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.
Different Anon wrote;
“You accused the BBC of doing something for ideological reasons they weren’t doing. At least have the intellectual honesty to appreciate that if you are going to accuse someone or something of factual errors as a prelude for accusing them of bias then your own accusation needs to be factually correct.”
When the BBC can have a openly reporter cry over the death of Arafat in a news report.
When it goes out of its way in which to refuse to say that Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organisations.
When it describes that the terrorists who murdered 56 people in London as Misguided criminals
When it has no problem shouting racist hate crime over the removal of hijab from a Muslim woman yet ruminated and procrastinated for over 3 years from saying the very same thing over the murder of Kriss Donald
When it has no problem referring to Molly Campbell as Misbah Rana in its reports about an abducted school girl.
When it interviews a religious thug who has no problem praising the suicide bombers of last July
When it has no problem interviewing another religious thug who berated John Reid for going to a Muslim area of Britain.
And the bloody rest of its apologetic remarks about those who have no wish to live under our rules.
Then I am sure you’ll agree that even a Blind man in a darkroom on a dark night wearing sunglasses would say that he can see an ideological bent that favours Islam when it comes to the BBC.
Now you don’t see me bitching about the Guardian (which most people here say is bent) maybe the fact I am not forced to buy my copy on the way to the train station on a morning under the threat of a prison sentence may have something to do with that stance of mine. Yet I am forced to contribute towards the BBC in which for it to defend those who wish to kill me (and my own) leaves it open to criticism from those who fund it.
If you cannot accept the fact that the BBC is indeed biased then may I suggest you bugger off to a third world country where free speech is suppressed and where Allah is indeed God and then try to bitch about reporting standards. I’m sure that during your stint inside you’ll never be constipated ever again.
So, to summarise – you may be factually wrong, misdirect, selectively quote, and – as in this case – divert proceedings onto yet another tack – but I should believe you anyway?
Bryan
The BBC’s website makes something like three and a half thousand page references to the janjaweed.
It has been covered more than once by Panorama.
Are you completely sure you can’t find out about systemised Arab attacks on African Sudanese from the BBC?
Yeah, UK dwellers are not forced to buy The Guardian. But even The Guardian, lousy left-wing rag though it is, at least generally reports a fuller picture of the news than the BBC and it has far more balls, frankly, than the BBC.
Different Anon wrote;
“as in this case – divert proceedings onto yet another tack “
Really? and there was little old me thinking I was replying to this snippet of yours;
“You accused the BBC of doing something for ideological reasons they weren’t doing. At least have the intellectual honesty to appreciate that if you are going to accuse someone or something of factual errors as a prelude for accusing them of bias then your own accusation needs to be factually correct”
If you wish to accuse me of moving the goal posts. it kind of helps if you also point out that not only did you move them first but that I redirected my post in which to accommodate your change of tack.
Now tell me, just why have I got under under your skin?
Are you completely sure you can’t find out about systemised Arab attacks on African Sudanese from the BBC?
Yep, when I last looked a few months back I couldn’t. Maybe the BBC can bring itself to overhaul its pathetic search engine – which currently misfires on only one cylinder. You’d think with the billions of pounds it shlurps at the public trough it could employ a computer expert or two to do the job.
But quite possibly the BBC doesn’t want a good search engine. It would make its bias that much easier to detect.
And isn’t it funny how, even among the many articles on the Darfur conflict that I found, there was nothing on the Arab genocide of Africans. This is the central driving factor of the conflict and it’s precisely what the BBC should be highlighting. It isn’t. Why? Because Arab Muslims trump African Muslims in the BBC’s warped worldview.
You claim there is such an enormous amount of info on the Jangaweed. How much of it mentions that they are essentially part and parcel of the Sudanese armed forces and that they are Arabs with the aim of killing Africans and driving them off their land? Little or none, I’d bet.
pounce “When it describes that the terrorists who murdered 56 people in London as Misguided criminals2
Sorry pounce but you have been misled by the BBC. There were 52 murders, but the BBC often report 56 deaths, as they do not want to distinguish the terrorists from the innocent victims within the death toll.
