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.
Saturday, November 4 2006. Just another day.
A contributor to this U.S.blog notes anti-Americanism in the BBC’s “The State Within”.
http://www.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2006/11/bloggers_speak_the_state_within.php
“katallen: The State Within was everything I wish Torchwood was… lots of plot and an assumption I can remember what happened two minutes ago. (It’s also hitting some fairly strong anti-American notes, thus far).”
Meanwhile, the New York Sun notes the anti-Bush sentiment of the central character in the BBC-broadcast drama “Cracker”:
http://www.nysun.com/article/42872
“While I’ve always enjoyed the BBC’s original “Cracker” series, I found the comeback episode that aired last week contained a painfully truthful statement.
“In the episode, an American woman, who traveled to England after her son was murdered by a killer who may have been targeting Americans, tries to explain how her son was a different kind of American: “He was a New Yorker. He hated Bush. He hated the war in Iraq. He hated all that born-again Christianity. I don’t know anyone who is that kind of American,” she said with a puzzled expression on her face.”
Meanwhile, Journalism.co.uk reports the BBC’s explanation for the apparent censoring of comments from “Have Your Say”
http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story3069.shtml
“The BBC has admitted to technical errors after it was accused of censoring comments posted to its Have Your Say website.
“Web mash up News Sniffer, which claims to ‘monitor corporate news organisations to uncover bias’, had accused the BBC of censoring comment to its Have Your Say website.
“News Sniffer’s ‘Most Censored Threads’ claimed that a single BBC discussion thread on NHS reforms had been ‘censored’ 340 times and that other discussions had suffered similar treatment.
“Steve Herrmann, editor of BBC News website, told Journalism.co.uk: “We think there is now a technical glitch on our site, which we hadn’t known about, it meant that some of the comments which should be there [on Have Your Say] aren’t there. We are working to sort that out.” ”
Like I said, just another day.
‘There was a technical glitch with the airbrush and tovarisch trotsky just vanished’
BBC’s original “Cracker”
ITV surely?
Interesting comments on poor BBC Science coverage from readers of the “Register” website ..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/04/bbc_horizon_letters/
More anti-US bias – or just plain wilful ignorance and incompetence? Kate Adie in “From Our Own Correspondent” introduces a piece on the Suez debacle which failed – according to her – because of “United Nations intervention”. It was Eisenhower and Dulles (US President and Secretary of State) who waggled their little fingers and made Eden buckle. Any UN “intervention” in the conflict was stymied by a British (and French) veto. It seems that whatever item the BBC covers, no credit must be given to the US for anything at any time or anywhere even if, as at Suez, the American acted fully in accord with the agenda of today’s BBC.
Good to see BBC bias is not just confined to politics and world view. Take football for instance. In the past 2 months we have been lucky enough to be able to celebrate huge milestones in the careers of two truly great managers. A month ago, Arsene Wenger celebrated his 10th year in charge of Arsenal, now Sir Alex Ferguson celebrates his 20th year in charge of Manchester United.
The BBC rightly prepared a long tribute to Arsene Wenger, as shown by the links below; a fitting reflection of 10 successful years.
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=arsene+wenger+10+years&uri=%2Fhome%2Fd%2Findex.live.shtml&go.x=18&go.y=13
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/5380998.stm
So onto Sir Alex Ferguson, and his even more incredible achievement of 20 years at Old Trafford, including a massive 8 Premiership titles, a European Cup and a unprecedented treble. So was a similar tribute in order? Take a look for yourselves.
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=alex+ferguson%27s+20+years+at+Manchester+United&scope=all&edition=d&tab=all&recipe=all&x=13&y=9
It is well documented that the BBC and Ferguson don’t get on, but it is hardly in the public interest to virtually ignore his achievement on its website, especially with it coming so soon after his bitter rival’s 10 years.
The BBC biased, and full of its own agenda? Shurely Shome Mishtake.
.
The Daily Mail showing it`s true colours again. (This once great newspaper is now a poodle of the Guardian and the BBC)
“Is George W. Bush the worst president ever?”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=414491&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=
“Jihad is fun! Vote Democrat!”
Any gain by the Democrats will be hailed as a crowning mandate for the party that wants to lose the Iraq war, shut down Guantanamo and stop spying on Islamic terrorists on U.S. soil.
If Democrats win a slight majority in the House or Senate, Americans will get shrill, insane leadership of the nation in time of war.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2006/11/01/jihad_is_fun!_vote_democrat!
