budget, according to a report Thursday in the Wall Street Journal”
Add to that the New York Times profits fell 39%.
Anon at 1058 obviously keeps missing things….
Garlasco the ‘expert’ was not trained in 155mm despite his claims that he had experience in Bosnia because they weren’t used there…..furthermore he left the Pentagon and moved to HRW immediately the Iraq War started. Strange chap – one moment part of the war machine but not as important as he claims, the next he’s the premier world expert on battlefield assessment. I’ll bet pounce being ex RE is more experienced than him!
“Last week, I called Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch, incredible. Why? Because as I wrote in an article by the same title; that a Military Intelligence buddy and former colleague of Mr. Garlasco deemed him technically incapable of rendering any bomb damage assessment. Especially on the hapless deaths of the eight Palestinians in the Gaza Beach mystery blast. They may have been killed by what IDF and forensic experts now believe could have been an explosive device like a landmine planted by Hamas to dissuade Israeli commandos from landing on the Gaza beach. Garlasco said in various news and TV news stories on the unfortunate event that he was “certain that the victims were killed by an errant 155MM shell.”
Another day another claim that Garlasco changes…
“Monday, June 19th, the ubiquitous media savvy Mr. Garlasco met with the IDF investigating team for a briefing on their investigations. Lots of knowing smiles all around after a two and one half hour meeting with Garlasco evinced about the evident professionalism in the findings and report of the IDF briefing team led by Major General Meir Klifi – head of the IDF inquiry commission.
But right there in a frankly confusing Jerusalem Post article entitled: “HRW: We can’t contradict IDF Findings,” Garlasco does it all over again . “We came to an agreement with General Klifi that the most likely cause [of the blast] was unexploded Israeli ordinance.” Make your mind up Marky boy!
Give me an expert who is impartial and qualified please…not a left winger funded by George Soros who changes with the story…
Anyway must dash – more important things to worry about than a scurvy knave who covers his/her identity online because he/she thinks we still have concentration camps in the UK or such like! Perhaps it is the same Anon who claimed to be posting from Beruit during the recent conflict but was found to be posting from the UK….
“When I correct him, he obviously finds he can’t maintain his position so what happens ? The next post is from “bored_with_anon”. Followed by suggestions I change my moniker to “wanker”.”
Unlike you dear boy/girl I never change my moniker. I do hope you are not trying to imply I did? Do have some Honour dear boy/girl. Some of us still play the game properly in a polite fashion despite the temptations.
AIW | 20.10.06 – 12:18 pm
Ah….so its stipulated in the contract is it?
I wonder how the operative clauses read?
‘The contractor undertakes to pack audiences with Muslims and select questions hostile to Tory interests in accordance with BBC editorial guidelines’.
Something like that?
Or is it all done by nods, winks, masonic handshakes?
And what happens when the indy loses the contract?
QT used to be made by Brook Lapping before Mentorn got the biz. What was the problem? Not biased enough?
Get real. Media folk can’t keep a secret for five minutes. Your conspiracy theories are too silly for words.
News24 deskpersons read out a selection of viewers’ e-mails re the veil & explain that all oppose the wearing of the veil because they had not received a single e-mail in support of the teaching assistant’s stance.
& the next item – we go over to Luton to hear a community person speaking in favour of veil wearing.
I am sure that the sight of that black sack at yesterday’s press conference will have done the cause of Islamic fundamentalism no favours with the majority population, who will be becoming more & more aware of the BBC taking a position against majority opinion.
For the QT edition immediately following 9/11, what were the criteria for selection of the audience?
Please respond JR and bear in mind that said edition was seen by contributors to this site.
Hmm, no audience selection in QT eh?
Saturday, 15 September, 2001, 17:15 GMT 18:15 UK
BBC chief apologises for terror debate
“The BBC’s Media Correspondent, Nick Higham, said there was a recognition in the corporation that the audience could have been more representative of wider opinion.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1544897.stm
John Reith writes:
“Your conspiracy theories are too silly for words.”
Jeff Randall writes:
“It’s not a conspiracy. It’s visceral. They think they are on the middle ground”.
John Reith,
are you saying the audience isn’t picked?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1544897.stm
From the above and from the BBC
The aim of the programme, which picks audiences to get a broad range of political views….