“But quite possibly the BBC doesn’t want a good search engine. It would make its bias that much easier to detect.”
Look, we agree the search engine is crap. But now you’re off in tin foil territory in which arguably the world’s largest content provider depowers or sabotages its search engine to prevent a plucky bunch of internet anti-bias warriors.
Quite apart from the absurdity of what you propose, you can still use Google to search the BBC’s site
“How much of it mentions that they are essentially part and parcel of the Sudanese armed forces and that they are Arabs with the aim of killing Africans and driving them off their land? Little or none, I’d bet.”
Does it not strike you as odd that you can’t actually be bothered to read their output before accusing them of bias by omission?
FTP –
Well according to international laws on borders, something like 40-60% of North Sea Oil lies in English waters anyway.
A couple of years ago I read that under International Maritime Law much of the oil fields would be English in the event of seperation. It’s all to do with the line of the border at Berwick upon Tweed extending out on it’s current course to the coast, as required by law. I just couldn’t be bothered looking it up and muddying the Union/seperation issue when D Burbage and I were exchanging messages.
Allen@Aberdeen –
You may well be right. A more rightest and lower tax regime in England may result in pressures for Scotland to follow likewise. A labour regime in Edinburgh may well respond to such pressure, the Scottish Nationalists would parcel up and send off your sovereignty to Brussels in no time.
The thing is, I’m a great admirer of Scotland and the Scottish and I’m also a Unionist. Very few, if any nations as small as Scotland, have touched so many other nations in so many ways. The Union has plainly been a great benefit to all Britons and to the world. Scotland is my kind of place and if it wasn’t for the socialism I’d probably be living up there by now. I love the country.
I can even live with plenty of Scots in government. You always have to give and take in such arrangements and in ten years time governent may be dominated by Englishmen. However, I’ve got to the point where I’m sick of subsidising Scotland to the point where (apparently) only 163,000 Scots aren’t net takers. We know that Scottish and foreign students don’t have to pay university tuition fees at Scottish universities, yet English students must, and each week seems to present news ways in which the English are discriminated against. The West Lothian question is that great elephant in the room. Scottish MPs voted for the Hunting with Dogs Act in England and Wales, yet have no power over hunting in Scotland.
I was due in court this morning for not paying my Council Tax. Unfortunately my mother got worried and paid it instead. But anyway, I’m sick to death of the increases in my Council Tax, year after year, all to keep Scottish taxes down. I’ve had enough. It was great while it lasted but Labour’s let the cat out of the bag and I don’t see it ever going back in. I know that Scots can point to iniquities but the imbalance is not only too far, in my opinion, but outright institutional discrimination. This conservative and unionist wants out.
This is worth a watch. Nick Robinson (one of the valuable non-left-agenda driven journalists) gets an answer and half to a Humphrys-style question to President Bush 🙂
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/homepage/int/news/-/mediaselector/check/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi?redirect=fs.stm&nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&news=1&nol_storyid=6218946
Look DA, we’re talking about a “News” organisation which deliberately obfuscates, hides and distorts the truth through sins of omission and commission, thinks it’s OK to maintain its incredibly narrow frame of reference even though it’s funded by the public of an entire country and ignores or hides the recommendations of its own reports on its own bias.
And you think it’s a stretch that it doesn’t want a decent search engine? How many people know that you can search the BBC through Google?
Re the Jangaweed, I have read a number of BBC reports that mention them without mentioning what they are really all about.
I suppose you could do some research of your own into the matter. But you evidently prefer to blindly defend the BBC.
Let’s have a dig at Big Bad Business (again). (D)HYS:
Are firms ignoring their ethical responsibility?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=4923&&&edition=1&ttl=20061208155603
Businesses have no ‘ethical responsibility’ beyond making profits for shareholders.
> Businesses have no ‘ethical responsibility’ beyond making profits for shareholders.
and not breaking the law of the land.
