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.
See attached concerning developing ‘portliness’ and ‘obesity’ problems in the African continent.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/29/D8LN4Q1O1.html
I always knew that ‘Bono’, ‘Geldof’ et. al. were talking utter bollocks and just using an ‘invented’ ‘disaster’ for shameless self promotion. And of course not addressing the real problem which is local corruption and human abuse.
All of them of course ably supported and publicized by the grand Ayatollahs at the BBC • sleazy, slimy and morally corrupt are adjectives that spring to mind.
Its funny how all these guy’s manage to carve themselves really large slices of the pie and then sit back on their fat arses telling the rest of us what to do with the few crumbs they leave for us.’
Don’t-cha-know •
‘’Its what we do – – a load of crap • but we don’t care cos’ we’ve already got yer money — Hahahahahahahah LOL )”
BBC fat cats (like J. Ross Esq. who campaigned for Neil Kinnock) gorging themselves at the public trough:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6201234.stm
” “I knew who the surgeon was going to be, so I had a fair idea what the operation would look like”
Bill Nighy’s best line – on Iraq War – in David Hare’s new play”
And what the BBC don’t add is that the Bill Nighy character is a total shit, described as “corrosive” in an interview for the Today programme
and do you really think the source quoted actually said the words “our crudely made missiles”?
No. Just as I don’t believe any Israeli quoted has ever called Hammas, Al Aqsa Brigades or Fatah “militants”.
i recall that when i was a young’un writing essays, i simply was not allowed to bring in any information prefacing it with remarks like “it is believed” or “it has been said” without getting the question “by whom?” and possibly with the question “are you making this up?”
cured me soon enough!
amimissingsomething | 02.12.06 – 2:41 am
I agree. Here in Spain I’m often to be found yelling at the TV listening to news presenters talking about “experts say”.
Experts in what, I ask? Do they have a name? Who do they work for?
Re: John Reith, I seem to remember he did reply that he doesn’t have access to an internal BBC search resource – but I do remember that some time back he did confess to using LexisNexis.
http://www.lexis.com/
archduke:
vista = os X rip off.
Windows has always ripped off MacOS in areas. MacOS ripped off Xerox to begin with but they’ve come up with most stuff by themselves since then.
1 gig ram = £63.39 including vat.
That’s just 1 type of RAM though. Depending on what your computer takes I bet it’d cost £40-100 for 1GB. I remember paying lots more for a lot less RAM back in the day though, so it doesn’t bother me. I probably have like 20 spare modules of PC100-133 hanging around that add up to 3GB or so (some are big, some are small) and maybe 10 or so spare DDR PC2100 and upwards modules adding up to 1.5GB or so. You can find this older stuff at car boot sales or maybe even Oxfam for pretty cheap and it’s probably what some 2-6 year old computers take.
I like to keep old parts around so I have spares to fix broken computers. But since ATA has changed to SATA, AGP to PCI-E, DDR to DDR2 I have so much crap I can’t even use. My last upgrade cost me 2-3 times more than usual simply because none of my old parts would fit into the new computer. My wallet can’t take much more if they change more formats soon. If BTX really does replace ATX (doesn’t look like it will), then that’ll right off all my old motherboards and cases too.
None of this really matters to Joe Public that goes to PC World though.
archonix:
I don’t deny that Linux is a better OS but users always find new ways to cock things up, myself included.
Web servers are set up by professionals and even they make mistakes and get the themselves hacked sometimes. Even if a server is set up properly that doesn’t prevent the users from uploading badly made web sites and I can still get a dump of their database even if the server itself is set up perfectly. If it was a desktop who’s to say that the database won’t be all their contacts or bank details, and if it happens they’ll blame the OS rather than themselves and repeat the problem later on. Most home computers aren’t freely accessible from the net (well, non MS desktops) but who knows what the users will do to themselves.
The world would be better if everyone ran something like Linux, but I don’t like it being offered as a final solution. That’s how we’ve got people switching over to OSX and not running any security or updating it because they’ve been told that OSX is “secure” when really it’s just “securer”.
That was me. Firefox keeps forgetting my form details at biased-bbc recently.
