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.
In case Mummy sees him and drags him off by the ear for his tea which is going cold?
dave t
ha ha ha ha 😀
dave t writes:
“In case Mummy sees him and drags him off by the ear for his tea which is going cold?”
‘He’s not a fearless Taleban leader, he’s a naughty boy…’
Hat tip to Monty Python
The BBC and half a story;
The BBC’s Nick Bryant in Sydney says the cleric’s latest comments are seen as particularly insensitive because Sydney was the scene six years ago of a series of gang rapes committed by a group of Lebanese Australians, who received long prison sentences.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6086374.stm
Right and here is how what he actually said ;
“Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast?”Where will they end up? In hell. And not part-time. For eternity. They are the worst in God’s creation.Who commits the crimes of theft? The man or the woman? The man. That’s why the man was mentioned before the woman when it comes to theft because his responsibility is providing.But when it comes to adultery, it’s 90 per cent the women’s responsibility. Why? Because a woman possesses the weapon of seduction. It is she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. It’s she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then it’s a look, then a smile, then a conversation, a greeting, then a conversation, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay jail. (laughs). Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20653032-601,00.html
Note the reference to Long bay jail
Bilal Skaf (born 14 September 1981) is a serial gang rapist. He led groups of Lebanese Australian men who committed three of several gang rape attacks against young white women in Sydney in 2000, described by some as hate crimes.
For the crimes Bilal Skaf is serving a 31-year prison sentence, and will be eligible for parole in 2033. (He was originally sentenced to 55-years with a 40-year non-parole period, but that was modified several times upon appeal — see below.) He commenced his sentence in Sydney’s Long Bay Correctional Centre, but was soon moved to maximum security in Goulburn Gaol after prison wardens uncovered plans by fellow inmates to inject him with HIV infected blood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_Skaf
and ;
Mohammed Skaf (born May 7, 1983) is a serial gang rapist. He helped organise and was a member of a Lebanese Australian gang rape attack squad in two of the Sydney gang rapes attacks in Sydney, Australia in 2000.
He is the brother of Bilal Skaf, the ring leader of the Sydney Gang Rapes. The group targeted white Australian girls in racially motivated hate crimes.
Mohammed Skaf had befriended his victims and lured them to locations where his fellow gang rapists were waiting. During one of the crimes, he stole a mobile phone from his victim and thrust her head against a toilet block before declaring “I’m going to fuck you Leb-style”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Skaf
It appears that the BBC’s Nick Bryant kind of leaves out just why the Australians are somewhat pissed off with how this mad Mullah is bitching about how 2 of the faithful were locked up for doing white girls leb style.
The BBC and half a story.
The BBC and half a story;
Two Palestinians killed in Gaza
Israeli forces have shot dead two people in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian sources say.
Officials said one member of the Palestinian security forces was killed in a gun battle with Israeli forces in the south, near Khan Younis.
One Israeli soldier was injured in the incident, an Israeli military statement said.
Medical officials said a Palestinian farmer died after being shot in Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6088138.stm
Yup those jews are right nasty pieces of work.
Here is what the BBC hasn’t reported today from the area;
RAMALLAH, Oct 26 (KUNA) — A Jewish settler was wounded on Thursday in a shooting incident north of Hebron in the West Bank, said the Israeli radio.
The radio said that gunmen blocked a road north of Hebron to trap the settler’s cars, noting that the settler was moderately wounded.