Anon “The Daily Mail showing it`s true colours again. (This once great newspaper is now a poodle of the Guardian and the BBC)”
The Mail piece is written by
GAVIN ESLER is the author of the United States Of Anger and a former BBC Chief North America Correspondent.
But still a BBC journalist. I thought the BBC were supposed to have stopped their journalists writing political columns in newspapers.
As to the Mail it just hates Blair & will oppose anything he supports.
Heron | 04.11.06 – 12:05 pm
You can hardly claim Newsnight’s Michael Crick is biased against Man U.
John Reith,
Quite so. I certainly could claim that Hansen, Lawrenson and Ian Wright are, but that ain’t the point. Page after page of tribute to Wenger and barely a cursory mention for Ferguson most certainly is bias. Maybe something will appear between now and Monday…
Re the Esler column in the Mail (linked above), he states
So where has it all gone so wrong? How could one man, one president, seemingly have destroyed the reputation of perhaps the greatest nation on earth?
It must be modesty that prevents him & his colleagues claiming any credit.
Not surprisingly Esler is also misleading, he claims, e.g.
The budget deficit is the highest ever, an enormous black hole
Well the current federal budget deficit is 1.9% of GDP, about 1% less than in the UK, Germany & France.
Click to access 10-2006-MBR.pdf
“Western countries fear Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb, but Iran maintains its nuclear programme is for entirely civilian purposes.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6108696.stm
But as Pounce would say, this is half the story.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.html
Just for peaceful purposes, of course.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436844,00.html
Not threatening at all.
Nothing to see here.
Really.
“Good job for standing up to these fantasy programmes masquerading as science. FYI Horizon has been doing this for years, they arbitrarily adopt one position on some key issue rather than simply focusing on one key issue and presenting a variety of positions. It’s very frustrating, and the opposite of educational, but they seem to think the average viewer can only cope with one clear “narrative”, no matter how deceptive such a view of the world might be”
1327
I found this in your link and it’s spot on.
the whole of B-BBC good be summarised as
Good job for standing up to these fantasy programmes masquerading as news. FYI News24 etc. has been doing this for years, they arbitrarily adopt one position on some key issue rather than simply focusing on one key issue and presenting a variety of positions. It’s very frustrating, and the opposite of informative, but they seem to think the average viewer can only cope with one clear “narrative”, no matter how deceptive such a view of the world might be.
“From the moment Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1989…”
This error is in the print edition, too. No surprise that stupid Esler thinks Bush is worse than Carter.
.
Let’s re-write history, shall we?
…The Islamic Republic of Iran came into peaceful existence in 2002 as a balancing factor to agressor Bush’s so-called ‘war on freedom fighters’…
Esler mocks Bush for the increased power of Iran, but Esler’s unstated alternative required that the tyrant Saddam should have been left in power, & strengthened, to keep down the Iraqi Shias & as a balance against Iran.
The Times leader is of course more worldly wise
Much of the coverage of this issue in recent years has framed it in terms of Iran versus America (**). That was always a spurious notion but it should be seen as a ludicrous construct now. It is not the United States whose boundaries and interests would be directly affected by a nuclear Iran, but Arab nations. Americans might, in any case, become weary of their role as a world policeman (which wins them precious little thanks). That would leave a very dangerous void in arguably the most volatile part of the world. It is not too late to prevent a destabilising nuclear arms race in the region, but time is becoming a scarce commodity.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-2436418,00.html
(** Esler also mocks Bush for the fact that China is needed to try to bring N Korea to heel. As if previous US administrations had been more successful. In addition it isn’t it an irony that Bush is often criticised for “going it alone” & then also criticised for involving other regional powers when addressing N Korea?)
Looks like another classic episode of ‘Robin Hood’. Apparently, tonight he’ll be trying to free Saracen slaves. Christains abducting Muslims to serve as slaves ? Why, it’s just like real life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates
Heron
Page after page of tribute to Wenger and barely a cursory mention for Ferguson most certainly is bias.
Arsene Wenger is one of the great men of our time. He is cultured, urbane, sophisticated and worldly. The football teams he creates are loved and admired in equal measure the world over. When Arsenal win football matches and silverware, they do so in a manner and with a style certainly never seen before in this country. As well as football, he is equally at home discussing economics, fine wine, current affairs classical music. This country is truly blessed to have him.
Demento Ferguson is a Glaswegian drunk.
What Pete Said.