Hat Tip to joe
Although this is a few days old, their analysis of the bbc coverage of the bnp conference and their first(?)link to the website of any far-right, extremist party is worth a read. Taster:
“… the BBC is not guilty of bias but guilty of abandoning its public service duty … The recent successes of the BNP and its ability to use the internet to get out information and facts, has forced the BBC to adopt new tactics. If it had continued to ignore the BNP’s presence, it would have lost all credibility as a news service. It is relevant too, that impressive numbers of people are now voting for the BNP and rejecting the BBC’s image of the Party. In doing so they demonstrate that they disbelieve the BBC on this issue and may thus begin to disbelieve it on all issues. We think that the BBC leadership is aware that it has lost its absolute control over the news and is unsure how to silence the BNP…
http://www.radical-and-right.org/20061129.html
Actually, searching back on the bbc’s website, I don’t think it is the first time a link has been posted. But something else of interest I did notice, in the last few days, aunties description of the pressure group UAF (Unite/United Against Fascism) has been upgraded from ‘campaign group’ to ‘a party set up to challenge the BNP’. As a ‘group’, I think it made much of their previous electioneering activities (i.e. interference) technically illegal?
Do we witness a tightning of the ranks?
When Griffin won in court last time, the BBC called the protesters “anti-Nazi protesters”, later changed to “anti-fascist protesters”.
Shouldn’t they have been “anti-BNP protesters”, or does the BBC think that the BNP are the Nazis?
(To be honest, nationalism and socialism, maybe they are the Nazis. But that’s not for the BBC to decide)
Linux isn’t a panacea (nothing ever is – ever noticed that?). The real solution would be to break Microsoft’s hold over the major OEM distributors, which would allow a genuine free market to emerge instead of the faux market we have now. As I pointed out before, MS is as big a distorter of their market as the BBC is in the UK broadcast market and the use similar tactics to maintain their position. The only difference is that MS started out as a private company. They got where they are largely because to theft and good marketing.
Any Questions line up
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/anyquestions.shtml
Rt Hon Hazel Blears MP: Chair of the Labour Party (left wing Blair android)
Lord Tim Garden: Liberal Democrat Defence Spokesperson (left wing)
Matthew Parris: Journalist, Author and Broadcaster (left wing Conservative)
Shailesh Vara (Tory MP) was supposed to be on, but couldnt make it. so we have
left wing 3 right wing 0
“Linux isn’t a panacea (nothing ever is – ever noticed that?).”
i agree. Linux “fanboys” are as bad as the Steve Ballmer Microserf clones.
But its more than merely Linux v Microsoft in regards to the Beeb. it could be a cosying up conspiracy, but in reality probably a combination of lazy reporting and the overall dumbing down of technical/science reporting…
The Now Show on Radio 4.
Aaaaaaarrrggghhhh !
First up was a dig at George Bush. Then a dig at David Cameron and the Conservative Party. Then a go at industry and the CBI.
After that they drifted off to some other subject matter. Some of the stuff was quite funny – it is easy to lampoon George Bush, and even easier to lampoon our very own “Call-Me-Dave”. But that’s missing the point. Its all one-sided lefty stuff. Like a party political. No – its more like a FREE party political.
Maybe the BBC diversity czar could investigate – we could maybe expect some diversity in ideas – or is diversity just skin-deep ?
Re Question Time’s line-up, the BBC has learnt that only one genuine, forceful right-winger is needed to wipe the floor with wet the wet Tories and lefty lib-labs so they’ve acted according to their training viz impartiality: no right-winger at all!
actually, i think Mr Vara did indeed turn up. i heard him near the end of the show…
( or maybe it was a case of i didnt really notice him as he kind of merged into the platitudes mouthed off by everyone else…)
where is Lord Tebbit (pbuh) when you need him?
Allan@Aberdeen
With the best will in the world, you can’t blame the BBC for the continuing display of Tory wetness lined up for Any Questions although I guess it suits the BBC very well.