http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=915922
JERUSALEM (AFP) – Palestinian militants are constructing an “underground city” in the Gaza Strip to store weapons and attack Israeli forces in the future, army chief of staff Dan Halutz has been quoted as saying.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061024/wl_mideast_afp/mideastunrestgaza
Anti-Tank Rocket Attack in Gaza
(IsraelNN.com) An anti-tank rocket was fired at an IDF patrol near Gaza’s Karni Crossing. There are no reports of injuries.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=114273
Arabs nearly lynched two Jews north of Jerusalem on Wednesday, while IDF soldiers at a nearby lookout watched and took no action.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=114298
GOLAN HEIGHTS – Israel has visibly beefed up its military presence here in the Golan Heights while neighboring Syria reportedly has placed its army on high alert and has warned it is preparing for a possible war with the Jewish state.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52628
Israeli forces intercepted a shipment of explosives smuggled through a Gaza-Israel passage and headed for the West Bank,
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=a999ca82-b736-49d6-a411-6c4d1cf36e55
16 Palestinians were wounded during clashes between a family from Kafr Yatta near Mt. Hebron and a family from Kafr Dura, between Bethlehem and Beit Jala, on Wednesday morning. The families were fighting over land located in Beit Jala, sources said. The clashes initially broke out after the family from Kafr Yatta began burning cars belonging to the family from Kafr Dura.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193519053&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The Fatah party, headed by Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas, has warned that rival Hamas terrorists are planning a ‘Black Saturday.” Fatah spokesman Mahar Makdad said, “Clear messages to murder have been received by Hamas members.” He added that Hamas is rationalizing the plans by charging that Fatah are preparing to attack its forces.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=114309
Anybody else find it somewhat strange how the BBC only reports on events which make Jews look like the aggressor and Muslims as the victims…
The BBC and half a story
sky news – good lord, you should see the hard questioning done by the aussie tv reporter on the imam.(that “rape is ok” story)
“UK, or should that be England & Wales?”
yes, they did indeed do the whole of the uk. strabane in Northern Ireland was 8th worst for example.
I heard the Australian Iman story on BBC World Service radio. It received exactly the same obsessive coverage as other World Service news. That is, it was repeated over and over for at least an hour. Further the story order was Australian outrage; example and finally denial by Iman. Not as I would have expected Australian Iman accuses Press of Islamophobia.
I almost crashed my car! 🙁 This was surely a pigs might fly moment.
Could it be that Feminism tops Islamism, for once? Although to be fair (or unfair?) the BBC reported that he described unveiled women as uncovered meat and not, that he described the men who raped them as cats.
BTW Does anyone know if the same English language BBC World Service News is broadcast in each country/region? If I tuned in in Nigeria, Belgium, Jordan and Brazil would I be hearing the exactly the same news?
Very Very good anti-BBC satire:
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=876
I may have spoken too soon. :o(
Australian Muslims fear backlash
Hasn’t happened yet BUT they fear it
Today’s Telegraph:
“The BBC’s commitment to bias is no laughing matter
By Tom Leonard”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/10/27/do2701.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/10/27/ixopinion.html
“It’s fair to say the message is finally getting through: the BBC has a problem with impartiality. The row over BBC bias has been rumbling on longer than war in Sudan and always seemed just as unresolvable. The format was always the same: take a bunch of Left-leaning, liberal-minded television executives and a bunch of Right-leaning politics wonks with obsessions about BBC reporting of the Middle East, the EU and the Tory party. Then they hit each other over the head with rolled up, heavily underlined copies of programme transcripts from Newsnight or Today. …
“The bandwagon is gathering momentum. Yesterday it emerged that a BBC executive, Ann Davies, has questioned whether the corporation should “help break the constraints of the PC police” after audience research found it was out of step with much of mainstream public opinion. Another BBC boss, Richard Klein, commissioning editor for documentaries, told staff it was “pathetic” for the BBC to pride itself on being “of the people”.
“They’re all spot on. …
“Meanwhile, any Guardian columnist who doesn’t have a regular gig on the BBC needs, frankly, to change agents. That newspaper • or the Independent, if they’re desperate • is the default button for BBC researchers phoning round for a studio guest.
“The death, earlier this year, of Linda Smith, a regular on Radio 4’s The News Quiz, and the subsequent glowing tributes to her caustic Left-wing wit from fellow panellists drove home the point that most of them were either serving or former Guardian columnists. …
“When, a month later, Newsnight tackled the controversy over Ken Loach’s allegedly sympathetic film about the IRA, they interviewed two film critics. They were from the Guardian and the Independent on Sunday, and, sure enough, they agreed what a great director he was.
“Sometimes, even the BBC notices the bias. Not long ago, I watched a three-man media debate on Newsnight in which two were Guardian writers. The other was captioned with his previous job on another newspaper.”
Keep them wagons rollin’, rawhide!
Yee Haa!
You can add Raggy Omar to the list of current/ex BBC employees who have suddenly found the will to state the obvious.
This morning on Nick Ferrari’s show (LBC 97.3FM) Omar was interviewed about BBC. Now while he stated that the BBC doesn’t necessarily take a set position on any particular matter, he did state (one could almost say ‘admitted’) that it is heavily biased towards the London, liberal agenda.
