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.
http://www.london2012.com/NR/rdonlyres/D9DB23C5-81C5-46FA-977F-2B4B04D1C416/0/seb_with_pie.jpg
OpED | 06.12.06 – 11:15 pm:
My apologies OpED, I hadn’t realised that I’d not accredited the quote. It wasn’t, in fact, from Joe Haines, who, I believe, was Harold Wilson’s second (discredited) No. 10 Press Secretary. The quote was in fact taken from Sir Trevor Lloyd-Hughes, Harold Wilson’s first (unblemished) No. 10 Press Secretary.
Bryan | 06.12.06 – 10:52 pm
I note your observation about “John Reith”‘s methodology with interest. Thank you.
I trust other B-BBCers are logging such comments for future reference.
The BBC and not the Nine O’clock news;
Palestinian crime rises 50 percent
The state of anarchy and lawlessness in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has claimed the lives of more than 300 Palestinians since the beginning of 2006, according to statistics published Monday by the Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizens’ Rights. According to the figures, 332 Palestinians were killed in Palestinian Authority-controlled areas in the first 11 months of 2006 – a 50 percent increase compared to last year. Most of this year’s victims were from the Gaza Strip (236).
In 2005, 176 Palestinians were killed in internal disputes and crime, while 93 were killed in 2004. Regarding this year’s victims, the group said 41 murders were politically motivated and 88 were due to clan feuds. The remaining victims were killed under various circumstances ranging from armed robbery to personal vengeance and misuse of weapons. An average of 26 Palestinians died each month in internal disputes and crime this year, as opposed to a monthly average of 15 in 2005, the group said. The number of Palestinian women slain by relatives in “honor killings” slightly increased in 2006, with 27 cases reported so far, compared to 26 last year.
Palestinian children have also fallen victim to the anarchy and lawlessness, the group said. In the first 11 months of 2006, 33 children were killed, up from 28 last year.
The group noted that 95% of the killings were carried out by gunfire or explosives.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881816551&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Damn, and I thought that only the Jews killed in Palestine. I wonder why the BBC hasn’t mentioned the killing of over 332 Muslims by their own this year in the region?
JBH writes:
“I trust other B-BBCers are logging such comments for future reference.”
Reith’s Simpsonian contributions to this blog are widely noted.
They add much to confirm the observation: “An ambassador is a man of virtue sent to lie abroad for his country; a news-writer is a man without virtue who lies at home for himself”
The BBC and the reinvention game;
School Day 24: Iran-UK-US
Students in Iran, the UK and the US linked up on BBC television to share their experiences and opinions.;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6215360.stm
Students in Tehran talked about the Islamic dresscode
Maedeh: I am wearing a chador and I really believe in it and I choose it myself – it’s not forcefully to wear something like that
It seems that Maedeh forgot to mention that if she walked outside in public without a headcovering she’d get picked up by the Police, religious police or even the religious thought police.
Masheed: Every country has its own rules but here it’s different – we should have specific codes but it doesn’t prevent us wearing colourful clothes – we should choose our clothes in any kind. It doesn’t make us not free.
I wonder if Masheed can access this webpage on the internet?
Hamzeh, Iran: We are the victim of America’s policy. We need to be supported by the media – not to be criticised. We are a peaceful nation.
I wonder if Hamzeh could tell us who blew up the US embassy in Beirut, who supplied Hezbollah with weapons, who is causing the arms race in the Middle East, who is building nukes and who has threatened war on Israel, The EU, the UN and the US if her nuclear ambitions are the subject of sanctions?
Hananeh, Iran: Everybody thinks we don’t have fun in Iran, we have different activities and different styles for fun. For example, we go to parties, we play tennis, and we go to movies.”
Parties are held in secret as if the religious thought police find out you get picked up by the fuzz and slung into jail. Tennis can only be played by very young children or with the same sex. Mixed games are forbidden. Movies are on the way out in Iran as the Mullahs continue their push to remove all western forms of entertainment from the faithful
All in all the above link is nothing but a show case promoted by the BBC in which to show how great Iran is and how bad America is. But then the BBC does love to blow the flute of radical Islam.
