Monthly Archives: October 2006

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.)

links to a Real Player clip of two BBC types discussing the collapse of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh at a rally.

One of the presenters says:

If we were talking here about an Israeli prime minister for example one would assume that he would have the best of medical care available just an arm’s length away.

ADDED LATER: The more I think about it, the more I love that “for example.”

In all sorts of little ways the BBC wants to make sure that you get it. Here is a story from Saturday: Bomber attacks ‘model’ Iraqi city.

Four soldiers and 10 civilians died in the blast in the northern city which US President George W Bush held up as a model in a speech in March.

And

Tal Afar, to the west of Mosul, was supposed to be a showcase for American-led efforts to pacify Iraq, the BBC’s Jim Muir reports from Baghdad.

Terry Johnson commented, “Surprisingly I don’t recall Al-Beeb refering to the London suicide bombings as “Bombers Attack Livingstone’s Multicultural “Model” City” or that “Londonistan was supposed to be a showcase for the Left’s efforts to create a “multicultural paradise”.

why the BBC’s timeline of North Korea’s nuclear activities goes no further back than 2002? USS Neverdock can.

“The truth is, most “quality” BBC programmes aren’t paid out of our license fee, but make a profit,” says James Graham of Qaequam blog. “What you pay for out of your license fee is the uncommercial stuff, which with the exception of things such as educational programming and news, normally means low grade crap such as soap operas and reality TV.”

Is that right? Reading the comments on the Quaequam post, I found one by Michael Jennings, a blogger with a good knowledge of how industries work, suggesting that James Graham’s argument is correct.

I would, in fact, still support the abolition of the licence fee on principle even if is not. Grown-up countries need state-run TV stations the way they need state-run newspapers.

However if Qaequam Blog is correct, it is a good counter-argument to those such as Oliver Kamm, who argues that the abolition of the BBC licence fee would drive the BBC downmarket.

-All via Jackie Danicki.

P.S. I have to defend the BBC on one point. I’m practically ready to fight a duel to defend the BBC on one point! Dad’s Army is not low-grade pap. And I believe it still pulls in a steady profit on repeat fees.

By the Observer’s Nick Cohen may be of interest.

Although it is impossible to generalise about such a vast organisation, the bias charge has enough truth in it to stick. If you doubt me, research one opinion outside the liberal consensus. Read up on the arguments for making Britain a fairer country by giving trade unionists more rights, for instance, or saying that abortion is murder or that Tony Blair’s foreign policy is correct in its essentials.

You don’t have to believe it, you just have to convince yourself that serious people can hold it for good reasons. You will then notice something disconcerting about most BBC presenters. Although they subject opponents of, say, abortion to rigorous cross-examination, their lust for ferocious questioning deserts them when supporters of abortion come on air. Far from being tested, they treat upholders of the liberal consensus as purveyors of an incontestable truth.

The way out for the BBC is not to swing to the right – it is not an advance to replace soft interviews for Menzies Campbell with soft interviews for John Reid – but make a tactical withdrawal from the opinion business. Less airtime should be given to talking heads and celebrity interviewers in London studios and more to reporters who leave Television Centre to find out what is happening in the world.

Couldn’t agree more.

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.

there was a great example of the BBC’s bias towards itself. Around 11.15am, they showed a lengthy filmed package about the BBC’s new production of Robin Hood, which will “fill the coveted Dr. Who slot on Saturday evenings”. This went on for a good many minutes, with excerpts from the production, interviews with the actors and production team and so on. It was nothing but an advert, an infomercial, masquerading as news, with their special correspondent, Ms. Philippa Space.

They wouldn’t have spent this much time, or indeed any time at all, if this production was for ITV, and they shouldn’t do it for themselves. To add insult to injury, the Robin Hood infomercial was followed by two more lengthy BBC adverts (thankfully not masquerading as news this time), one for Jane Eyre, another for Wide Sargasso Sea.

Still, I suppose it could have been worse. They could have been giving us their usual version of the real news instead 🙂

is the description the BBC uses for the Muslim Public Affairs Committee. In a post for the influential left-wing site Harry’s Place, “david t” says:

Secondly, it is wrong to describe MPACUK as a “civil liberties group”. It is, rather, an extreme Islamist organisation which republishes material not only from other extreme Islamist organisations, but also from US and UK neo-Nazi websites.

Read and note his first point as well.

UPDATE: The BBC obviously read the post and have substantially edited the piece concerned.

ANOTHER UPDATE: For some reason you get the original, unedited version if you go here but the re-edited version if you go here. (Hat tip: Little Bulldogs.)

is the Beeb’s stock in trade. If it’s not in line with their script, forget it. If they can get over their Foleygate giddiness to report that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s ruling has been given a unanimous smackdown by a 3 judge panel I’ll be surprised. You may recall that the BBC editorialized that her ruling was a “stinging rebuke” to the Bush administration way back in August. Will the BBC see this decision as newsworthy? If so, will they again fail to mention the flimsy legal argumentation of Judge Taylor which legal eagles from all sides roundly criticized? I’m not gonna mention the embarrassment of her conflict of interest (which the BBC also neglected to report). The BBC knows best.

Update 5-10-06: Call me surprised. B-BBC commenter and BBC employee Nick Reynolds notes that the BBC has reported this ruling. Fair play to the Beeb for at least reporting the bare bones–if not the interesting background of Judge Taylor. I’ll look forward to a fuller account of the political hijinks behind Judge Taylor’s opinion in my dreams. Thanks, Nick, for stopping by.