As interesting as it is that we have all these confessions of institutional liberalism, homosexuality and multiculturalism, I wanna see what theyr’e going to do about it.In the week since this came to light I haven’t much evidence of a will to change.
The response of Nicholas Sarkozy has been to echo the extreme right wing – calls for ‘the rule of law’ and ‘violence to be punished’
Fine, be a leftie and break the law. Don’t get a TV licence.
Oh dear BBC, not used to this sort of open scrutiny and criticism, are you?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml;sessionid=2GJE0IEDXKLTPQFIQMFCM5OAVCBQYJVC?view=HOME&grid=P13&menuId=-1&menuItemId=-1&_requestid=25935
I feel sorry for the BBC. So I am not going to accuse them of bias today. Let’s just run with crass bad journalism instead.
The Today programme, around 7.35am this morning. There was a discussion of the efficacy of flu jabs. On the one hand we have a scientific expert who said there was little hard evidence to support its widespread use, and that more detailed studies were needed. On the other we had a nice old lady with a northern accent who had been having the jab for 12 years and had not had a serious chest infection since then (scholars of the MMR debate will instantly recognise this very questionable “anecdoatal” approach used by the BBC).
But listen to MontaQuinn. She tries to draw the expert on what the old lady is saying, even though it is obvious that the scientist is rightly interested in facts, not tea time chat and anecdotes. Seeing that she is not getting the emotive responses she wants, MontaQuinn then tries a different tack, by asking the scientist “would you advise your own grandmother to have the jab?”.
Truly awful stuff.
“I feel sorry for the BBC. So I am not going to accuse them of bias today.”
Sorry BBC, I am, but it’s your own fault.
Today Programme 8.50am. Getting tired of the “Iraq=Vietnam” analogy? Well then, lets try the “Iraq=Suez” analogy. The Today programme needs two guests so here they are:-
Peter Hennessy, recently lauded by the Guardian:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1892345,00.html
David Clark, who worked for Robin Cook and has written articles such as this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1857775,00.html
Most strange – both interviewees concluded that Iraq is like Suez.
Pontius Pilate – “What is bias?”
deegee:
In that ‘Australian Muslims Fear Backlash’ article BBCs Nick Bryant has a rather biased historical interpretation of what took place at Cronulla- as if it was ‘white youths’ that set the whole thing off. He cleverly omits what Muslim youth had done before…. a complete obfuscation of cause and effect.
“The city is approaching the first anniversary of the ugly race riots on Cronulla beach last December, when white youths attacked people of Middle Eastern background – sparking a number of retaliatory attacks.
john, yes.
That’s not the sequence of events. That’s the BBC lying through its teeth yet again, to further its agenda against Western civilization. Lebanese abuse and rape of white Australian girls is actually what “sparked” the clashes.
The main thing in doubt about the BBC these days is whether its journalists are fully aware that they are lying or whether they are so blinded by their agenda that they genuinely believe their own lies:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6088664.stm
Little Greeen Footballs has a post on the issue with some great comments:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23114#comments
From today’s Wall Street Journal
Free the Beeb
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116189889859705247.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
“…..Not to excuse media bias in any form, but at least the latter (commercial) broadcasters must attract advertisers, which in turn spend their money with channels that their hoped-for customers watch. Public broadcasters have no such concerns, since their revenue comes from taxpayers.
In Britain, this takes the form of an annual license fee of £131.50 ($247) that households must pay for the right to use their color TV sets. This year the fee raised around £3.1 billion for the BBC, or more than two-thirds of its gross revenue. It almost makes PBS, whose $70.3 million in government funds last year made up only 21% of its operating revenue, seem like a bargain.
In both cases, we’re talking about the kind of money that might reasonably lead taxpayers to expect coverage that is neutral, or at least balanced. While the BBC disputes the Mail on Sunday’s account of the summit, if even half the report is true, that expectation is not being met.
Who or what could force public broadcasters to play it straighter? Elections are one way to gauge the national mood, but no one in a democratic society would argue that the media should toe the line of whatever party is in power or leading the opinion polls.