Roxana— quite right!
Global warming is a giant con.
Gordon Brown, in his pre budget statement said that (and I paraphrase) “climate change will provide thousands of jobs in the UK”
True. And who will pay?
Er……….get yer cash out folks!
The BBC is worth every penny!!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1965953,00.html
if so, then why force people to fund the bastard thing.
Socialism is Necrotizing:
So, Timothy Garton Ash says in The Guardian:“The BBC is worth every penny”!
See:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/symbiosis
“Noun 1. symbiosis – the relation between two different species of organisms that are interdependent; each gains benefits from the other”
Next week from Timothy Garton Ash in The Guardian:
“Why local authorities, the BBC and all of Britain’s broadcasters, education establishments, and every sector of British society are right to prop up The Guardian with expensive job advertising that could be put on the Web for free, to enable me to earn lots of money and have nice things said about me writing this shit.”
JBH
‘Any chance of receiving your dispassionate assessment of same for the benefit of contributors to this blog?’
I’m not sure that I can be dispassionate. When I finally get round to buying a new printer I’ll be able to run off your work. I’m also preoccupied at the moment with my two year old who seems to make great demands on my time. But time permitting I will soon. We now have mums & toddlers singing group to go to this morning.
regards TPO.
‘Allan@Aberdeen:
As an aside, but also as a demonstration (I hope) of the internet’s ability to defeat the looniest of judges, who is the adulerous male ‘celeb’ who had his privacy protected even though he wrecked another man’s marriage?
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/
Allan@Aberdeen | 06.12.06 – 10:29 pm | #
Allan, Justice Eady awarded George Galloway £150,000 in the Saddam libel case. Justice Eady is a loony alright.’
Has anybody asked Gary Linaker for a post match report on this or am I barking up the wrong tree. Must go now.
pounce:
Your original point: “What you omit from the above Mr Reith is that the Islamists are composed mainly of those very same warlords” [my italics]
Which is odd, because the sources I quoted, and pretty much every other one shows that the warlords and the Islamists were in direct opposition.
What’s your source that the majority of Islamists are former warlords, exactly?
You quote a single individual as having shifted. On the basis that a person might defect from one side to the other, would you infer that Shaun Woodward’s defection means Labour’s MPs are made of former Conservative politicians?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6213328.stm
The pre-Budget report, point by point. Note the part about pension increases. We have the BSP going up 3.6% and the pension credit minimum going up £5. Why the difference in measure (% vs £)? If you do it the other way around, then you get the BSP going up by £3 and the pension credit minimum going up by 4.4%. Now why wouldn’t the BBC put things out that way round? Oh wait, silly me. It sounds like less. I can understand them doing one or the other, but at least be consistent. Otherwise it looks like you’re trying to spin things for a certain person, which doesn’t look unbiased.
I also enjoyed this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6214732.stm
The poor chancellor has been forced to increase taxes because of poor revenue from oil. No mention of the billions and billions of pounds of our money that he was wasted.
Bryan | 06.12.06 – 10:52 pm
“Reith eternally picks away at the minor things here. Anything to avoid actually engaging with us in honest debate on the big issues.”
You are right that I spend a lot of time correcting minor issues. The reason is that 90% plus of what appears in these comments are minor, nit-picking quibbles dressed up as evidence of alleged bias.
If you want to talk about big-issues,that’s fine by me. You’ll have had time to read and digest the Iraq Study Group’s report by now.
What struck me about it was that the commentary, criticism and 79 recommendations were pretty familiar. Nearly all of the group’s considered judgments have been rubbished on this blog in recent months – usually in the context of claiming there is some pro-Islamist bias on the part of the Today programme team. Almost each and every point made by the ISG has featured in questions asked by Messrs. Humphrys et al or in BBC correspondents’ reports from the region. Each and every time, you and your motley crew have screamed ‘bias’. The BBC, we were told, was asking the wrong questions, probing the wrong issues.