“I suppose you could do some research of your own into the matter. But you evidently prefer to blindly defend the BBC.”
I’ll happily defend it against someone who admits he hasn’t bothered to check much of what they’ve written before “betting” they haven’t covered the topic.
Especially in the face of several thousand page references, a few hundred articles, and at least two in-depth documentaries, the transcript of one is available to read on the net.
Your argument basically relates to – I haven’t read much and don’t intend to, so I can conclude that based on my personal opinion of the BBC, they’ve not covered it so are biased.
It’s about as convincing as your argument that the BBC’s search engine is deliberately poor to foil your attempts at exposing bias. In which case, why don’t they block Google?
The BBC isn’t biased is it.
Anybody seen the latest “In pictures of the new prison built for the inmates at Guantanamo, Cuba. Lots of pictures of the new nick and this one purporting to be one of the inmates?
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42329000/jpg/_42329955_protest_ap220.jpg
and with the following caption;
While the 430-or-so inmates at Guantanamo do not wear orange jump suits, this early image of the camp is still a powerful symbol for protesters.
I’ll put money on it that,that photo wasn’t taken anywhere near Cuba. (Hint, the statements on the front of the red jump suits kind of gives it away)
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/2206/image1tj4.jpg
pounce
Agreed. The writing on the wall is a giveaway too. I rather suspect that a picture editor saw the blindfolds and let his excitement take over.
Sorry about the nit-picking!
Bryan
Bryan tweak away! Is there a word for such errors writing ‘weary for wary’..’now’ for ‘know’, etc., dyslexia? That BBC mechanism I spoke of the ‘straight-jacket’ writing isn’t so restrictive on Live news, what I’ve found is that the bias is really noticeable. It’s as if they can get away with it because it’s rolling news.
BBC journalists demand contrition from Rumsfeld
Stepjhanie Flanders, she from BBC 2 Newsnight, is doing a stint on BBC News 24 right now(16.16), hosting it. They just had part of Rumsfeld’s speech live from the Pentagon, and then broke away when it came to questions! Stephanie then entered into a conversation with BBC Washington correspondent Adam Brookes. She decided it was “an unrepentent speech”, Adam agreed with her, “totally unrepentent”
Now, I’m not really interested if Stephanie is Catholic, Arminian, whatever, or, to use old Malborough school jargon, if she is an Agnogger, this doesn’t interest me. What does concern me is when biased religious language and religious meaning enters into BBC journalism like this such that the viewer is expected to be aware of the supposed “sins” that Rumsfeld has committed- those of which he should be penitent and seek forgiveness. Do these journalists mean mistakes or errors in military strategy or tactics regarding policy in Iraq, or, because of that remission of sins? If not, why indulge in religious language. This from a £3 billion news org. that has guidelines! BBC bias, particularly their Anti-Republican bias, yet again came to the fore in their reporting. What we want is facts! But note how this bloody emotive leftie pseudo political analysis and questioning is itself the most awful form of bias!
BBC journalists say Rumsfeld’s Pentagon speech ‘not worthy of Salvation’
Further examples of bias from Brookes…
“The war on Terrorism as America still calls it”;
“’the long war’ as he (Rumsfeld) calls it”
Then Stephanie (16.24) let loose on the Russians, in what was classical BBC Russophobia bordering on racism, if you ask me. The question was raised by her on the Litvinenko case and the Met not getting very far with their enquiries if this is “the Russians being obstructive?” Now, we are quite used to “the Germans, but how far out of the politically correct straight-jacket is this. An entire people? The nation? Is it not possible to limit such an accusation to a particular ministry of the interior, the judiciary, the police perhaps, or corresponding spokespersons? No, Stephanie doesn’t mind being mad, bad and dangerous on live BBC news- lets blame the entire Russian people.
It is a photo of protesters prostrating themselves in likeable fashion. The caption doesn’t really make it completely clear admittedly, yet it’s not totally biased.
Don’t dig too deep!