So the public can’t control the “public” broadcasters at the ballot box, and viewers can’t vote with their wallets by tuning out and driving advertisers away. In an age with hundreds of TV channels, available by satellite, cable, Internet and cellphone, ensuring sufficient quality or quantity of content isn’t a necessary job for the state, if it ever was. Sounds like it’s time to cut these broadcasters loose.”
hear hear!
Liberal-left agenda anyone? Here’s two for the price of one – ‘prisons don’t work’, with an added sprinkle of alleged racism (white on non-white of course):
Victimisation concerns at prison
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6089450.stm
“Black and Asian prisoners were found to be more likely to report staff victimisation but few of those complaints resulted in action by senior management.
Cleanliness, hygiene and food had got better, prisoners had more time out of their cells and first night and induction arrangements had improved, the report said.”
…and make sure the 24hr Sky telly is working!
Free speech anyone?
Police chief urges veil row calm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6088684.stm
“But, he said: “We just need to hold our nerve a bit and stop too many pronouncements from too many people.”
Anything which increases the possibility of public disorder – and “some of the very dire warnings” – were not helpful, he said.”
ie don’t comment on islam, muslims might ‘get angry’.
Eh?
9/11 Conspiracy theory
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
FBI statement quoted in BBC editor’s blog:
“The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.
So, there’s no evidence that any ‘conspiracy’ exists, however this is an opportunity for the BBC to allow moonbats to have a pop at the US? That’s what it looks like. I look forward to reading the comments on the editors page…..
The market speaks.
Given the ignorant ramblings posted here in recent weeks about how BBC audiences are supposedly ‘in terminal decline’, I thought you folks might like to know what customers’ latest preferences actually are.
These figures show where audiences actually go to get their news.
Reach of TV NEWS:
BBC TV NEWS • 73%
SKY NEWS • 19%
Fox • 1%
Reach of Radio News:
BBC Radio News – 36%
All Commercial Radio News • 18%
Reach of Text-Based Media:
All National Newspapers – 28%
BBC News website – 7%
Teletext • 10%
Source: ICOS May 2006
sorry sir for doubting you,so kind of you sir to share your figures with us,
what would us ignorant’s do without
you sir,thanking you again sir.
John Reith
The market speaks.
John – you misunderstand what a ‘market’ is. The BBC is immune to the whims of the market – the market cannot ‘speak’ when it comes to the BBC, the market is effectively gagged (this effect is brought about by the tv poll tax licence fee).
When the day comes that I can, as part of ‘the market’ choose to watch the BBC and pay for what I choose to watch, or alternatively, not watch the BBC and cancel my subscription – then come back and tell us what ‘the market speaks’.
I’m not surprised a lot of people watch the BBC, they’ve all been forced to pay for it after all.
For anyone who commentated on BBC’s Editor’s thread about the David Loyn piece from Afghanistan, eureferendum has recently posted a piece by the excellent Michael Yon about dire consequences for our troops come next Spring when our Talib chums are likely to launch their next offensive. Sobering stuff…
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/844nigml.asp
Hmmm, interesting idea…
“I think there is a better way to achieve a very swift exit. It is for the occupying forces to hold a referendum, within one month, asking the Iraqi people • do you want the foreign troops to remain for another year, or should they leave now? The answer Iraqis will give is pretty obvious: in the latest poll, 82 percent opted for immediate withdrawal. But if the Iraqi people have a chance to give the purple finger to the occupiers as bravely as they did to the suicide-murderers last year, then the Anglo-American exit will become a victory for them and for the ballot box, not for jihadism. It will maximise their (horribly slim) chances of slowly patching together a more decent country from the militia-splinters into which it has fragmented. ”
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1009
Hmmm Steve
I’m not sure that would be a good idea. I mean, what if the jihadists sabotage the elections or commit fraud?? What then?? I am sure they could probably get monetary support from other terrorists groups to do this, and they would probably blame the coalition forces one way or another. It would take a huge number of strong-willed pro-freedom Iraquis and a strong democratic government and armed forces to prevent the dangerous effects and influence the terrorists may have.
Besides, if the coalition forces leave and the democratic Iraqui government is unable to effectively fight terrorism, then the threat will be again at America’s and Britain’s doorstep.
I don’t think we can take the chance of having the same threat that we had 5 years ago. This would mean that we would have lost the entire effort.
Talking about elections, why not have direct elections to the board of al-Beeb? Like, say, Michael Grade running against Richard Littlejohn? That’d open up a more wide-ranging discussion of Beeb output, I rather think.