Well, what now? Are you going to apologize to the BBC for your false allegations of bad faith? Are you going to congratulate Today for being so percipiently ahead of the game? Or are you so mired in prejudice and so lacking in judgment that you will now claim that Ambassador James Baker and his chum secretary-elect Robert Gates are – together with the BBC – part of the vast left-wing, Islam-appeasing conspiracy? And what will you do if President Bush implements some of the group’s suggestions? Tar him with the same brush you use to smear the BBC?
I hardly need to ask those questions. Time and again you have demonstrated that you are that bigoted. You are that irrational.
Some time in the next few days I will address myself to another big-issue: the mendacious campaign of racist vilification you personally have been waging. Watch this space.
Mike | 07.12.06 – 9:06 am
“Why the difference in measure (% vs £)? ……..it looks like you’re trying to spin things for a certain person, which doesn’t look unbiased.”
You’re a bit fast on the bias hair-trigger Mike.
Perhaps it’s because the amount of BSP varies from pensioner to pensioner depending on the consistency of NI contributions in qualifying years?
There being no universal set amount, it makes sense to express any increase as a percentage.
See what I mean about unfounded quibbles dressed up as bias allegations?
Different Anon wrote;
“What’s your source that the majority of Islamists are former warlords, exactly?
You quote a single individual as having shifted. On the basis that a person might defect from one side to the other, would you infer that Shaun Woodward’s defection means Labour’s MPs are made of former Conservative politicians??”
You wish for me to reveal my source?
Reveal?
What do you think this is. A spy thriller?
Are you really “Vasili Vasilivich Taleniekov”
Like a lot of people I actually follow the news, but unlike some I don’t stick to one news source in which to build up my opinion.
Pardon me, I digress you asked a question.
Try Somalinet news
http://www.somalinet.com/news/
Now see that search engine at the top of the page, use it and filter the results.
See if you can find the story about 600 militia men joining the ranks of the faithful.
Or the story where the last warlord accepts defeat and joins the ranks.
Different Anon I think you will find I have read up on Somalia. Unfortunately for the likes of you, I don’t base my stance on the BBC and quick Google searches.
Please feel free to respond.
“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias”, Andrew Marr, the Daily Mail, Oct 21st, 2006.
“It’s not a conspiracy. It’s visceral. They think they are on the middle ground”, Jeff Randall, former BBC Business Editor, in The Observer, Jan 15th, 2006.
JR
Please. The BSP is what it is. The fact that some people don’t receive all of it is neither here nor there. Why not have a percentage increase for the pension credit figure? I work with these kinds of numbers all the time and I know exactly why people switch between percentages and amounts all the time.
Do you perchance remember the whole “Derisory 75p increase in the BSP” from a few years ago. Why do you suppose that wasn’t described as a percentage? It was all about the spin that was put on it.
I know this is only a small thing, but it is typical of the Gordon’s great image that the BBC puts out.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/157385,CST-EDT-steyn03.article
Mr Reith, yes the Iraq Study Group’s report, carried out by a completely impartial and non-party political line up consisting of:
“So the fabulous Baker boy was accompanied by Clinton officials Leon Panetta and Bill Perry, Clinton golfing buddy Vernon Jordan, Clinton’s fellow sex fiend Chuck Robb, the quintessential ”moderate” Republican Alan Simpson, Supreme Court swing vote par excellence Sandra Day O’Connor . . .
…As its piece de resistance, the Baker Commission concluded its deliberations by inviting testimony from — drumroll, please — Sen. John F. Kerry. If you’re one of those dummies who goofs off in school, you wind up in Iraq. But, if you’re sophisticated and nuanced, you wind up on a commission about Iraq.”
Rather than defending the BBC’s impartiality, you have inadvertently just proved what we “unenlightened” folk on these boards have known all along – that the BBC, in its desire to promote what it sees as the correct view – in this case “WITHDRAWAL STRATEGY! QUAGMIRE! IMPEACH BUSH!” – is willing to take at face value a report from a group of people who could not have been picked to be more politically motivated. Had this Study Group been chaired by, say, John Bolton and been comprised principally of aides to George Bush Snr, and asked for testimony from, say, Dick Cheney, I’m sure the BBC and your sad gullible self, John Reith, would not have been quite so willing to plaster it all over the news – at least not without constant reference to the partisan nature of the commitee – opening immediate HYS’s on the topic and so on.
