- Little Bulldogs looks at the response in the BBC Editors’ blog to the impartiality seminar.
- Breakfast with Nanny: Johnathan Pearce on some of the assumptions behind the stories featured one morning on BBC breakfast television.
- Tim Worstall shared Ed’s low opinion of the piece about the EU accounts criticised below.
- House of Dumb. We at this blog are too modest to summarise this post.
- Oh, and I expect it is asking too much in this day and age for anyone to see anything worthy of comment in this:
(Update: By “anyone” I meant “anyone” in the British Broadcasting Corporation. I just scanned our comments. Naturally this one had already been spotted by pounce and others.)
Roundup
Bookmark the permalink.
The House of Dumb piece is priceless, thanks for the link, Ms Solent.
And the author is quite right to praise B-BBC. This blog has made a substantial impact – as the constant whinging and sniping from BBC visitors clearly shows!
BBC breakfast. in my awakening slumber, some mornings it reeks of playschool – but for adults. “do this, do that, take your 5 a day, be GREEN, do that, do this, BE GREEN”…errggghhh..
I’ve just had the ‘pleasure’ of watching the Newsnight puff piece on the Taleban. It was bad enough when the BBC thought there was moral equivalence between terrorists and democrats. Now it seems the terrorists are the heroes. I’ve fired off the usual complaint and I’ll get the usual response. Utterly depressing.
From Little Bulldogs:
Helen Boaden finishes with “It’s a shame that the newspapers have made mischief with the seminar, but we won’t let this small storm put us off trying to get impartiality right.”
Erm… yeah, right. I’m going to drink a beer or two now. Maybe I’ll see Al Beeb as impartial when I’m drunk.
John Humphrys
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6085816.stm
“I’d love to say that I shall leave Iraq more optimistic for its future than when I arrived, but I’m afraid it wouldn’t be true.”
Another porky John?
How to promote terrorism the BBC way;
Nato troops ‘kill 48 insurgents’
Nato forces say they have killed 48 Taleban insurgents in renewed fighting in southern Afghanistan.
A number of civilians are also reported to have died. Nato said there had been three separate clashes in the province of Kandahar.
But senior Taleban commanders have told the BBC they believe they are winning the battle with British forces.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6086064.stm
1)Rename terrorists from Militants to insurgents thus at a stoke giving legitimate status to a bunch of religious radical bigots who think nothing of setting of a bomb in a crowded market for Allah.
2)Add the fact that during the slotting of said number of terrorists insert a non relevant comment concerning civilian casualties in which to erode the moral stance of NATO in Afghanistan.
3)Promote a comment from a terrorist as fact, in which to take the battlefield away from the Afghanistan and relocate to Great Britain in which to build up support amongst the British public that we are in fact losing and that the best thing we should do is remove our troops and allow the terrorists to win control by BBC sponsored deceit (the only way they are going to win)
The BBC doing its masters biding in the hope that when they control the world they will be spared losing their heads.
Abandon Ship! quotes:
“”I’d love to say that I shall leave Iraq more optimistic for its future than when I arrived, but I’m afraid it wouldn’t be true.””
Why did he bother going? Anyone here could have written that exit line without the need for Humphrys to have stirred his stumps.
Did anyone seriously expect him to report a single positive reaction?
The BBC reports from terrorists actively engaged in trying to kill British soldiers.
When do loyal British citizens start boycotting the BBC tax? Britons need to show some of that fighting spirit that briefly flickered during the fuel tax protests, and had the chattering classes panicking.
You can fight back, you must fight back.
David Loyn’s breathless admiration of the Taliban is unbelievable. If he had not been a useful idiot to them, they’d have slit his throat in an instant. Shame on him – and his publisher the BBC.
The BBC appears to be proud of Loyn’s contribution to its ongoing and increasingly blatant attack on Western civilization. The World Service also had a nice long piece on his fawning admiration for Taleban terrorists.
BBC “journalists” are embedded with the enemy in this war on terror.
The BBC and its masters voice.
Tories criticise BBC over Taleban
The BBC has been criticised by the Conservative Party after it broadcast an interview with a Taleban spokesman.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6086276.stm
A fine example of how the BBC will use any story in which to promote the terrorist agenda of the Taliban as just.
P.S
BBC you left out the main reason why the Americans removed the taliban. trying to reinvent the story to say we hate all Muslims is wrong.
The BBC and how it blows the flute for its religious masters. (Usually on its knees) and oh how Dr Mahammed Anif must have a big smile on his face.
Bryan: “The BBC appears to be proud of Loyn’s contribution to its ongoing and increasingly blatant attack on Western civilization.”
But you see Brian, the BBC doesn’t see it like that. To them this isn’t a war, its a sporting event with two teams each deserving of air time. They’ve reported on Team A (us) so now they have to report on Team B (the plucky Taliban underdogs). At half-time they’ll trot out onto the field again, summarize the attacks and comment approvingly on the plucky Taliban ‘fighters’ unfazed by the menacing British/Canadian soldiers.