Can you at least admit that audiences ARE picked and that when they are picked there may just be the slight possibility that they could be picked in favour of one political stance….
And who do you think picks the audience, is it the ‘independent company’?
Oxymoron on Desert Island Discs:
Robert Fisk:
Favourite song
No.8. Hatikiva • the national anthem of Israel.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/desertislanddiscs.shtml
Luxury item
Tin of Xyklon B
re.anon/dave.t/bored with anon.
………………………………
actually it was me,i normally post as
s.h but i changed it to bored with anon for a giggle,sorry about that,
but you do go on a bit.as for the w**nker thing,i was just being childish,sorry.
….then somebody has pulled the veil over your eyes.
AIW | 20.10.06 – 12:18 pm
It used to be wool, of course, but in today’s UK the veil works really well in that expression.
John Reith must have faked his death. Now, all these years later, he’s still doing his nasty thing – with the added advantage of the internet.
He’s getting a bit long in the tooth.
Re the make up of the audience in Question Time: Muslims have perfected the art of riding on the back of white, ex-colonialist, multiculti guilt in order to promote their agenda. No doubt they clamour to be admitted to Question Time – much like early morning shoppers outside a department store sale. What’s the BBC’s admission policy? First come, first served? No Muslim turned away? Come on John Reith – you like the little details. So instead of claiming to be able to tell us what the BBC is not doing
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116109198026990418/#313375
how about telling us what it is doing?
One thing struck me forcefully about the headscarf-wearing crew ensconsed in the front rows and the “Respect” member of the panel: they all looked desperately unhappy. You could even discern that much in the veiled ones: they had haunted eyes. And as for their voices….
Common sense views in the majority…
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=4272&edition=1&ttl=20061020133113&#paginator
AIW, GCooper et al
This edition of QT came from Preston. Preston has a 10% Muslim population, but adjacent Blackburn (which would be within the programme’s audience catchment area) has a Muslim population of 25%.
So you’d expect the audience make-up to reflect this • and though GCooper says it was about as representative of the UK population as a Baghdad omnibus, it was pretty representative of that part of NW England.
http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=789309&c=blackburn&d=27&e=16&g=388646&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&enc=1&dsFamilyId=95
http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=789356&c=preston&d=27&e=16&g=463083&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&enc=1&dsFamilyId=95
It’s hard to tell from scanning frames of audience shots exactly how many are Muslim • but I’d estimate it was below 20%.
I notice one commenter appears to conflate Muslims with Sikhs. Big mistake.
“Sikh identity…came to be predicated on a fierce hostility to Muslims, who were depicted in Sikh lore as evil, bloodthirsty monsters. This image of the Muslim as the religious ‘other’ continues to powerfully resonate in contemporary Sikh popular memory. ….Even today latent feelings of hostility between Sikhs and Muslims remain strong.”
http://indiaculture.net/talk/messages/65/1016.html
Preston also has the highest Sikh population in the NW.
Yes, the audience is picked. No secret there. The BBC website has a helpful guide to how it’s done.
“The short answer is: with great care.
People apply through a phone number given on the programme or via the website.
They are then questioned about their views, voting intentions, background etc, in much the same way as an opinion poll.
From that, the producers select a broad and balanced cross-section.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4200000/newsid_4202800/4202877.stm#How%20does
Why didn’t they invite along to Question Time a partially deaf person who needs to lip read such as Lord Ashley of Stoke, or, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne. Both politicians, I recall, have been on Question Time before.
It would have been an interesting & revelatory moment to have seen Emma Nicholson being asked a question from one of those clad in semi-burkas.
But of course, the BBC doesn’t think like this does it? It’s not biased, better to get on somebody from Respect, than somebody who represents genuine minorities!
What reviewers say about that Reith biography:
Reith emerges as one of the most extraordinary figures of the twentieth century: the dark varnish covering the popular portrait of a patriarchal, dour and humourless Reith has been removed to reveal the twinkle and style of a much more interesting and important man.’
Stephen Fry
we see into the personal story of this man, whose legendary contribution to British culture was based on Christian values. His immense talents enabled him to found the BBC, setting standards
‘From that, the producers select a broad and balanced cross-section.’
No they select based on what people tell them. People lie.