Of course, many at the BBC will be shaking their heads – and that’s not necessarily just because they’re coming down from 3 hand-mirrors’ worth of lines from last night, but more because that’s exactly “what the BBC do”. They pick a topic, choose which view they want to promote, and then fill the discussion with “experts” who will back that view up, usually putting a token guest on the other side so that the majority can have a good sneer at them, or, even better, pick someone on the other political side who actually agrees with them.
The report is a biased piece of Democrat propaganda – were it Republican propaganda, it would be rightly dismissed as such. John Reith you have been caught with your trousers down.
The BBC “It’shh what we do.”
My last post was in response to John Reith’s 9.08am post.
Heron, if you can’t see what a fiasco the post occupation phase of the Iraq adventure has become (irrespective of the justification for invading originally) then I pity your sanity. Reporting on it, given the extraordinarily high cost in British bodies, British taxpayer’s money and global instability is not bias.
It’s interesting that the Bush administration itself has proved grown up enough to admit to its errors and look at alternative ways to manage the situation. It’s former flagwavers in the right wing blog community however seem to prefer playing ostrich and indulging in pitiful scrabbling for anything that might assist in the self justification frenzy.
Heron
“The report is a biased piece of Democrat propaganda ”
It is painful to see you – of all people on this blog – writing tripe like that.
The ISG was commissioned by a REPUBLICAN Congress got co-operation from a REPUBLICAN White House and was instigated by a REPUBLICAN politician (Frank Wolf).
You also seem to have left out some significant members in your list:
Lawrence Eagleburger – US Secretary of State under George HW Bush.
Ed Meese – Former Attorney General and NSC member under Ronald Reagan.
The whole point of it was to be bi-partisan.
One of the Democrats on it that you scorn (former senator Chuck Robb) also serves on President Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and the Iraq Intelligence Commission. Hardly a moonbat.
As for J. Kerry’s token appearance at an evidence session, more significant than that were surely President Bush’s 2 meetings with the full team and 2 (or more?) meetings with the co-chairmen.
Pompous John Simpson, a fundamental BBCian, sounds off again about here today, gone tomorrow temporary staff – he means Michael Grade
“But the real problem with dear old Michael was that he seemed to think the BBC was just another broadcasting organisation,” he continued. “He loved it, in his way, but for him it was one of many branches of the entertainment tree:
“We tend to be freer and more creative than other outfits, but that’s not why we endure the low pay and the infuriating bureaucracy and the sometimes ludicrously difficult conditions,” Mr Simpson wrote.
“It’s because we don’t have to make concessions to the market. It’s because we believe that quality is the only thing that really matters. It’s because we don’t have to apologise for what we do.
These are difficult times, and the BBC is by no means safe from politicians who still have a deep dislike for us and want to see us cut to size,”
Mr Grade’s investigation into BBC News’ impartiality provoked Mr Simpson’s outburst. “When I complained about temporary staff questioning the integrity and impartiality of the permanent BBC staff, I meant Michael Grade, of course
Simpson’s Salary: Estimated £250,000
Sorry link
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-2490898,00.html
Cockney
But it seems that the post occupation ‘fiasco’, the one reulting in the ‘extraordinarily high cost in British bodies, British taxpayer’s money and global instability’, wasn’t quite so bad a fiasco as to prevent you voting, in the May 2005 General Election, for the government which sent our troops into Iraq in the first place. One wonders quite what level of catastrophe would be required to dissuade you from repeating that. So, those who live in stone houses shouldn’t chuck glass around, or something, me ol’ mucker!
Of course the BBC must report on what happens in Iraq. My beef with them is that we know that the heroic western press corps spend most of their time under tin helmets in the Green Zone. If you really want to know what happening out there, you don’t go to the £3 billion a year organisation.
Cockney
I made no reference to my opinion on post-war Iraq in my post. My post was entirely dealing with the facts regarding the Iraq Study Group. If you can’t see something a little partisan there, maybe it’s YOU that should question YOUR sanity.
