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.
Let me get my retaliation in first re Pinochet.
When the beeb is gloating about the death of Pinochet, bear in mind the following facts about Chilean history which I dont expect the beeb to cover.
The allende marxist regime was responsible for fiddling elections, violating the Constitution, encouraging left-wing terrorism and was finally outlawed (before the 1973 coup) by both the Chilean Parliament and the Supreme Court.
The allende regime’s unconstitutional acts included the imprisonment and killing of striking workers, the intimidation of opposition journalists and the violent seizure of private farms, companies and schools. In the process, allende became so unpopular that in the Autumn of 1973, 400,000 angry Chileans took to the street demanding his resignation or removal by the Army.
NB 400,000 out of 12 million equates to a march of 2 million people in the UK.
For further reading see Chile: the Crime of Resistance, by a french former socialist writer, Suzanne Labin (Foreign Affairs Publishing Co., 1982); and also Chile’s marxist Experiment, Robert Moss (David & Charles, 1973).
“All of your posts here, since you arrived, have been in defence of the BBC.”
And that means I love the BBC?
If someone said to me that Hitler was the root cause of all the evil in the world I would diagree (in other words defend him against that charge). Would that mean that I love Hilter?
Likewise, saying that using the phrase “tens of thousands” /= promoting Hezbollah does not mean that I love the BBC.
Lee Moore writes:
“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”
An absolutely accurate analysis, I’d have said. One might add to the mix, the raging sycophancy shown to Chavez, who received an encomium of quite outlandish proportions on the BBC’s World sevice, just this week.
If, as we are repeatedy told, the World Service is there to promote Brtain’s image overseas, it’s small wonder so many from the USA think we are a nation of deluded Marxists!
If, as we are repeatedy told, the World Service is there to promote Brtain’s image overseas, it’s small wonder so many from the USA think we are a nation of deluded Marxists!
So true. I wonder how true it is for other countries as well. Some of the most racist and un-PC people I know are Scandinavians. I wouldn’t call them libertarian right wing capitalists, but they’re certainly not anything like the image of Scandinavia.
On a related note, I’m also surprised how many British-Indians I’ve met who are so very pro-British and Islamophobic. The latter can be explained by Kashmir, but I thought we were evil imperialists who ruled India and thus the Indians should hate us forever?
P.S. After seeing so many Bollywood movies on Ch4 that featured loads of English, I decided to look up the role of English in Indian society. In a country with a billion languages, apparently the evil imperialist English language is considered a neutral alternative to please everyone. Strange how some countries have moved on after 50 years and others have gone backwards.
In one of those films, a main character was a punk with longish hair who wore shirts with the Union Flags and spoke lots of English slang. Can you imagine that in some other countries who still blame everything on us?
Anyone seen the new ‘ad’ for BBC news…harping on about all the places in the world they report from? Places like Gaza, Baghdad (notice how they go for the middle east first), Singapore, Paris.
Oddly, not one mention of the US, probably the most important country in the world. The closest they get is the UN!!
Are the Beeb pulling out of Washington?
Andy D:
Anyone seen the new ‘ad’ for BBC news
What about the “BBC Sports Personality of the Year” , advert right now, this is introduced with a well known athlete saying:
“It is the greatest honour your country can give you!”
Your country? ROTFFL!
****Pinochet****
“He is accused of dozens of human rights violations but has never faced trial because of poor health.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6203476.stm
****Castro****
http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2006/10/061009_cubaycastro.shtml
“Cuba has fallen foul of international bodies, including the UN’s top human rights forum, over alleged rights abuses. The UN’s envoy has urged Havana to release imprisoned dissidents and to allow freedom of expression”
Note:
Pinochet is accused.
Cuba not Castro has only fallen foul
no Human Rights abuses there then!
Just a slap on the wrist for Fidel.
Castros abuses are alleged, Pinochet does not get an alleged.
I could go on and on but I am tired!
“Pinochet does not get an alleged”
But he got an accused. How is this different to alleged?
Diane Coyle, a member of the BBC Trust speaks….
With Gandalf Grade’s departure, the hobbits take over
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1962476,00.html
“…..What’s more, the thoroughness and transparency of the process will enormously enhance both the long-term health of the BBC as an institution, and the legitimacy of the licence fee.“
I didn’t realise it was part of the remit of the BBC Trust to defend and promote the “legitimacy of the licence fee”, but there you go.
FTP wrote:
“So true. I wonder how true it is for other countries as well. Some of the most racist and un-PC people I know are Scandinavians. I wouldn’t call them libertarian right wing capitalists, but they’re certainly not anything like the image of Scandinavia.”
Might be true, but you couldn’t tell this by reading the Scandinavian media.