Shailesh Vara may be wonderful (who knows? who is he?) but he can be expected to toe the Cameron (= NuLabour but from the left) line on everything. So you can still reckon that had he turned up it would have been the “modern” Tory green, anti-business, no tax cuts, no education selection, all law – no order, blah blah blah message coming through. Matthew Parris is his own man but I reckon, although he is still a member of the “Conservative” Party, he’s more comfortable with the Guardianistas than the Torygraphers. Hazel will do whatever is necessary to maintain her “career” – I shudder to think what that might entail but I suspect this blogger might be able to tell you.
re: pounce | Homepage | 01.12.06 – 6:59 pm
‘Yet a genuine from the heart ad hoc protest which brought out the same number and the BBC underplays the protest by stating “Tens of thousands”‘
The BBC and the Jerusalem Post it would seem:
“Tens of thousands of mourners from all over the country descended upon the capital city to pay tribute to slain Christian Industry Minister Pierre Amin Gemayel.”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1162378465255
And Reuters:
“BEIRUT, Nov 23 (Reuters) – Tens of thousands of Lebanese paid tribute to assassinated Christian politician Pierre Gemayel on Thursday, turning his funeral in central Beirut into a display of defiance towards Syria and its Hezbollah allies.”
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L23183986.htm
And the FT are downplaying it even more:
“Thousands of mourners gathered on Thursday in the centre of Beirut for the funeral of the assassinated industry minister, Pierre Gemayel as the occasion turned into a mass demonstration in support of Lebanon’s anti-Syrian movement.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3d0069a0-7acf-11db-bf9b-0000779e2340.html
Just so I can be sure on this one pounce, would you describe these organisations as “pro-Hezbollah”? Or maybe the rational person that must be inside you somewhere can accept that there was good reason to beleive that the turnout was “tens of thousands” and the BBC were not trying to promote Hezbollah at all?
“Now you being a Spurs fan living in Nelson Mandela House, I acknowledge that you do have a ‘vast range of living experiences’. Tomorrow they will range all the way from ‘beaten’ through ‘stuffed’ to ‘mullered’ at the home of the mighty Gunners.
Allez les Rouges.”
Officials 3 Spurs 0. Mighty Gunners indeed. Can’t score against their arch rivals without fouls or dodgy decisions.
archduke | 02.12.06 – 1:42 pm | #
I’m leaning toward, not conspiracy (because there generally never are conspiracies), but a recognition of like-minds and similar goals. Microsoft wants to dominate media distribution as a means of locking people in to its OS. The BBC would like to retain its position as the trusted source of information in the country. An agreement on media technology between the two is advantageous to both. It wouldn’t surprise me if part of the deal involved quietly killing off support for certain open-source projects that the BBC was talking up last year in exchange for favourable licensing terms.
BBC had better watch out, though. Microsoft has a habit of knifing its partners in the back. The minor debacle over MIcrosoft’s “plays for sure” that hit the tech press recently is a good example. Microsoft partners with a bunch of manufacturers to create a “standard” drm scheme for their media devices. Then, about a year later, they enter the market with their own player, the Zune, change the specs for the DRM so that “plays for sure” media doesn’t play on the Zune and so that media for the Zune won’t play on other “plays for sure” players and then start attempting to edge the other players out of the market.
ah yes archonix. your post twigged a few memories…
http://www.pvrblog.com/pvr/2004/02/bbc_internet_me.html
the bbc internet media player…
with – lo and behold – uses Microsoft DRM and will only work on Windows.
but in reality probably a combination of lazy reporting and the overall dumbing down of technical/science reporting…
The BBC’s tech reports remind me of my dad trying to be cool.
I think the BBC sends someone to hangout at a London Starbucks and listen in on cool looking people typing on their iBooks. The BBC guy hears words like “blog”, “web 2.0”, “Vista”, “open source” and writes them down. He then goes back to his office and drops these terms into his article but he really doesn’t have a clue what he’s saying.
I remember being in a similar position a couple years ago with one of my pieces of Physics coursework for A Level. I’d missed a lot of lessons and I really didn’t know what I was doing so I just kept going on about stuff I’d read in the textbook, but really I didn’t know what I was saying. I really was duckspeaking or quackspeaking or whatever it was called in 1984.
I got a B though, mostly because modern A Levels are so linear as long as you remember key facts you’re safe. If anyone had deviated from the textbook and tried to outflank my knowledge I’d have been screwed. This is why they can be harder (remembering lots of facts is hard), but useless to employees (nobody actually understands the facts).