For the record I agree that post-war Iraq has been worse than problematic, and yes, the Bush administration has made many errors in its handling. I agreed and still agree that removing Saddam was in Iraq’s, USA’s, Britain’s and the democratic World’s best interests – John Reith himself said that he supported the expedition – and I have enough respect for history to understand that wars cause suffering and innocent deaths. I personally believe that – and sorry for sounding callous about this – we have tried too hard to avoid casualties, and in doing so we have allowed the insurgents a foothold in the country that could have been prevented.
My preferred action now would be a temporary increase in troops and (a) Make the Syrian and Iranian borders watertight, and (b) Start to be proactive in dealing with the insurgents. These are difficult challenges likely to result in deaths and casualties, but, frankly, the suggestion that we involve Iran and Syria in the process is rather stupid. It is Iran and Syria that are behind most of the insurgency, and, besides, anyone that has listened to Ahmadinejad over the past few years should understand that diplomacy with someone who wants to widen Iran’s streets so that the 12th Imam does not feel claustrophobic is kind of pointless.
The two options are either surrender, or push hard to win the war. Although the Iraqis are clearly fed up of the troops’ presence, they clearly backed the onset of democracy at the ballot box, despite John Simpson’s best efforts. Clearly the right option is to try and win, but the public willpower is waning and the press is determined to portray the troops’ efforts in the worst possible light – their acceptance of the Lancet’s figures and the impartiality of this report with nary a mention good examples of this. If we lose the war, this is the reason, just as it was in Vietnam.
There is no frenzy amongst supporters of the war – there is a wish for more willpower and an independent press, but also a rueful acceptance that things aren’t so good. The frenzy comes from the Stop the War Coalition, posters like yourself, and the BBC, who cannot wait for us to surrender so that they can tell us that their anti-Americanism was right and the next step should be helping Iran and Palestine destroy Israel.
Now if we can get back to the facts on BBC bias?
Heron:
Bravo (and I admire your calm in the face of considerable discourtesy).
TPO | 07.12.06 – 8:04 am
See my above post.
John Reith: if you cannot understand that a report that recommends opening negotiations with the murderers in Tehran and Damascus is evidence of people who have grown old without growing up, I feel sorry for you. Whether or not this crappy piece of work suits the interests of a rotten Congress and a treacherous media, future generations will place it along the Munich treaty as an example of self-treachery by stupidity.
Heron
“My post was entirely dealing with the facts regarding the Iraq Study Group. If you can’t see something a little partisan there, maybe it’s YOU that should question YOUR sanity.”
Mmmm. A 10-person commission made up of 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats. It has 2 Co-Chairmen – one Republican and one Democrat.
One of the Co-Chairman served as chief of staff to Ronald Reagan and secretary of state to President Bush’s father… and more recently as Bush’s own lawyer during the Florida hanging-chads affair.
Some reports call him the ‘Bush family consiglieri’. I don’t care for mafia metaphors myself, but I suppose it gets across the fact that Baker has been an avuncular figure to Bush and would be looking out for his ‘nephew’s’ best interests.
Though two of the Republicans have reputations for being ‘moderate’ centreist types, one of the Democrats is a ‘Conservative Democrat’ and three others ‘New Democrats’, from the right of their party.
Looks like a lot of care has been taken to make it balanced in partisan terms.
It was, after all, set up by a Republican Congress. Until now, Heron….i.e. until it reported…I didn’t hear anyone claiming it was ‘partisan’.
But you claim it is so obviously biased, anyone who can’t see that is nuts. Weird.
UN urges freedoms for Arab women
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6216896.stm
“Islam is not to blame for the problem, the report says, but rather political inflexibility, male domination and war.”
The Arab experts and academics writing this, the fourth, annual AHDR suggest that some Islamic law should be re-examined to reflect modern Arab societies.
The authors also challenge the belief, often heard in the West, that Islam is the main reason for discrimination.
Instead they say a deep-seated masculine culture, conservative and inflexible political forces, conflict and, in some cases, foreign occupation are to blame.”