Due to the recent cartoon controversy Denmark is probably the least PC country in Europe. Even issues related to islam and muslims are discussed openly in the media with minimal concessions to the prevailing multi-culti ideology.
Sweden, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. The media have a very narrow perspective to issues like immigration and islam. Certain things simply cannot be said. If somebody says that maybe large-scale immigration has not been such a good idea after all, the person uttering such an un-PC opinion is immediately labeled as a racist bigot. I’m sure the BBC people and the guardianistas would find life very comfortable there.
Very interesting article…
Dawn of a new television age
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20409-2481053,00.html
“What has also been dramatically signalled is the beginning of the end for the annual TV licence fee. A spokesman for the Television Licensing Authority, which administers the fee, told The Sunday Times last week: “If your TV is not used to receive live TV programme services you do not need a licence.
This unprecedented statement clarifies the previously confused rules about whether a licence is needed for viewing television on computers and a wide range of mobile devices. Catch-up services and any television delivered on demand now clearly fall beyond the grip of the licence.
Why the writing is on the wall for the TV licence
The pace of change is threatening to make the historic television licence fee redundant, or at least unenforceable. Viewers currently need a licence only to view live broadcasts but not for catch-up or on-demand TV services, or those downloaded over the internet, regardless of how they are viewed.
Much of the output offered by BT’s new Vision service, and its competitors, can now be viewed without a licence. As viewers increasingly choose to watch on-demand, the licence fee will not apply.
“If your TV is not used to receive live TV programme services you do not need a licence,” said a spokesman for the Television Licensing Authority (TVLA). “But you would have to demonstrate that you were not using it to view programmes in this way. Each case is judged on its merits, but not having an aerial and not having the channels tuned in would help your case, for example.
“If someone with BT Vision could demonstrate they were not using it for live programmes then they would not need a licence.”
Dave Chilvers, chairman of Continental Research, a media analyst, said: Watching TV over the internet is on the rise and there will be a migration to the personal computer as the home’s main entertainment hub. With companies like BT and Channel 4 entering the market comes the question: if you don’t have a conventional TV, why should you pay the licence fee?”
Even if you did break the law by watching live television over the internet, it’s hard to see how the TVLA could police this. Detector vans are unable to track internet data — though the TVLA may be able to force your internet service provider to squeal on you.”
Hmmmmmm…….
MisterMinit
Re difference between accused and alleged.
Buy a dictionary. All will become apparent.
So what’s the best value for money?
Not paying the license while still watching TV and getting done for that. Or downloading from *Ahem*nova and getting sued for copyright stuff?
MisterMinit:
“Pinochet does not get an alleged”
But he got an accused. How is this different to alleged?
——————–
To save you having to buy a dictionary an illustration:
Our wonderful leader is currently ALLEDGED to have sold peerages for cash. Write accused and you’ll have the wide mouthed frog on your case before the ink’s dried. If and when the illustrious Mr Yates charges him with said offence(hope hope) we can all say he’s been ACCUSED (and won’t that be a happy day).
Further to above:
From memory, the BBC may (from its own perspective) be accurate in its choice of words.
I believe Pinochet may have been ACCUSED of human rights violations in one of the more Micky Mouse of international legal forums -International Court of Human Rights rings a bell – whereas Castro hasn’t (possibly because a Cuban sits on it but more probably because they only ‘do’ cases against right wing regimes ).
any “The BBC promotes Hezbollah, fullstop” statements are meaningless to me. I am just saying that what pounce said was wrong. That’s all.
No, that’s not all. You also, you may recall, flung a couple of fairly weighty insults his way. Also, I’m sorry I can’t help you in your search for meaning, Misterminit. Maybe you should seek meaning elsewhere. Like John Reith, you insist on grimly grappling with the little things as a convenient excuse for ignoring the big picture. We are not fooled by the tactic.
I’ve indicated that the BBC’s pro-Hezbollah bias during the war was something to behold. You pointed out that you didn’t comment on that issue. Well, if you really want to know what people are on about here, have a look at some threads around the time of the war, then weigh the evidence.
And as far as you having no love for the BBC goes, you have a strange way of showing your lack of love.
“Like John Reith, you insist on grimly grappling with the little things as a convenient excuse for ignoring the big picture. We are not fooled by the tactic.”
Ok, whatever. The only ‘tactic’ I have is to challenge any baseless accusations that I read here. There is no excuse I can assure you. If the accusations are sound then there should be no problem in the accusers defending them.
Look, all I’ll say is don’t make arguments on a discussion forum that you are not willing to have challenged. When a journalist is interviewing someone on the TV, they often challenge their statements.
It is a normal form of discussion (why do you think that we have an opposition in parliament) – I can’t see why you are so hostile.