You are indeed “forced to pay for the Guardian”, if you pay taxes. That newspaper is almost entirely funded by public sector job-advertising, including advertising by the BBC. Furthermore, the Guardian has been able to use the money gained at secondhand from the taxpayer to buy up a number of local and regional newspapers.
This is why the BBC/Guardian types have a vested interest in ever-increasing taxation and public spending. Also in preventing questions being asked as to how the existing enormous sums are spent, or whether they are necessary at all.
Well, you can prattle on, DA, reiterating the same point over and over. But I’ve read quite a bit of the BBC’s output on Darfur and commented on my findings quite a bit on this blog and others and checked out HYS on the issue. Here’s a taste:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/115829424471490370/#307809
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/115869591197944216/#308195
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/115869591197944216/#308199
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/115930154170303821/#309197
You’ve done a bit of Googling. Have you read one article? You don’t prove or disprove the BBC’s bias by Googling “Jangaweed” and splashing the results over a blog. What are the BBC actually saying about the Jangaweed? Care to investigate? No, I didn’t think so.
And perhaps you’d like to provide some evidence of your research overall on the subject of the BBC’s treatment of Sudan?
No, didn’t think so either.
Today I heard Cat Stevens aka Yusuf for the umpteenth time on Radio 2. And thought, how does he do it? Doesn’t release a single for over 35 years, releases a single 35 years later, and hey presto straight onto the Radio 2 Playlist.
Could it be – no surely not – that ‘Muslim’ plays a little better at the BBC than ‘Greek Orthodox’?
If there’s anyone out there who had a few insipid songs in the charts in the early 70s, now has an album half- full of self-penned mush padded out with lame cover versions and isn’t Muslim could you do me a favour. Contact Radio Two and ask for your album to become a permanent feature of their Playlist and let us know how you got on.
BBC2 Newsnight this evening leads with
Sunday is a Global Day for Darfur
Tonight, we have moving testimony from a Darfuri woman who has horrific experiences of the very worst of the conflict. Not only did she witness the violent gang rape of a group of girls – some as young as eight – by the Janjaweed – she also was repeatedly raped herself by Sudanese government security men. She believes there is not one woman in Darfur who has not suffered a similar fate. She eventually found her way to the UK, and has now been told her application for asylum has been refused
Cue concerned BBC journalists, cue Kirsty in frantic Scoto-missionary mode… I wonder if the Sudanese ambassador for the duration of his interview with her will wear a red nose?
It looks like TB is also unrepentant
MULTICULTURALISM
Also, Tony Blair was defiant today about multiculturalism. After months of hand-wringing in government circles about whether the concept of multiculturalism is “dead”, Tony Blair said in a speech today that it most certainly isn’t. “We like our diversity”, he said, and argued we should celebrate it.
Instead, he laid the blame for the failure of some minorities to integrate on a particular section of a particular community. It is not a problem with Britons of Hindu, Afro-Carribbean, Chinese or Poles, he said, but a problem of Muslims originating from particular countries.
Is he right? And what will the impact of his words be in Muslim-dominated communities?
I’m sure they will invite some angry Moslems to the studio this evening!
blair is a tosser. HIS government funded Islamic centers up and down the country.
HIS government has allowed the free flow of Islamic nutters in and out of the country.
HIS friggin wife was in involved in that nutty Nijab schoolgirl coutrtcase.
bit late now to be saying what he’s saying.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6219626.stm
Is there a word for such errors writing ‘weary for wary’..’now’ for ‘know’, etc., dyslexia?
I dunno. I suppose it depends on whether the person knows or doesn’t know that he should have used “wary”.
That BBC mechanism I spoke of the ‘straight-jacket’ writing isn’t so restrictive on Live news, what I’ve found is that the bias is really noticeable. It’s as if they can get away with it because it’s rolling news
Good point. I suppose one can access the newscast for a while on the net, but then it will be superseded by the latest broadcast, leaving no trace, and leaving the BBC hacks freer to be biased without consequences.
Joe Bonanno,
Damn pity about Cat. He did some nice stuff in the early days.