Oh dear, it’s all our fault again
Bryan:
It seems John Reith is out to get you:
“Time and again you have demonstrated that you are that bigoted…
“Some time in the next few days I will address myself to another big-issue: the mendacious campaign of racist vilification you personally have been waging. Watch this space.”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116517758638684416/#320931
When Reith eventually takes his promised pop at you, respond by asking him this:
“Do you think it right that the BBC • our national public service broadcaster • should continually shun written requests to instigate an assessment of evidence collated by two journalists showing that John Major’s Conservative government was helped out of power through the promulgation of a baseless story supported by false statements, false testimony, and fabricated documents?”
You could add:
“It seems that these two journalists’ work has been endorsed by leading Labour politicos and BBC journalists on BBC-headed notepaper.”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116517758638684416/#320883
“Moreover, I am assured that an initial assessment will only take a couple of hours, and that even a thorough examination will take only a day or so.”
John Reith wrote:
“A 10-person commission made up of 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats. It has 2 Co-Chairmen – one Republican and one Democrat.”
I think this is not as significant as John Reith attempts to make it. Bush’s father pursued a different kind of foreign policy in the Middle East and James Baker is known for his ‘talk to the enemies’ line. Baker did in his tenure as the Secretary of State negotiate with Syria.
Because ISG is bipartisan, their recommendations contain both elements from the left (eg. timetable for withdrawal) and from the right (eg. strengthening the Iraqi goverment).
The most worrying aspect in the report was, however, the reference to the Israeli-“Palestinian” conflict, which implies that Golan heights would be used as a bargaining chip to get Syrian support for pacifying Iraq.
I am no a fan of Bush’s “Democracy to the Middle East” project but I find some of the recommendations in the ISG report a lot more delusional than Bush’s attempt to create a democratic Iraq.
“You wish for me to reveal my source?
Reveal?”
Not sure why you see fit to repeat a word only you have used – a pretty odd rhetorical device even by your standards of misdirection. Is “source” such an alien word to you?
“See if you can find the story about 600 militia men joining the ranks of the faithful.
Or the story where the last warlord accepts defeat and joins the ranks.”
To repeat the last question. You specifically accused Reith of omission:
“What you omit from the above Mr Reith is that the Islamists are composed mainly of those very same warlords”
You equate isolated cases of defection with the completely different scenario of Islamists being composed mainly of the same warlords they are fighting.
Mainly. Not some. Or a few. You know, a majority. Most.
Pounce and half a story.
JR “Some reports call him the ‘Bush family consiglieri’. I don’t care for mafia metaphors myself”
I agree with you. But yesterday I heard this unnecessary description used by a BBC Washington reporter.
It is of course no surprise that the BBC forsakes straight facts & rushes to attach a sinister phrase to Bush.
Alan Man | 07.12.06 – 1:27 pm
‘The most worrying aspect in the report was, however, the reference to the Israeli-“Palestinian” conflict, which implies that Golan heights would be used as a bargaining chip to get Syrian support for pacifying Iraq.’
Most worrying for whom?
Down here in East Sussex the burghers of Lewes don’t give a rat’s arse who is in possession of the Golan Heights.
I’d guess the folks in Peoria feel the same.
Most worrying for Israel?
John Reith
Fair enough to most of what you said, though I feel your right of democrats have stuck to the party line more than the less hawkish Republicans. I’m afraid I put together the opinion of the columnist I linked to together with the strange conclusions of the report without checking my facts. It happens – especially as I’m supposed to be working. I think 2 posts to discredit my argument is a little excessive though, especially given your absolute silence on other issues.
It is not just people here on this forum who find the conclusions startling and, well, plain barmy. Take the Most Recommended on the HYS (which has slipped out of the headline HYS’s within 24 hours), for example:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=4895&edition=1&ttl=20061207135201&#paginator
A little light relief courtesy USMC- Go Marines!
(not safe for work or children)
Temp passwords here
http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.youtube.com
John Reith
It always pays to come clean about what it is that you do at the BBC. Why not inform us who you are and what you do.
Lets examine the several points that you are trying to make in an attempt to whitewash the BBC’s biased approach to news coverage and analysis.
You state:
“[BD’s] statement that the FO wouldn’t fund a channel if there was any chance that the mullahs would disapprove is extremely silly. As are your other absurd allegations that the UK government and the BBC are in bed with the Islamic regime.