Above should be “to employers”.
archonix:
The real solution would be to break Microsoft’s hold over the major OEM distributors, which would allow a genuine free market to emerge instead of the faux market we have now.
I heard someone say recently that Bill Gates is only interested in market share and Steve Jobs is only interested in profits. That’s why OSX, which will run on “IBM Compatible PCs” these days, isn’t offered as a stand alone OS to go after Windows. Apple make their profits from their hardware and OSX is a big attraction of their hardware. It’d be nice if Windows and MacOS did compete though.
Just so I can be sure on this one pounce, would you describe these organisations as “pro-Hezbollah”? Or maybe the rational person that must be inside you somewhere can accept that there was good reason to beleive that the turnout was “tens of thousands” and the BBC were not trying to promote Hezbollah at all?
MisterMinit | 02.12.06 – 2:21 pm |
Come on, MisterMinit. Stop being so snotty. pounce has provided abundant evidence of his rationality on the pages of this blog. Maybe he’s wrong and the crowd did indeed consist of tens of thousands (though it beats me how you could believe anything that Reuters reports) but that doesn’t mean that the BBC isn’t in love with Hezbollah.
Were you on another planet during the Israeli-Hezbollah war? I guess you must have been, otherwise you would have noticed the BBC’s wagging tail as it lapped up every lie and scrap of propaganda fed it by Hezbollah and seen the adoring submission become a snarl as it turned its attention to Israel.
It was the most disgraceful display of media bias that I’ve seen in quite some time. Even John Reith refrained from challenging the contributors to this blog on that particular issue. He knew he didn’t have a leg to stand on.
Promote Hezbollah? The BBC were cheerleaders for the terrorists.
Archonix 02.12.06 – 3:09 pm:
John Reith:
Archonix, in your discussion about Microsoft you say:
I’m leaning toward, not conspiracy (because there generally never are conspiracies)
Please don’t think I’m being picky but your comment provides an opportunity to expose the BBC’s dishonesty that’s difficult to resist.
Of course, the vast majority of allegations of conspiracy tend to come from the Left, targeting the Right, and of those the vast majority are unsupported by cogent evidence and based on (usually wild) supposition.
However conspiracies certainly do happen. Jonathan Aitken did indeed lie about paying his hotel bill and he did so in concert with his daughter and wife. When two or more people tell lies in concert or act to support a false contention that is a conspiracy.
Similarly several of The Guardian’s staff and lawyers lied and acted in concert with each other and Fayed and his staff to support a number of false contentions with respect to the political controversy that helped bring down John Major’s administration: the Neil Hamilton affair. The evidence proving that they did is utterly overwhelming.
Given that BBC News & Current Affairs and Factual Programmes is stuffed to the rafters with leftist liars, this explains why the BBC refuses all pleas to instigate an assessment of that evidence.
And there we have it: the absolute proof of the BBC’s utter corruption is its steadfast failure to yield to requests to instigate an assessment of the merits of evidence-based allegations of a conspiracy concerning a major political controversy levelled by two freelance journalists at the newspaper in which the BBC places most of its advertising and from which the BBC recruits so many of its staff and guest commentators.
Isn’t that right, John Reith?
“Were you on another planet during the Israeli-Hezbollah war? I guess you must have been, otherwise you would have noticed the BBC’s wagging tail as it lapped up every lie and scrap of propaganda fed it by Hezbollah and seen the adoring submission become a snarl as it turned its attention to Israel.”
I don’t actually recall ever commenting on the BBC’s coverage of that war.
“pounce has provided abundant evidence of his rationality on the pages of this blog.”
I’m sorry, but pounce is one of the most intellectually dishonest commenters on here (and that’s saying something).
Well there’s a surprise – neither jr nor mister minit has yet responded to the good blog doctor’s/natalie’s post
Nor that creepy, underhand designation of an Independent commentator as an ‘author’…
“Well there’s a surprise – neither jr nor mister minit has yet responded to the good blog doctor’s/natalie’s post”
I have only just skimmed through it, but it does seem that the first article was indeed “dishonest and misleading”. I don’t feel that I have anything to add that wasn’t said on NHS Blog Doctor.
“Intellectually dishonest” – nice phrase that but all it means is that whoever is accused of “intellectual dishonesty” is lying and/or misrepresenting the facts. So who is being “intellectually dishonest”?