Arsene Weneger is genuiely well-liked and respected, managing a club that has never seriously transgressed the boundries. Ferguson is a thug who manages Britain’s sleaziest club. And Ferguson doesn’t get enough credit from the BBC ? That’s in order, because he sure as hell doesn’t get any criticism either. If you were a man from Mars watching the BBC, or indeed the rest of the MSM, you’d have no idea we were talking about one of the world’s most hated clubs.
AntiCitizenOne yes there are some good comments on that website. Did anyone else see last Tuesdays Horizon show ? It was about a competition to design a robot controlled car for the US military and wasn’t as bad as the week before s programme on AI. That said however it could have been a lot better without the endless strange camera angles and attempts to turn one team into the bad guys and another into good guys which just weren’t needed. Also as Horizon is supposed to be a science programme it would have been nice if the show had even attempted to explain some of the computer science behind what was going on.
The Newssniffer ‘censored comment’ thing is far from faultless; It claimed that “Oh look, the Muslims are up in arms. Again” comment had been censored from HYS, whereas it was still there in the top three recommended.
It’s a great idea though.
That Gavin Esler has just written for the Daily Mail doesn’t surprise me. Michael Gove recently commented on how John Humphreys was ‘everywhere’. Well, even his BBC Radio 4 series has already been serialised in gargantuan 2-3 page spread articles in the Daily Mail.
So now it’s Gavin Esler’s & John Humphrey’s newspaper of choice and not The Guardian?
Difficult to say on ideological grounds- but what if it’s about money? I understand that they pay well; we are usually talking about 5 figure sums here. George Galloway declared his Daily Mail articles in the MPs register of interests.
Of course there is a bitter irony here- the licence payer forks out the funds for a BBC radio programme, and pays the wages of BBC journalists, the content of this same programme results in 3 Daily Mail newspaper spreads. Who gets the cash? Does it go straight into Humphrey’s pockets? What’s his percentage? Or is he donating his fees to charity, like Sir Alan Sugar? A further irony this man will still represent the BBC, who is himself quite possibly on the make, when he talks to alleged corrupt politicians and their own dubious interests and financial arrangements. Seems to me that this is nothing more than hypocrisy and institutionalised stealing from the BBC. Doesn’t surprise me at all though
I could not believe the rampant Anti-Americanism on BBCs Radio 4 Any Questions this afternoon (a repeat from yesterday evening.
I enjoyed that horizon, but it was about a race in 2005, so well past the event. I thought I was watching a discovery programme on Five instead.
I like to think it was bought by mistake because the first 2 minutes were all about the failure of the cars in the previous competition and the embarrassment to the US military.
– and that was all the monkey at the beeb had watched.
I’ve just checked its not a BBC production at all but a PBS / NOVA production and the original version had John Lithgow narrate, whereas we got Bill Nighy
you can watch it here apparently (with no thanks to the unique way the bbc is funded) –
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/darpa/
Drinking from Home reports on the BBC covering up a massacre by Buddhists*:
http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/2006/11/bbc-somali-service-accused-of-abetting.html
*not really
I’m listening to the BBC’s World Service at the moment. There is a discussion next on ‘is a free media essential for development’? If the answer is yes, can we look forward to the end of the UK system where you have to pay one TV broadcaster before you can watch the others?
9.00am News bulletin on radio 3, “police and hunt monitors (who dey) are checking the hunts who are using loopholes in the law by dragging a scent”. Odd that, I thought that drag hunts were permitted under this stupid law. How does obeying the law become using a “loophole”. The law is an ass in spades.
1327,
I’m quite up-to-date on machine learning and machine vision. I think I’d be throwing things at my (untaxed) TV if I watched a BBC “documentary” on something I knew about.
I can’t see Al-Beebyas journalists managing “bimodal sigmoid activation functions” and “edge detection” somehow.
While there may have been a few ‘saracen’ slaves brought back as souvenirs from the Crusades in 12th c. England I sincerely doubt there were enough to make a blip in the demographics, much less inspire a movement.
I mean who needs slaves when you’ve got serfs after all?
How might Gavin Essler now be trusted ever to report on American issues with impartiality?
We always knew his true colours but now he has shown them to all.
Will the BBC be removing him from Newsnight?
The BBC does over-egg the pudding and it is this trait which is its downfall. On Radio 4 news tonight, I heard the report that all sorts of groups were coming together in a demonstration against climate change (all the usual moonbat groups – what would be a collective noun for them?) and that they had a march. Up to 10,000 people attended – Wow!