They’ve taken the natural British sympathy for underdogs and twisted it to serve their purpose.
boy blue: “When do loyal British citizens start boycotting the BBC tax?”
Some of us already do. I wish more would.
One more thing. I wonder how much the BBC paid the Taleban to escort them around? Just ‘expenses’ or something a bit more substantial. I wonder how much of that money will go towards munitions purchases?
Tim Worstall has a bit more about the BBC’s reporting of the EU accounts situtation.
http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2006/10/yet_more_about_.html
Nope, nothing incestuous about that, no sir.
I don’t know if anyone has already posted this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=412572&in_page_id=1770
BBC ‘guilty’ of ignoring public opinion says senior executive
BBC commissioning editor for documentaries Richard Klein admitted the broadcaster was out of touch with the British public, saying it was guilty of “ignoring” mainstream opinion.
will, I agree – except that they don’t regard the British as team A but as team B and they will report on British forces only because they feel obliged to pretend to “balance” their adoration for the Taleban with a look at the British side. The only thing about the BBC that is still British is the money it leeches from the public.
Re – mass licence boycott.
I don’t know whether this has been covered here already but there is a petition with around 8000 signatures at http://www.tvlicensing.biz
Also someone on there tried to get a mass boycott going in March, using a system called Pledgebank see :-http://www.tvlicensing.biz/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1375.
I for one would happily pledge next years licence fee to an organisation dedicated to campaigning against it.
Unfortunately I don’t really have the time or website skills to set it up.
The beeb have said that the taleban report only came about after months of tricky negotiations.
I wonder if during that time the beeb backpedalled away from proper coverage of taliban where it would have shown said talis in a bad light.
For example, downplaying or even not mentioning tali casualty figures.
Natalie
You are being a little pathetic, both with you censoring and your comments.
I happen to know that the BBC reporter who filed the Panageric to the Taliban is gay.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world…sia/ 6081594.stm
THE BBC appears to have pulled or edited the original article filed by Lloyan but just have a look at a few choice quotes from his follow up:
“Taleban fighters appear both ferocious and fearless”
“The bare arid landscape of northern Helmand suits them well”
“There is no army on earth as mobile as the Taleban”
“Afghanistan has been in the grip of a severe drought for several years, but the lack of clean water does not seem to concern these hardy men. ”
Thats fine by me. I have nothing against gays, or “fine hard fearless mobile fighters.”
You dont have to make it out thats my comment wasca personal attack or an attack on homosexuals in general. In fact I was the one who made several posts on this website asking why the BBC jumped to Graham Norton’s defence but has always under-reported the hanging of young homosexual boys in Islamic countries like Iran because of their homosexuality.
So please Natalie dont get all high and mighty about what “looks bad, and is bad”
The more inportant point I was trying to make is that within Pakistan and Southern Afganistan it is a well known FACT that many of the Taliban are known for raping the young boys that they force into their ranks. There is nothing wrong with pointing this out. The BBC and its reporters ceratinly wont do it.
Its wrong of you to censor that part of my previous post.
I don’t know if Taliban recruiting strategy is a well documented fact though I wouldn’t be surprised if they did use rapes to gain recruits.
Casual homosexual relationships among Afghan tribesmen are a documented fact according to Phil Rees’s book Dining with terrorists. Rees is a BBC journo and he is supposed to be reliable, isn’t he?
One of the tribesmen even suggested to Rees’s cameraman to be his wife for the night. In the book there is also a case of a tank battle between two rival warlords competing for a young boy.
In a gender-segregated society with women walking around in tents and sexual relations outside marriage strictly forbidden, it is hardly surprising that men find alternative ways to satisfy their sexual needs.
I would still appreciate if Bijan Daneshmand provided a source for his fact.
Catch the BBC’s coverage of Sheik Hilaly, Australia’s mad mufti. His recent sermon on women deserving to be raped because of their clothing and behaviour, has been uniformly condemned by the world’s press. EXCEPT for al-beeb who finds him a decent chap and suggests the furore is about politicians whipping up anti-muslim feeling,rather than his perverse view of the world.
LGF has a post on the “uncovered meat” sheik:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23114#comments
Newsnight Editor Peter Barron’s opinion on the Taleban as brave & noble fighters report.
Some believe it is disloyal to our armed forces to film the enemy. But
if we agreed not to show them, isn’t that just a small step away from
censorship and pro-government propaganda?
(from the Editor’s weekly e-mail)
pro-government propaganda – so the Taliban are only the enemy of the UK government, not of the nation?
The BBC do not understand the difference between a factual report & one that boosts the enemy. And of course they are too dishonest to openly state the conditions they accepted for permission to show the enemy.
“The BBC do not understand the difference between a factual report & one that boosts the enemy. ”
It’s called moral relativism. Five minutes to Hitler and five to the Jews.