There is a constant stream of examples of BBC bias (not to say crap journalism, but that’s another matter) posted/commented on this blog. These are posted by people whose day job is not journalism (except perhaps JBH). Most of these examples are so egregious that the defenders of the BBC do not even acknowledge their existence let alone comment on them (the “nhs doctor” example for one).
If people are throwing stones alleging intellectual dishonesty then it’s incumbent on them to be without sin themselves: particularly if they are defending an institution with 8,500 journalists, £3.5 billion income and a requirement to be impartial. I can imagine pounce being over-enthusiastic in some of his comments, even selecting (but not suppressing) evidence to make a point, but “dishonest”? I don’t think so. “Dishonest” describes a consistent unadmitted bias perpetrated by an organisation which is funded by the taxpayer and committed (by law) to disinterested delivery and interpretation of the news. BTW where is the Balen Report?
Just missed MM’s comment on “nhs blog doctor” (after 1 week) but a sinner redeemed – if only on one occasion – will bring rejoicing in heaven
“Just missed MM’s comment on “nhs blog doctor” (after 1 week)”
What do you mean after 1 week? I hope you realise that I am not duty bound to respond to everything that gets written on this blog.
And I didn’t read that particular post until you asked me to.
I don’t actually recall ever commenting on the BBC’s coverage of that war.
I don’t recall ever suggesting that you did. What’s under discussion here, you might have noticed, is whether or not the BBC promotes Hezbollah. You appear to think it doesn’t.
I’m sorry, but pounce is one of the most intellectually dishonest commenters on here (and that’s saying something).
Examples, please. It’s the courteous thing to do. pounce gives plenty of examples and links to back his assertions. And much of his research makes BBC journos really look like the hacks that they are.
It’s interesting how you and Reith try to undermine pounce on a personal level even though he refrains from personal attacks. Must be because the man has a real eye for BBC bias. I guess you two just can’t stand the truth.
MisterMinit fails (or feigns it) to understand what is happening here and in the general public: the BBC is being disbelieved. Its claims to be an impartial provider of news and opinion are demonstrably false. Not only this, but its reporters are incompatent. Contributors to this site such as JBH and pounce inter alia provide clear links to pieces and articles which back their point: the BBC’s hacks on their website regularly fail to do so, and they also cheat on date stamps when modifying. In my job, I’d be sacked for losing traceability of material. Face it, MM, JR et al – it’s over. The hold has been broken.
Incompatent? Should be ‘incompetent’. The BBC’s reporters, that is!
I think a couple of people here spread themselves a bit thin. Maybe that includes pounce but I can’t remember who is who. I’d rather people linked 5 articles a week that were definitely biased than 5 a day that might be biased depending on how you read it.
Does anyone here subscribe to the BBC RSS feeds? When they update an article is it bumped to the top of the feeds? If it is then that could be a possible reason why they don’t always change the date field. But if that’s the case then that’s some bad design and probably results from them trying to be oh so cutting edge and to provide RSS feeds early on (they were one of the first sites).
Duuh, 2 seconds after I posted that I realised that Firefox comes subscribed to the BBC RSS feeds. To think I never use them and I’m wasting BBC’s bandwidth and money! Oh wait, I pay for it.
But anyway, no they’re not bumped up the RSS feed.
MisterMinit | 02.12.06 – 5:23 pm | #
Isn’t that something to do with shoe repairs and cutting new key etc. I’m sure that in your business dealings you come across a wide spectrum of opinions and attitudes that make you/her/it feel adequate to commentate generally (and personally) on other peoples motivation and sincerity.
Notwithstanding MrM’s lack of utility in his recent post —- several questions I have recently asked of all and sundry (I live in Brussels and ‘connect’ with various ‘bod’s’ who are involved with the process ‘shall we say’) –
1. The recent Lebanon conflict could have been ended at any time (after 1 hr, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month) all the Hezz had to so was return the kidnapped soldiers —— why didn’t they do so — no effort, no real consequences, no problems ????
2. The recent conflict in Gaza —- again all Palestinians had to do was return the kidnapped soldier and stop firing Kassam missiles — again no effort, no real consequences, no problems.