The BBC is not ‘silent’ on the mistreatment of women in Islamic society.”
The fact is that to a large extent the three parties I pointed out and not the ones that you misrepresented the FO (which is not the British Government), the BBC, and the Islamic Government of are in bed together.
Consider the following:
(1) Since Islamic revolution in 1979 the FO has consistently encouraged engagement and dialogue with the Government Islamic Republic of Iran under the false premise that there are strong “moderate” elements in power in Iran. The latest in a long line of failed approaches to Iran is the call by the FO to the ISG to enter into dialogue with Syria and Iran on Iraq.
(2) The FO would not spend £15million on a station that would be jammed.
(3) The BBC World Service would not broadcast news that would damage its massive commercial interests in Iran or the broader Islamic world.
The “conspiracy” at work in the approach of the BBC in reporting from Iran is a clear cut case of self censorship in an attempt to safeguard commercial interests and further the BBCs political world view.
(4) The so called filtering of the BBC has never occurred for a meaningful duration. Why don’t you provide us with facts and figures of how long the BBC Farsi website has been inaccessible? Unlike Wikipedia, YouTube, and a whole host of opposition websites and blogs in both Farsi and English, the BBC website is available in Iran as the Islamic government knows that its content will in no way threaten the régime through dissemination of facts. As an example, on Wikipedia the subject of the Islamic government sponsored stoning to death of women and the regular lashing and hanging of minors is an issue that would create grave embarrassment. This is not a subject that the BBC, John Simpson, or Frances Harrison would investigate in a meaningful manner • and especially not on the BBC Farsi website. I unlike you read Farsi and am familiar with the inane political content of the BBC Farsi website.
In a disingenuous attempt to make a convincing case that the BBC tackles the violation of Human Rights and women’s rights in Islamic societies you submit to a list of links that portarys these violations as little more than social issues which occur in Secular societies such as Britain, India and Turkey.
By doing so you and the BBC hide the real issue of the violation of Human Rights and women’s rights in a society governed by an Islamic theocracy. Why dont you show us articles by Frances Harrsion or any other BBC “correspondent” on the following issues:
– rape and killing of political dissenters and by the Islamic Government of Iran
– stoning to death of men and women by the Islamic Government of Iran
– the involvement of the Islamic Government of Iran in International Terrorism and IEDs in South Iraq.
– hanging of minors for adulatory and or homosexual practice by the Islamic Government of Iran
– widespread corruption within the Islamic Government of Iran
– human abuse of national and religious minorities by the Islamic Government of Iran.
Instead the BBC engages in a PR stunts on behalf of the Islamic regieme … the latest being this effort
School Day 24: Iran-UK-US
Students in Iran, the UK and the US linked up on BBC television to share their experiences and opinions.;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world…rld/ 6215360.stm
The real issues concerning Iran are consistently ignored or glossed over by the BBC. For you to claim otherwise is either an indication of you ignorance or part of your job as a BBC PR man.
Meanwhile, hidden away in the HYS section of their website, the BBC has some GOOD NEWS FROM AFGHANISTAN (don’t all faint at once!!)
A city reborn: Five years in Herat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6206258.stm
Choice quotes “In my culture anyone called a “Taleb” is a deprived, poor man with nowhere to stay but a mosque.”
“Schools were banned for girls, there was no media, no television, music, western clothes – I could not wear jeans anymore. We had to grow beards and my female classmates, teachers and lecturers were not there anymore.
“I do not believe that Europeans have lived like this; to have an illiterate guy stop you at a checkpoint and hurt you for having a tape in your vehicle or asking why your beard is not appropriately long is awful.”
“No male doctors were allowed to work in the female wards. There were only two female doctors so women waited for ages to get proper care.
“There were so many challenges. A doctor and a nurse who set up a private clinic were punished by the Taleban by being tied to a tree outside the hospital. The doctor was a very old man.”
“When violence was rife wounded people from the opposition to the Taleban came to the hospital. Then the special forces would come to get them. Later, their dead bodies would be hanging from trees.”