As the BBC looks for a ‘balanced cross-section’ why have they had that woman from Respect on more than once when they represent circa 0.3% of the population but not their fellow nutters in the BNP who represent twice as many?
Iran’s president has warned that Muslims around the world will take revenge on states who supported Israel against the Palestinians.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6069456.stm
Wouldn’t that be “revenge” in normal BBCspeak? Obviously Ahmadinejad’s views are gospel.
Thankyou Mr Reith for finally admitting that the audience is picked. You really should make your mind up.
Don’t the BNP do very well in elections around Blackburn and Preston? On your argument shouldn’t they have been represented either in the audience or more importantly on the panel? Don’t you think they’d have more right to be on the panel than somebody from ‘Respect’? Or have both on to have an attempt at an unbiased program.
AIW
I have ‘admitted’ nothing. Nor have I failed to make my mind up. I never took issue with the fact that the audience is selected • that’s openly acknowledged in the FAQ on the Question Time website. I merely pointed up the foolishness of GB’s claim that:
“they filled the front seats – the separate blocks at the left and right of the audience – with pro muslims.”
Given that the veil was a running story, it made sense to have a Muslim woman on the panel.
If the BNP ever win a Westminster or European Parliament seat, I dare say they’ll get their quota of panellists. I expect they were represented in the audience. They certainly have been in the past.
Sage Bill Deedes seems to have it right on Islam today. See his article:
“Muslims can never conform to our ways” ( 20 Oct.).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
John Reith
If the BNP ever win a Westminster or European Parliament seat, I dare say they’ll get their quota of panellists.
So why have I seen green party members on QT? Do they have an MP, MEP now?
Why do they have actors/celebrities (all lefties of course)on QT? Do they have representatives in parliament?
News for you John, the vast, vast majority of people don’t like these veils. But you would never get that impression from the idiots they put on the panel last night. So yes, BBC = BIASED.
“Sage Bill Deedes seems to have it right on Islam today.”
his conclusion though, is a load of foggy-headed limpwristed dithering crap.
“So why have I seen green party members on QT? Do they have an MP, MEP now?”
actually they do – the greens have 2 MEPs in the south of england.
“So why have I seen green party members on QT? Do they have an …MEP now?”
Yes. Keep up.
2 MEPs
http://www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk/
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/individual/4
And 6 MSPs too, as it happens.
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/membersofthescottishparliment
John, I made a mistake, stop answering half the question (as usual).
Why do they have ‘celebrities’ on the panel but not members of legitimate political parties?
AIW
re: celebs – please see the How QT works page I linked to above. There’s a section on that very question.
That QT audience selection questionnaire:
How old are you?
What is your occupation?
What two issues would you like to discuss in the current news?
What is your opinion of the situation in Iraq?
Are you pro Europe or sceptical?
If there were a General Election tomorrow, which political party would you be most likely to vote for?
Conservative
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Green
Scottish National
Plaid Cymru
Ulster Unionist
Democratic Unionist
Sinn Fein
Social Democrat & Labour
Alliance
UKIP
Would not vote
Undecided
Other (please state)
Do you fully support the leader of that party?
Are you a member of a political party?
Which of these groups do you consider yourself to belong to?
White
African-Caribbean
Indian
Pakistani
Chinese
African
Mixed Origin
Other (please specify)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/1858613.stm
No religion Q. note.
“From that, the producers select a broad and balanced cross-section.”
John Reith | 20.10.06 – 1:58 pm |
ah you had me with you right up until that concluding “observation”!
John Reith
The man who fails to maintain the abysmally low standards he sets himself.
John, your link on celebrities, ‘…we are always looking to broaden the range of people on Question Time.’
That does not answer my question I’m afraid. I don’t see why the likes of Mariella Frostrup should be on there when more deserving people aren’t.
And the only reason it can be is that Frostrup is a raving lefty.
Freddie Forsyth isn’t a leftie though, is he?
The BBC (& Channel4) are keen to report on every twist’n’turn in the composition of the Kansas school boards & other examples of the minority anti-evolution faction in the USA (extra points for making unsupported allusions to Bush being in the intelligent design camp).
Wonder why so little attention is paid to the belief of billions.
It is our belief that Allah is the creator of the universe and all its contents. The concept of evolution is un Islamic.
http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=13760
via Tim Blair