I flummoxed as to what the issue is and no one so far has been able to provide a satisfactory answer (at least over here) perhaps you can elucidate MrM, cos its totally perplexed all of us.
Anyway MrM, its obvious to me and I suspect to a lot of contributors & lurkers on this blog that history and facts and you are complete strangers.
I suggest you go off and do some much needed homework (BBC and CAIR committments allowing of course).
Perhaps now that Mr Fayed realises that the lid will stay firmly on Diana’s and Dodi’s fate he might be approached about reviewing his evidence re: Mr Hamilton et al?He had a gripe against the former government but a bigger one this time around?
Internal BBC memo.
“That web site ‘Biased BBC’ is exposing our links with terrorist orgs on a daily baisis. Get the clones to character assassinate a few of the posters there.”
Mr Minit wrote;
“The BBC and the Jerusalem Post it would seem:”
Wow wee, you’ve found a Jewish article which substantiates the BBC and it’s tens of thousands claim. Do me a favour Mr Minut. Have a butchers at the time stamp of that article it was posted at 10.54 on the 23rd of November , the FT article was posted at 09.18 of the same day. Now I can’t speak for the Reuters article as I can’t be asked to trace back to the original posting, but something tells me that too was written in the morning of the 23rd. Now correct me if I am wrong here but on any protest do you see the most protesters before lunch or after lunch? (Answers on the back of a postage stamp to pounce the cat)
As for my claim that the funeral for Amin Gemayel. Was an ad hoc protest he was murdered on Tuesday buried on Thursday. 800000 people took to the streets.
The Hezbollah attempt at subversion in an attempt to take power has been planned for over 3 weeks. (Possibly a lot longer) and they can only scrape together the same number and the BBC is more than happy to quote hundreds of thousands before lunch time in order to please its bed fellows in Damascus and Tehran.
And you have the neck to refer to as me ‘intellectually dishonest’
P.S
You wrote this;
“and the BBC were not trying to promote Hezbollah at all”
During the bitch fight between Israel and Hezbollah the other month the BBC aired hour upon hour of IDF soldiers firing guns, marching to war and limping back from front. (Oh those nasty Jews)
Now tell me, how many seconds did they air of Hezbollah terrorists firing guns, marching to war, and limping back from the front. But oh the hours of coverage of the poor Lebanese people who were the victims of the Israeli war machine. Yup the image presented by the BBC is that Hezbollah could do no wrong.
Please feel free to reply.
pounce:
I wouldn’t expect any media organisation to have many shots of Hezbollah for a bunch of reasons. The only gripe I have with the BBC showing so much Israeli footage is that they seemed to infer from it that it’s all Israel’s fault rather than just saying “sorry, it’s the only footage we have”.
Predictably the BBC are all over Cuba & Castro this weekend. Castro is a left-wing communist dictator. Not that you’d now that from this article:
Ailing Castro misses Cuban parade
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6201148.stm
In pictures: Castro’s birthday
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6196118.stm
In pictures: Cuba anniversary
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6202454.stm
and finally the Hero worship…
Castro: Profile of the great survivor
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/244974.stm
I wonder if anyone is selling Castro 80th birthday celebration mugs at the Beeb?……
Maybe I had my eyes shut for a long time, but does the Castro worship seem like a pretty recent thing to anyone else?
He was always just this little commie dictator off the US coast to me for a long time. Then I started to hear on US blogs that some lefties in America were actually saying good words about him and I just chuckled at it. World class healthcare for everyone? Please. But now a couple years later even the BBC is running the healthcare thing.
Did I just miss all the pro-Castro stuff before, or did a memo go round saying to start praising him some time after 2000?
I wouldn’t expect any media organisation to have many shots of Hezbollah for a bunch of reasons.
Except if they were Iranian or Syrian journalists, of course.
Imagine a “brave” BBC journalist grimly deciding to get pictures of Hezbollah whether they wanted them taken or not.
I can’t, because it would never happen.
Now imagine the BBC being led around on a leash by Hezbollah, being told what they could and couldn’t film, including faked shots, and obeying Hezbollah absolutely. That’s an easy one to imagine, because that’s exactly what happened.