Ritter | 27.10.06 – 1:04 pm
Actually Ritter, established consumer preferences can give a pretty good clue as to what out-turns would be likely in a true market.
Under a strictly pay per view system, the BBC would still be beating Sky in a ratio of 73-19 and Fox in a ratio of 73-1. That’s for as long as Sky and Fox were around. Which wouldn’t be long.
More likely – if your long dreamed-of privatization were to take place – the BBC would be free to compete for advertising. And would clean up.
An interesting sidebar: following Sky News’s recent re-launch there was a spurt in growth for BBC News 24. Many of the extra viewers weren’t coming from new Freeview sig-ups, but were watching News 24 on Sky platforms.
That means that even people who are already shelling-out two or three hundred quid to R. Murdoch on top of the licence fee(presumably for his sports rights) prefer BBC News.
Ritter:
Police chief urges veil row calm
“But, he said: “We just need to hold our nerve a bit and stop too many pronouncements from too many people.”
Very very worrying comments from Blair. Who the hell does he think he is!
I have been unable to find any reports about the Turkish academic, Muazzez Ilmiye Cig on the BBC. Is this an example of them choosing not to run with a story because they are worried about flooding their news with more veil row stories, and are therefore adopting this so-called restraining call of Blair?
Academic to face court for remarks on Islamic veil
Cig, an expert on the Sumerians, a urban civilization of Mesopotamia dating back to 5,000 BC and credited with inventing the art of writing, has been a defender of the secular values established in Turkey by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder in 1923 of the modern republic. In a book published last year, Cig wrote that the headscarf, which has become a divisive political symbol in this Muslim-majority nation, was first worn in the Middle East as a sign of distinction by Sumerian high priestesses who initiated young men in the art of sex. A lawyer from the western city of Izmir was offended and launched a process that resulted in a lawsuit against the eminent academic and her editor on grounds of “provoking racial and religious hatred”; both could be jailed if convicted.
I noticed too, how an earlier report on yet another “veil row” was so poorly reported regarding the attacks on the Italian MP Daniela Santanchè Notice too that she is “right wing” and the BBC doesn’t give her mention of her book.
Protection for Italy veil row MP
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6078392.stm
The reporting is quite awful and smacks of damage limitation in Blair’s sense. Any mention of Jack Straw’s name is verboten! I wonder what the Imam would have said on Sky TV if Daniela had mentioned Cig’s theory on Sumerian high priestesses and sexual rites. Imam Schwaima’s response is really a classic, BBC chose not to repeat it:
“I am an imam and I will not permit those who are ignorant to speak of Islam. You are ignorant of Islam and do not have the right to interpret the Qur’an.”
Translated: You Italian woman MP are uncovered meat, only fat cat like me can cream the Koran!
john | 27.10.06 – 3:56 pm
“and the BBC doesn’t give her mention of her book.(sic)”
“Daniela Santanche recently published a critical book on living conditions for Muslim women called Woman Denied.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6078392.stm
Reithy baby:
ICOS May 2006. Source? Link? How strange that you, who are always keen to add 20 links to prove a point, forgot one this time.
Only 7% for the BBC website despite the millions poured into it? Why would that be you suppose? Is it because Internet surfers are more inclined to agree with us that the BBC site is biased etc and thus ignore it?
And despite the fact that we don’t get Fox over here people still go via the Internet to the Fox News site?
Would that BBC News also include News 24 PLUS the local stations PLUS the national news etc? NO wonder the figure is high then as Sky for example don’t have local news….same applies for radio. Obviously with what 7 national stations PLUS hundreds of local ones the BBC News is going to be on more stations than say Capital Radio!
Give us a link then or would that show some of what I’ve pointed out above is right? Hmm?
Not sure if anyone’s pointed this one out before, but it’s majestic even by BBC standards. It’s got everything.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6068274.stm
A cracking start attributes Hurricane Katrina to global warning, and immediately follows up with some splendidly intemperate remarks about the Bush administration :
It should be the best of times to put climate change on the US political map.
Hurricane Katrina remains an open wound. The Bush administration’s attitude to UN climate negotiations shows the same dismissive view of the global community as did his determination to invade Iraq – and that decision is being questioned now as never before.