And yes, being a Muslim is an automatic entry card to the hallowed BBC studios.
oh dear…
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=4922&edition=1&ttl=20061208191231&#paginator
looks like Blair touched a raw nerve – with Britons.
Classic BBC pc speak from Christian Fraser
St Paul was an influential early Christian who travelled widely in the Mediterranean area in the 1st Century.
St Paul’s tomb unearthed in Rome
googled BBC
Influential Muslim cleric mourned
One of the UK’s most influential Muslim clerics, Dr Zaki Badawi, has died..
24 Jan 2006
Bono crowned ‘most influential’
most influential black people.
Influential voters
the most influential TV shows
most influential Trade paper
Influential scientist remembered
Influential composer Ligeti dies
Voice of influential U2 frontman
Teletubbies and Morecambe and Wise are named as among the most influential shows in TV history in a poll..
Following this logic how about most influential early Christian?
John,
Just a little aside. Highgate Cemetary is still open for burials. My in-laws were buried there not long ago .. and my plot awaits me. Patrick Caulfield was buried there on 29 September last year.
“Furthermore, the Guardian has been able to use the money gained at secondhand from the taxpayer to buy up a number of local and regional newspapers.
This is why the BBC/Guardian types have a vested interest in ever-increasing taxation and public spending”
So “Guardian types” support excessive taxation so they can get their favourite newspaper more cheaply than would otherwise be possible? Am I reading what you said correctly?
And also, what percentage of Guardian revenue comes from public sector job adverts? How does this compare with other newspapers?
MisterMinit
And also, what percentage of Guardian revenue comes from public sector job adverts?
It’s my understanding that the Guardian wouldn’t be in business without the taxpayer unwittingly propping it up.
As well as that 2nd hand car magazine.
It’s my understanding that the Guardian wouldn’t be in business without the taxpayer unwittingly propping it up.
Pete_London | 09.12.06 – 10:28 am | #
which is very interesting to me, because where i come from newspapers have to bid periodically for contracts to carry government advertizing, notices, etc…inasmuch as the bbc is publically funded, how can they be allowed to advertize continually in the same paper decade after decade (from what i understand)?
why do other papers not protest at such obviously unfair preferential treatment?
someone here once commented that the guardian is the only paper that has a suitable employment section. surely this is circular arguing? does this mean that if the bbc decided to place all that advertizing in another place, and publicize that, these papers still would not be bought/read by those seeking to find such employment?
Just one question – why is the BBC not covering the Iranian Holocaust Conference at all??? Its absence from their “news” coverage is conspicuous.
GCooper writes: “”The original inscription on the top reads: Paolo Apostolo Martyr – Latin for “Paul Apostle Martyr”.”
I’m no linguist but that looks a lot more like Italian than Latin to me. Wasn’t the Latin form of Paul’s name ‘Paulus’?
Roxana – exactly right. That is Italian with a slightly pretentious Latinate word, “martyr” – ordinary Italian is “martire” – which is at any rate typical of certain periods of Italian usage, I would say the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
“It’s my understanding that the Guardian wouldn’t be in business without the taxpayer unwittingly propping it up.”
That is correct. Given that it’s odds on we’ll have a Cameron government in 4 years and they’ve cleverly pledged to stick all public services job ads on the net it looks like cheerio Grauniad. Be interesting to see if their more lunatic columnists decide to join the real world in order to get work on another title or stick to their principles…..
Maybe, if Cameron goes through with it. His analysis of the costs of setting up his own central website are well off, though.
Of course, that doesn’t mean he won’t pull ads from the Grauniad and put them in other newspapers or existing sites that exist, such as Monster.
Fabio – Terrific. So not only is the Beeb stating the obvious it got the language wrong.
Roxana – yes. And while Italian and Latin are not quite as well known as Spanish or French or German, they are not obscure either. If our broadcaster of record does not know enough to tell the difference, how can it ever pretend to guide us through the intricacies of Arabic or Chinese politics and culture?