And MisterMinit has a problem with the concept of the BBC promoting Hezbollah? He needs to take off his blinkers.
pounce: “During the bitch fight between Israel and Hezbollah the other month the BBC aired hour upon hour of IDF soldiers firing guns, marching to war and limping back from front. (Oh those nasty Jews)”
Right, now let me make what I said clear.
I said “and the BBC were not trying to promote Hezbollah at all”. I should have said “and the BBC were not trying to promote Hezbollah at all by quoting the tens of thousands figure”.
Pounce just to clear this up, were Reuters, JP and the FT trying to promote Hezbollah by saying that “tens of thousands” (or “thousands” in the case of the FT) were at the funeral?
pounce: “Have a butchers at the time stamp of that article it was posted at 10.54 on the 23rd of November , the FT article was posted at 09.18 of the same day.”
And the BBC article was posted at 15:37 on that day. Am I to assume that this time difference is actually significant? Do you know for a fact when the 800,000 figure was available? Was it before or after 15:37? Are you clutching at straws?
Bryan: “I don’t recall ever suggesting that you did. What’s under discussion here, you might have noticed, is whether or not the BBC promotes Hezbollah.”
No. What I was discussing here was whether the BBC was promoting Hezbollah by using the phrase “tens of thousands” – nothing more. You can discuss whatever you like.
Dennis the Menace: “Isn’t that something to do with shoe repairs and cutting new key etc.”
That’s exactly what it is – although I must stress that I have no connection with the organisation (if it still exists – I haven’t seen one of their shops in ages).
And just for the record, the BBC were using the 800,000 figure the next day:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6178798.stm
No. What I was discussing here was whether the BBC was promoting Hezbollah by using the phrase “tens of thousands” – nothing more. You can discuss whatever you like.
MisterMinit, don’t be so picky. The BBC promotes Hezbollah, fullstop. Does it matter what methods it uses for said promotion? The point which escapes you is that the BBC has been caught out numerous times fiddling with figures to put their friends in an undeserved good light. Look at Sudan. The BBC continually minimises the slaughter of Africans by its Sudanese Arab friends.
And just for the record, the BBC were using the 800,000 figure the next day:
Must be because they know they are being watched pretty closely these days.
“Does it matter what methods it uses for said promotion?”
Look, pounce said something. I thought that his criticism is unfair and said so. That’s it. I’m not being picky.
I have no love for the BBC – any “The BBC promotes Hezbollah, fullstop” statements are meaningless to me. I am just saying that what pounce said was wrong. That’s all.
The BBC’s treatment of the possible future demise of Pinochet, hopefully soon to be followed by Castro and Saddam falling through a trapdoor, will I’m sure provide grist to the mill for this blog.
MisterMinit writes:
“I have no love for the BBC – any “The BBC promotes Hezbollah, fullstop” statements are meaningless to me. I am just saying that what pounce said was wrong. That’s all.”
Codswallop.
All of your posts here, since you arrived, have been in defence of the BBC. As your remarks earlier in this thread show, you have a closed mind to what is posted on B-BBC – to such an extent that it’s remarkable you bother to read this blog at all.
Quite cleary, then, your opening words are untrue.
The impending demise of two of Latin America’s least cuddly leaders (a competition with many contestants) of the last fifty years or so (Pinochet and Castro) provides an excellent opportunity to compare media coverage (and BBC coverage in particular) of the two old thugs. I won’t bother to link all the BBC stories and their links – suffice it to say that Castro’s human rights abuses are rarely (not never, just rarely) mentioned in a BBC story, Pinochet’s are always front and centre. Positive remarks about Castro are common, positive comments about Pinochet are very rare and even when they appear are limited to a sentence or two of his own self-exculpatory justifications.
As regards their objective achievements, any comments about Castro’s wreck of the Cuban economy is balanced by puff about Cuban healthcare. But the reality – Chile prospers and Cuba is a basket case – is never made clear.
Their obituaries will be fun – I predict Castro’s will be “Fidel was an inspirational leader committed to the poor……but by his death many Cubans thought it was time for a change” while Pinochet’s will be “Killed thousands, escaped justice on human rights abuse charges…..he claimed in justification that he saved his country from communism, though of course Pinochet killed the democratically elected President, oh and did we mention he killed thousands of others.”
Me, I will be raising a small glass of something in celebration of each of them shuffling off this mortal coil.