And he doesn’t let up • it’s got an advert for the new greener Al Gore and even a hanging chad graphic !
Meanwhile the BBC want to join with Granada and sponsor an academy in Manchester according to my TES today. They say it would help them find talent – I bet it would! A prep school for the next generation of the biased – using our money! (Not cash but ‘resources’ according to the Beeb). Well those resources are paid for by us.
Global warming causes hurricanes???
well, let’s see some facts
this is from the Canadian Statistical Assesment Service
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/canstats/readdetail.asp?id=796
“At the annual National Hurricane Conference in March 2005, University of Colorado atmospheric scientist Dr. William Gray explained that natural forces–in the form of periodically changing ocean circulation patterns–and not humans are responsible for hurricane cycles, including the cycle of increasing hurricane activity that the world is currently experiencing.”
“For approximately the past 25 years, the United States had experienced a relative lull in hurricane activity. Unfortunately for those living near the coasts, we recently began to come out of that cycle and into an active cycle like the one experienced from approximately 1930 through 1950.”
“A paper scheduled to be published this fall in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, “Hurricanes and Global Warming,” by six noted tropical cyclone experts, makes three main points regarding hurricanes and human activity:
>>No connection has been established between greenhouse gas emissions and the observed behavior of hurricanes.
>>The scientific consensus is that any future changes in hurricane intensities will likely be small, in the context of observed natural variability.
>>The zeal by some for political reasons to link future hurricanes to global warming threatens both to undermine support for legitimate climate research and to lead to the implementation of policies that will be ineffective in mitigating hurricane impacts.”
John Reith
Under a strictly pay per view system, the BBC would still be beating Sky in a ratio of 73-19 and Fox in a ratio of 73-1. That’s for as long as Sky and Fox were around. Which wouldn’t be long.
John – how can you make statements like that??!! You might as well say “On the planet zog, the BBC would be beating Sky…..”
I watch BBC News, but I woun’t subscribe to it if I had the choice. I would get my news from newspapers, blogs, internet news pages, Sky etc.
You might as well say Borat TV in Kzyzyzyzyzyzyzystan versus the BBC instead of Fox….same difference – we don’t get it here unless we log onto the Internet or have an enlightened cable company!
This is what Discover has to say about global warming and hurricanes, I’m just putting some excerpts cause is really long.
http://www.discover.com/issues/jan-06/cover/
“If there is one thing everyone involved in the great global-warming debate should be able to agree on, it is that global warming didn’t “cause” hurricane Katrina—and neither did George W. Bush.”
“but in fact all experts agree that there has been no long-term increase in the frequency of hurricanes. Their numbers in a given ocean basin seem to rise and fall every few decades in a natural cycle, and since 1995 or so the Atlantic seems to be in a phase of frequent storms. There is no evidence of a trend in storm frequency that could be attributed to global warming, nor is there any particular reason to think there should be.”
“This past year two new studies were published that suggest the intensity of tropical cyclones worldwide is already increasing—and far more than anyone would have expected. ”
“Some researchers question both the data and the analysis. Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center knows the Atlantic data as intimately as anybody; he has flown into 15 hurricanes himself. The problem with trying to identify a trend in intensities, Landsea says, is that the data are full of errors, and the methods used to collect and analyze them have changed over the years. “
Broadcasters Audience Research Board
Monthly Viewing Summary: Sept 06
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/monthreports.cfm?report=monthgmulti&requesttimeout=500
Share of Total Viewing in multi-channel homes for 24hr rolling news channels:
Sky News: 0.5%
BBC News 24: 0.6%
Reith?
Ritter
You have the choice already whether or not to watch it.
The choice you are currently denied is whether or not to pay for it.
Since, as you freely admit, you DO watch it…..(and you use the website) I can’t say my heart bleeds when I hear you complaining that you have to pay (a sum less than the cost of a newspaper and about 1/3 the cost of Sky) for what you use.
a sum less than the cost of a newspaper
which newspaper would that be then,
the guardian or independent ?
Pru
That satire is soooo good.
I particularly like the pics of the newsreader and the Al-Qaeda organisational chart.
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=876
…sorry our comments overlapped.
Nothing in the BARB share figures contradicts what I’ve said about reach.
News 24 has indeed overtaken Sky (which launched years earlier)in terms of share. And – as I said – much of this is coming from Sky platforms.