Just out of interest, does anyone agree with what pounce wrote regarding the “tens of thousands” article?
I do.
“I do.”
So were Reuters, the JP and the FT promoting Hezbollah as well?
MisterMinit
From observing you it seems you just argue for the sake of argument. You really don’t seem to have any other point by your own admission.
Just an unbiased observation.
MisterMinit,
I’m not hostile. For hostilty, refer to your earlier insults directed pounce’s way. I thought I’d gently point that out to you. If you really are no defender of the BBC and your purpose here is simply to point out what you see as inconsistencies or fallacies in the arguments people present here, then you should at least be prepared to take a closer look at the big picture being painted here. We make mistakes, but we are far more often right than wrong about the BBC.
Have a look at its coverage of the Israeli-Hezbollah war. State-controlled media in an Islamic dictatorship could not have been more biased. It was a disgusting display as BBC hacks strove to outdo one another in nailing their colours to the anti-Israel mast.
pounce and others suspect bias in the BBC’s “tens of thousands” reporting partly because the bias is so pervasive throughout the BBC.
MisterMinit writes:
“The only ‘tactic’ I have is to challenge any baseless accusations that I read here. There is no excuse I can assure you. If the accusations are sound then there should be no problem in the accusers defending them.”
Yet more disingenuous weasel words.
In what possible sense does the following quote accord with this pretence that you are here only to challenge “baseless accusations”? :
“I’m sorry, but pounce is one of the most intellectually dishonest commenters on here (and that’s saying something).
MisterMinit | 02.12.06 – 5:23 pm | # ”
As I have said before, you are so publind in your love of the BBC that you come here – as your own words prove – convinced that almost anyone complaining about BBC bias is “intellectually dishonest”.
As I have wondered before, why would someone come here, holding such firm beliefs, if not simply to play the troll?
“From observing you it seems you just argue for the sake of argument. You really don’t seem to have any other point by your own admission.”
I could see why you might think that, but I only ever make comments when I genuinely see a flaw in an argument – I’m not trying to be deliberately obtuse. Therefore I wouldn’t say that it is just for the sake of argument though I do enjoy debate and would welcome people challenging the arguments that I put forward.
GCooper: “As I have said before, you are so publind in your love of the BBC that you come here – as your own words prove – convinced that almost anyone complaining about BBC bias is “intellectually dishonest”.”
I am really not. If I make an argument that is wrong then take me up on it. I made a comment about pounce’s accusation of BBC bias and no one (except for pounce) actually put a counter argument in. Instead I recieved comments like:
“Like John Reith, you insist on grimly grappling with the little things as a convenient excuse for ignoring the big picture. We are not fooled by the tactic.”
“MisterMinit fails (or feigns it) to understand what is happening here and in the general public: the BBC is being disbelieved.”
I don’t think that I’ll be able to convince anyone here that I’m not “publind in my love of the BBC” so all I can say is:
challenge my arguments, not my motives.
“pounce and others suspect bias in the BBC’s “tens of thousands” reporting partly because the bias is so pervasive throughout the BBC.”
And you think that is an acceptable way of working? Surely it would aid your case more if you treated each BBC article with a totally open mind.
“We make mistakes, but we are far more often right than wrong about the BBC.”
How do you know you are far more often right than wrong? Most of the BBC “fiskings” go totally unchallenged. I would bet that when most people see a comment complaining about BBC bias is made that most commenters here simply think “that sounds about right” without ever verifying the claims.
As there has been no decent counter argument, lets assume that what pounce wrote was indeed wrong. Why was I the only one to question it? If there isn’t a culture of a peer-review on this blog, how can you possibly make the claim that “we are far more often right than wrong about the BBC?”
We’re going round in circles here, but I’ll give it one last shot.
And you think that is an acceptable way of working? Surely it would aid your case more if you treated each BBC article with a totally open mind.
This is not a scientific experiment. And the BBC doesn’t come to the table with a clean slate. Its reputation precedes it. We see repetitive patterns in the bias and comment thereon. In the unlikely event of the BBC beginning to practice real journalism rather than spewing out propaganda, I for one, will start to change my opinion of it.
If you want to talk about open minds, maybe you should practice what you preach. You could start, as I’ve mentioned, by checking the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli-Hezbollah war. That was a real eye-opener. Try it. You might start to understand what we’re talking about here.
I suggest we let MisterMinit sit in his cafe and argue with himself; it seems not much point in doing otherwise
True.
jr
It seems that every time you dip your toe in the water the sharks rip your leg off.
Wont be back for a little while but keep up the good work.
BBC Media Bias Against the USA (Allies, partners and DEFENDERS of DEMOCRACY
US Somali air strikes ‘kill many’
and
‘Boy killed’