Then there was the nonsense, lies and innuendo about fox hunting, and this was followed by a report that the Army had arranged for a day out on an assault course and Army-stuff for 400 young muslims (first reaction – WTF is happening!). There was of course the usual unchallenged drivel about “islam means peace” etc.
Not even the dogs on the street believe this sh*t any more. I know of nobody who respects the BBC, whether it be for its lies or for the way it extracts its money for crap programs which are losing audience.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/11/sparing-his-blushes.html
@ Allen,
“The BBC does over-egg the pudding and it is this trait which is its downfall.”
This is exactly what it is.
Bill Frankel on BBC Radio4s ‘Saturday Live’ this morning mentioned something about apartheid in South Africa that he thought was quite sensational:
“They referred to blacks as non-whites”
According to Frankel this was yet further evidence of the barbarity of language, and inhumanity shown towards blacks- by calling them “non-whites”.
What he failed to understand in his passionate outburst on BBC was that the BBC indulge in this same form of inhumanity when they persistently refer to the rest of us as “non-muslims”. Others hear have documented this usage well. So, smething to think about next time you hear or read “non-muslim”.
BBC bias, or simply the BBC using the old and trusted language of apartheid?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6115950.stm
Israel mounts air strikes in Gaza
Saturday, 4 November 2006, 16:18 GMT
===
“The strikes bring the number of those killed since Wednesday to at least 42. A top Hamas militant is among the dead.”
Name please? This is awful news writing. If single people are mentioned, they should be named as soon as mentioned.
“Israeli forces have made regular incursions into Gaza and the West Bank following the capture of an Israeli soldier in a cross-border raid by Palestinian militants on 25 June.”
Name please?
“Hamas leader Ismail Haniya praised the women but Israel said they had served as “human shields” for the militants.”
So its pretty much established that this is what happened. Why not mention it earlier. The BBC needs to take remedial newswriting classes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6112036.stm
Iran ‘sending funds to Hezbollah’
Thursday, 2 November 2006, 22:36 GMT
===
Now here is some pudding with no eggs.
“Tensions are growing between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah in the aftermath of the conflict with Israel.”
“And the issue of funding for reconstruction is a sensitive one, especially as many people in southern Beirut and the south of Lebanon have been crediting Hezbollah rather than the Lebanese government for the rebuilding so far.”
No where does the article mention that,
1) Hezbollah started this conflict via a raid into israel in which 8 IDF soldiers were killed and 2 kidnapped.
2) Hezbollah is a recognised terrorist organization by the US and others.
3) The “tension” between non-shia lebanese and Hez over why their country got trashed as a result of hezbollah’s adventures.
Did anyone catch the end of Robin Hood tonight? I was too busy laughing about the fact that a Muslim woman had joined Robin’s gang to register what next week’s preview involving a black nun was all about. Is she ‘Friar Tuck’? I really hope so – it couldn’t get better than that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6111188.stm
Fewer than 2,000 protesters turned up – lower than expected
………………………………
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5230514.stm
About 150 people voiced their anger at the landing of planes which they believe are carrying bombs for use in the conflict in Lebanon.
Chuffer The Newssniffer ‘censored comment’ thing is far from faultless; It claimed that “Oh look, the Muslims are up in arms. Again” comment had been censored from HYS, whereas it was still there in the top three recommended.
Actually, have you ever noticed that there are sometimes two copies of some “approved” comments? I suspect that’s so one can be “censored” off the page, making it appear that the censorship is even-handed!
But I must be paranoid 😉
Collective noun for moonbat –
How’s about –
A ‘worry’ of moonbats
or
A ‘Woss’ of moonbats (as in Jonathan Ross)
or
A ‘Reith’ of moonbats
I can think of others but am a wee bit tired at the moment.
A lamentation of moonbats… a generation of moonbats…a deploration …
A ‘confusion’ of moonbats: a ‘treason’ of moonbats:
a ‘dhimmitude’ of moonbats:
there are so many appropriate terms.
Great article on Nicaragua and the likely impending electoral triumph of Ortega.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6112942.stm
Best moments: “And why are the Americans important?
Well, they just are.
From the days they occupied Nicaragua in the 1930s to the years of secretly helping the Contra rebels in the 1980s, they cannot seem to keep take their minds off this tiny country with a population of just over five million people.