No wonder they hid it away…
Have Your Say about the Iraq report is going the wrong way for the BBC:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=4895&edition=1&ttl=20061207145522&
And guess what ? Its having technical difficulties. I thought this was an urban myth, but I have now seen it with my own lying eyes. The top post actually mentions “BBC bias”. Wonder how that slipped past the beeboids ?
Cockney,
I think it was you that mentioned Private Equity (If not apologies).
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/07122006/325/debt-bubble-burst-2008.html
Channel 4: The New poll-tax free BBC?
Veiled woman to give C4’s speech
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6210324.stm
C4 commissions Litvinenko drama
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6217778.stm
C4 launches programmes on demand
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6212462.stm
If Channel 4 can do veiled Christmas messages, investigative journo/drama, and news with a liberal-left slant, all funded not by a regressive poll-tax but by traditional advertising and new ‘online/on-demand’ income streams, remind me….
What is the point of the BBC and their poll tax?
What links this?
Top aide of Qaeda chief in Iraq killed
http://www.thenews.com.pk/update_detail.asp?id=14107
with this
Al-Qaeda Turkey’s Successor Captured in Hatay
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=national&alt=&hn=38950
and this
American among group arrested in Egypt in alleged terror plot
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/12/05/american_among_group_arrested_in_egypt_in_alleged_terror_plot/
Good news from the War on Terror.
Non news for the BBC.
While the BBC are happy to report this
School Day 24: Iran-UK-US
Hamzeh, Iran: “We are the victim of America’s policy. We need to be supported by the media – not to be criticised. We are a peaceful nation.
Hamid Reza: “Iran has not been presented to the world as a peaceful country to what really is a truly peace-loving nation.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6215360.stm
… they completely ignore this
Iranian Students Protest Regime… Shout “Death to Dictators!”
http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/source/018308.html
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/12/iranian-students-protest-regime-shout.html
Hat-tip USS Neverdock
I think it very unfair that various people have been saying John Reith should identify himself and his job at the BBC. He has identified himself as working at the BBC, which should be enough. He’s operating by standard internet rules. When a BBC Correspondent did post here giving his name and job and saying everyone else who posts should do the same (well, give their true names at least) a lot of people made very legitimate objections to this citing basic internet ‘rules’ and etiquette.
If JR wishes to advance his career prospects at the BBC as ‘the house tory’ instead of serving British Democracy by exposing the rife bias, well, its he that has to look at himself in the mirror each morning …
Ritter “If Channel 4 can do veiled Christmas messages, investigative journo/drama, and news with a liberal-left slant, all funded not by a regressive poll-tax but by traditional advertising”
But Channel4 is effectively subsidised by the taxpayer as the Exchequer has waived any payment for Channel4’s use of bandwidth.
Steve E
Agreed. Whilst the BBC is reporting on the mighty intellectual jousting between schoolchildren in GB, the USA and Iran, President Amadinnerjacket’s latest contribution to world peace seems to pass well under the BBC’s radar:
IRAN SENDS BAKER A MESSAGE..
http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/httpatangledwebsquarespace/iran-sends-baker-a-message.html#comments
They are angry with our nation. But we tell them ‘so be it and die from this anger’. Rest assured that if you do not respond to the divine call, you will die soon and vanish from the face of the earth. Thank to God’s help, we have gone all the way and are only one step away from the zenith. We hope to have the big nuclear celebration by the end of the year (March 2007),”
Oh look, the BBC’s reporting that a bird has become a brickie (yawn):
Firm’s first brickie with lippy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6217740.stm
A building company has taken on its first female bricklayer after appointing an ambassador to tempt more women into the trade.
Anne Murphy, 44, applied to Wigan-based Jackson Lloyd after completing a degree in urban planning. The mother-of-two, of Skelmersdale, Lancashire, said she was determined to shake-off stereotypes by proving “brickies” can be feminine.
Hold the front page!!!
We also learn: Ms Murphy is now part of a team providing repairs for local council and housing association properties.
Ahh so there we go. I’m willing to bet my last cheap Filipino maid that Wigan Council has been strong-arming local firms into employing anyone but straight me, otherwise they’re off the tender list. That’s the story here, not the fact that a woman lays bricks for a living.