Over on Iain Dale’s site he mentions a BBC report about the forthcoming Internet TV station, 18 Doughty Street.
According to the BBC the new station will be:
“… a sort of British version of Fox News, which is Rupert Murdoch’s news channel in the United States. Fox is attacked for being politically partisan and that of course is not allowed here.”
“Not allowed here”!
I had to pour myself a wee dram.
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.
Titillating it may be, but the BBC’s reporting on Cuba’s centenarians here strikes me as downright dishonest.
Scott produced an excellent post on this earlier, last month in fact. The BBC, it seems, has a policy of presenting Cuba as a first world country, at least in matters of health. Talk about stretching the fabric of reality.
Notice how the information is filtered through a)A state social health program and B)A state authorised newspaper. Notice too those little details: “More than 60% of them [the Cuban “centenarians” “studied”] had parents who also lived to be over 100″ (this “fact” one among a doubtful morass).
Oookay- so the hundred year old interviewees could verify the ages of their hundred year old parents, right? Or the Cubans just have great records of births 120 years ago or earlier?
Difficult though it is to refute propaganda, I’d venture to say this report is a pile of horse manure. Needless to say I found it because it was among the Beeb’s most clicked.
When you investigate it, the BBC’s approach is quite staggering. After a little search I came across this little factoid from this reputable sourcewhich shows the situation for journalists in Cuba:
“In 2006, Cuba is still the second biggest prison in the world for journalists after China. Three years ago it was the first, following an unprecedented crackdown which saw the arrest of 27 journalists, speedily tried and sentenced for alleged collaboration with the United States”
And the BBC merrily recycles the authorised output? Unbelievable.
… wails John Humphrys (RealAudio) on the Today programme.
This blog isn’t a place to discuss gun control. Nor American culture. Nor Islamic culture, come to that.
But there does seem to be a pattern here. When a few Americans do bad things, be it at Columbine or Abu Ghraib, the question is always asked – what does this tell us about U.S. society and culture ?
Not so for the bad actions of a few from other cultures. As Dumb Jon says “don’t expect anyone to be referencing the vast majority of peaceful Yanks anytime soon.”
Have a look at this fascinating Alistair Burnett BBC blog discussion of the terminology “so-called war on terror” at the BBC.
I see this formulation not as qualification, but denigration- and I think with good reason
The prompt for this came from a Newsbusters post.
We have dealt with it before
Also, I wonder how balanced the BBC would consider Dennis Boyles? In what I would consider not a coincidence, one of his recent articles for City Journal takes the BBC to task and is sprinkled liberally with “” and the odd “so called”- it isfor effect, who can doubt it? Which is ok if you’re writing opinion…
Also, he pointed out just how much money the World Service gets direct from the Foreign Office- a cool $400 million.
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.
“Some critics suggest …”
This report on a church organisation helping out women who are the victims of sex trafficers: A ‘tiny drop in the ocean’
It contains a completely unneccessary comment about “some critics suggest that if the homes are run by the Church there is a chance its beliefs will be imposed on victims around issues such as abortion.” without identifying the critics.
It’s a nasty and snide comment that wouldn’t be applied if the charity had been run by anyone who wasn’t a Catholic nun,
Thomas Bridge
Annoying both sides.
I’ve just had a look at your Biased BBC blog. I have to ask : if the BBC has such an apparently blatant left-wing bias, how come it has regularly upset both right-wing *and* left-wing British governments since 1923?
Seriously, with the obvious exception of the WW2 Churchill administration, every single British government that has existed since the inception of the BBC has complained that the Corporation was out to get it. Harold Wilson, as Labour a Prime Minister as you could get, *loathed* the BBC. Jim Callaghan often complained that the BBC was out to get his government. Naturally, Blair has plenty of reasons to hate the BBC. And what about the MI5 vetting of BBC staff, as detailed here : link
Gareth
Actually, Churchill was no exception.