The share figures are worse for Sky than I’d realized.
According to your chart Sky’s total share in multi-channel homes is only 9.3; the BBC’s is 28.1.
That means the BBC is knocking spots off them in terms of entertainment, sport etc as well as news. I’d assumed Sky’s sports channels pulled in the punters. Seems all of them together net only 4.0%.
Sean
I bought the Telegraph this morning.
70p.
That’s equivalent to a licence-fee of £255.50.
Makes the BBC seem good value when you look it at it like that, doesn’t it?
I snot of good value when you are FORCED to pay for it, whether you watch it or not, the BBC considers itself independant from the taxpayers and thus, enforces its own agenda in its “news.” I am not saying it should endorse the public’s or the government’s agenda, I am saying it should adhere to journalism practices, which by dictionary definition means reporting the facts, no commentary in between or manipulation of language to create a certain impression on the public.
*** sorry I meant “It’s not”
davet-ee-baby
what do you mean ‘only 7 per cent despite all the millions poured into it?’
7% is vast. (All national newspapers put together only reach 28% remember).
As for your particularly daft question:
“Is it because Internet surfers are more inclined to agree with us that the BBC site is biased etc and thus ignore it?”
…er no. The BBC News website is Britain’s most popular website.
Check it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_News_Online
“in contrast to the Have Your Say section, where readers can debate the news, and related issues.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ BBC…BBC_News_Online
really wiki???? Then how come they deleted my post??? Maybe John Reith can answer that (bias anyone???) or maybe it is just that the term “readers” only applies to those who agree with the BBC censors’ point of view.
John Reith, of course a lot of people visit the BBC, even those who dislike it such as the people in this website visit it in order to criticize the article. You must agree at least that in order to criticize something you have to read it first, right??? or does that not fit your logical pattern??
Besides people are FORCED to pay it anyways so why wouldn’t they watch it. And the ones who refuse to pay it, visit or watch it in order to criticize it and prove to others how biased it is.
In the end, the BBC keeps getting away with taxpayers money and yet it refuses to practice proper journalism.
Why would anyone in the right mind think it would be reasonable to BE FORCED to pay cheap, crappy, and manipulative journalism???
By Ralph Peters
Heritage Foundation
It was wrenching to listen to President Bush’s news conference the other day. He’s struggling to do the right thing. But he’s getting terrible advice.
He’s still counting on a political solution in Iraq. Ain’t going to happen. And you can take that to the blood bank.
We must kill – not capture – Muqtada, then kill every gunman who comes out in the streets to avenge him.
Our policy of all-carrots-no-sticks has failed miserably. We delivered Iraq to zealots, gangsters and terrorists. Now our only hope is to prove that we mean business – that the era of peace, love and wasting American lives is over.
And after we’ve killed Muqtada and destroyed his Mahdi Army, we need to go after the Sunni insurgents. If we can’t leave a democracy behind, we should at least leave the corpses of our enemies.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25145
.
“I bought the Telegraph this morning.
70p.
That’s equivalent to a licence-fee of £255.50.”
I think JR’s comparisons go a little bit too far. Telegraph doesn’t force you to pay for its content. BBC does.
Market share comparisons also have little relevance. The fact that there is a public broadcasting corporation funded by tax twists competition.
The original justification (expensive technology) for setting up a tax funded broadcasting corporation has long since disappeared. But like any other publically funded organization BBC continues to exist, because it is very hard to get rid of something that has been part of the furniture (national consciousness) for so long.
BBC is an institution that is respected far beyond Britain’s shores and the current sorry state of affairs is an abomination in itself but it is also a sign of the times. Political correctness has corrupted most of the Western World by now and you shouldn’t really blame the BBC for that, even though the BBC is one of the most vocal proponents of PC.
If you look at across the pond to America, the traditional big broadcasting corporations also are very much PC along with CNN.
The problem of lefty-liberal, green, pro-homosexual, pro-feminist, pro-muslim, PC multiculturalist media lies deeper than BBC. Perhaps you should look at what kind of people like to become journalists and how these journalists are educated.
Media basically decides by itself what is good journalism and what is not. Internet and blogosphere are currently changing this and will continue to do so. In the past it was difficult to determine whether news reporting was correct or not. Internet has changed that and this is why BBC and other major news organizations are not respected the way they used to be.