I don’t know about other American residents, but I’m sick of this wall to wall coverage of Nicaragua. Why can’t we hear about Mexico or Iraq for a change? I bet any American you grab off the street could tell you about the details of Montealegre’s manifesto. The worst thing about it is that there’s no reason for anyone to care about Nicaragua. Their drug trade is none of our concern, nor are their expats interested in maintaining links with their extended families. Fortunately the BBC can be trusted to bring this American absurdity to light.
From being a source of slaves in the 19th Century, to being a proxy battleground against the Soviets in the Cold War, Nicaragua has transfixed American policy makers.
And this time round is no different.
The neocons might try to pretend that this isn’t about the opportunity to use the Nicaraguan people as slaves in sweatshops and oppressed pawns in international intrigue, but the truth is obvious.
Anyway, I’m sorry if that seemed like soft opinion type stuff. I was most drawn to the apparent fact that the BBC is clining to the line that the Bolivarian revolution is in full swing when it has been pretty consistely losing elections all year. What made me come here was this line, the caption to a photo.
Some say Oliver North (R) may have split the anti-Ortega vote.
Oliver North (What?) If someone can tell me some other meaning than Oliver North, Republican, I’d be very grateful. He is not an elected official. They do not put Fred Phelps (D) after his name, nor Srichand Hinduja (Lab), so why here?
It seemed so odd that I hope that someone can think a moment and offer a genuine possibility. I was stumped.
can anyone see history repeating itself?
“…there were five major things happening around this time [410AD] that were also very relevant to the ultimate fall of Rome (which, although weakened, by this time had still existed, even after being sacked):
As Rome had grown over the years, their people became more comfortable and civilized (i.e. fat and happy), which made them somewhat less interested in military concerns. They no longer had an “ax to grind.”
As taxes increased and the government grew more and more authoritative, they were less and less loyal and trusting of the government.
Famine and plague began to take hold, reducing the population of Rome from over a million people to about 20,000, further disillusioning and weakening the resolve of the people.
With less resolve and dedication, not enough Roman citizens were willing to become soldiers, so barbarian Germans (and eventually even the Huns) ended up becoming a regular part of the Roman army.
Gallic and Germanic barbarian tribes had migrated from the North and East, with the Franks and Burgundians moving to France, the Alemanni moving to Germany (the French word for Germany is Allemagne), the Anglo-Saxons (made up of the Angles and the Saxons) moving to Britain (and changing the language from Latin to English) and the Vandals moving to Spain and North Africa. Rome itself became a melange of peoples.”
Sorry forgot the link to above.
Lessons From the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire
http://www.gantthead.com/content/articles/177101.cfm
check out “signatures” 729-769
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?bbbc
James of England:
I think the “(R)” in “Oliver North (R)” just means “at right.” There are two men in the photo, and Ollie is the one on the right.
It would have been clearer if they had spelled it out instead of using the cryptic “(R).”
Moonabts have a death wish for themselves and others so…
A suicide of moonbats?
They also support state racism i.e. affirmative action etc so…
An apartheid of moonbats?
Their strongest personality point is narcisism so…
A mirror of moonbats?
.
Climate chaos? Don’t believe it
The Stern report last week predicted dire economic and social effects of unchecked global warming. In what many will see as a highly controversial polemic, Christopher Monckton disputes the ‘facts’ of this impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the truth.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
.
With the recent navel-gazing session in mind in which senior BBC staff admitted the organisation was run by rampant lefties, gays and liberal metropolitain elite, and then the swift denials by the BBC DG, last night’s episode of Robin Hood had me chortling into my saturday evening curry.
The Beeb’s 90 grand a year “head of diversity” must have been incandescent when she was first shown the scripts for Robin Hood.
“Hold on – all these parts for white actors, playing christians? Where are all the muslims, for instance? We have to be inclusive!”
I envisage a producer, hands wringing, as he carefully explains to her that, actually, King Richard and his troops were abroad slaughtering them all in the crusades.
“Whaaaaaaaaaat?????”
So, in a flash, hundreds of years of english folk law revised….with a swift BBC-style rewrite. Robin Hood’s merry men are about to get a make-over.
It’s out with Friar Tuck (too “fattist”) and in with a new character..yes..wait for it….a cross-dressing female muslim!
Two more boxes ticked, everyone happy.
Trebles all round!
Pardon me, but that’s three boxes.
You yourself noted the elimination of the more portly character, emphasising BBC’s attitude to obesity.
(any chance of making the cross-dressing female muslim a nutritionist?)