A report says. Areportsays. Arep. Portsays. Areportsaysareportsaysawhatever. Gaagh, I am sick of those words. Tim Almond doesn’t think much of a BBC story saying that a report says that Tesco, Asda and Primark are exploiting Bangladeshi workers.
A report says.
Bookmark the permalink.
Its exactly the same as the CJD “scare” which was the headline on radio5. A NHS somebody says in the lancet that you could catch CJD from a blood transfusion though it is rare. They questioned a government advisor Profesoor Higgins who said that this is not news we have known about the problem for years (and it had been in the public domain). He added that the amount of people “carrying” the disease was extemly small.
In other words a non-storey.
They mentioned the war on want “report” as well and Tescos had asked to see the report so that they could look into it. There was no mention that War on Want had refused to give them the evidence though.
Just a bit of further information on the CJD non-news.
“The case of vCJD associated with blood transfusion was announced in late 2003. A blood donor, who was well at the time of donation in 1996, died of vCJD in 2000. A recipient of this donated blood was diagnosed with vCJD in 2003 and died in the autumn of that year.”
“Scientists say tests on animals suggest there may be a risk of people catching the human form of BSE through blood transfusions, according to reports.”
“People are more likely to contract the human form of mad cow disease through blood transfusions than scientists thought, say researchers at the UK’s Institute of Animal Health. Their research also questions whether current blood separation precautions are sufficient.”
Is this what war on want are aiming for?
“Anti-sweatshop watchdog groups say that in the aftermath of the events of the September 11th attacks and the growingUS recession, conditions in the Bangladesh garment industry have worsened. They say that in Bangladesh, one of themajor Islamic export nations, between 700 and 1,000 garment factories have been shut down, throwing hundreds ofthousands of young women workers into the streets without severance pay or savings.”
You missed the worst one, namely “experts say”.
And lets not forget the “Today, the government has announced a crackdown on benefits cheats, drunk drivers, racism, tax evasion, speeding….etc……
Millbank hand out the Briefing Notes, and the slave scribes at the Beeb read them out……
“And lets not forget the “Today, the government has announced a crackdown on benefits cheats, drunk drivers, racism, tax evasion, speeding….etc……”
Oh, boy! How right you are! Even if one were feeling hugely charitable and ascribed it to laziness rather than party political bias, it still stinks.
As does the pandering to the nonsense from the cretins at Transport 2000 (who?!?), Greenpeace, Fiends of the Earth et al.
I suppose that it’s inevitable that a ‘news’ organisation staffed by vegetarians will do its utmost to promote anti-meat stories – in the same way that pro-homosexuality stories features so heavily.
Well, it (IIRC) Andrew Marr and his chums who recently said that the BBC is institutionally urban, leftist, homosexual, metrosexual and islamic. Probably alot of Spurs fans there too.
I have a great idea for the ultimate reality TV show.
Three desert islands, lush, wonderful places, but isolated.
Put thirty couples on each island. Male homosexuals on one, female homosexuals on another, male/female couples on another.
Visit (via television link) on a regular basis over the next decades, and see what evolution has to say about homosexuality, and thus why most of us feel uneasy about it.
I heard the radio report concerning the exploitation of Bangladeshi workers. It also involved an economics expert that defended free trade and said that the problems of Bangladesh have a lot more to do with bureaucracy and corruption than with adverse effects of globalization.
All in all, the radio piece was more balanced than the story that is linked here.
One man’s sweatshop is another man’s job. That’s clean, indoors and doesn’t involve backbreaking manual farm labor from dawn ’til dusk.
Then there’s the reliable source, as per the Associated Press cheat sheet
As well as ‘a report’ says, and ‘experts’ say there are more BBC variations. Two are in this report:
US approves Indian nuclear deal
“The accord has been hailed as historic by some, but CRITICS say it will damage non-proliferation efforts.”
“But SOME say that by making an exception for India, the US will find…..”
It’s so sloppy. There is no mention in the entire piece as to who these people are, I am sure there are some who have these views, but the BBC can’t even be bothered to get the real quotes. Perhaps “some critics” would say that the BBC were just making it up.
S Weasel, you’ve made the point I wanted to make. I’ll add the following: anything that requires a minimum wage to be enforced in these “sweatshops” will do no good, and a great deal of harm. First, factories will close as they aren’t able to operate at a profit anymore, putting people who had paying jobs (with wages higher than they could hope for elsewhere) out on the street with nothing. Second, our clothing costs would go up, punishing the poorest members of our society merely ebcaue they can’t afford clothing.
Ironically these campaigners are seeing everything through the filter of western living. They assume that a wage equivalent to a few pence per hour is automatically abhorent because the average starting wage in the UK is something like £10. But, they neglect the cost of living. A few pence an hour represents huge buying power in many third-world countries. I’ve been to a few. Everything appears cheap to us westerners because we’re used to things being expensive, but out there everything is priced to the market so that necessities are affordable at the lowest wage level. People can afford clothing, food and housing, maybe a radio and even luxury goods on a fraction of what we earn here.
It’s stupid. if they had their way nobody but the richest would be able to afford anything.
“It’s stupid. if they had their way nobody but the richest would be able to afford anything.”
but they are getting it their way…just look how Road Tolls or “Green Taxes” will force the poor out of their cars, clearing the streets for those who who can afford to go by Taxi and Limo…….
People ARE being descriminated against over money, but the BBC does nothing but trot out Neo Labour propaganda, without sticking up for the poor…..
Some are more equal than others…..we now live in a corrupt communist/socialist state…..many thanks to the BBC……
…just look how Road Tolls or “Green Taxes” will force the poor out of their cars…
This is an interesting concept. I first heard “cars” uttered in the same sentence as “poor” in connection with the erupting ghettos in France with the claim being made that the cars of the “poor” (as well as the wealthy) were being targeted by the rioters.
This begs the obvious question: How poor can you be if you can afford to own, run and maintain a car?
J.G. | 09.12.06 – 8:42 pm:
“It’s so sloppy. There is no mention in the entire piece as to who these people are, I am sure there are some who have these views, but the BBC can’t even be bothered to get the real quotes. Perhaps “some critics” would say that the BBC were just making it up.”
In his book “A Short History of British Journalism”, former BBC Political Editor Andrew Marr gives this advice with resect to appraising the worth of any given news report:
“If it seems soft and contentless, there is probably very little in the story. Similarly, always look for direct quotation. If a reporter has actually done the work, and talked to people who know things, the evidence will usually be there. Who are the sources? Are they speaking themselves? Are they named? Generic descriptions, such as “senior backbencher” or “one industry analyst” (my mate on the other side of the desk) or “observers” (nobody at all) should be treated sceptically. They can be figments of the reporter’s prejudices or guesses, rather than real people. If you keep coming across well-written anonymous quotes, be highly suspicious: these are probably crumbling bricks without the straws of supporting fact.”
(Reprinted from The Guardian, 20 September 2004)
This begs the obvious question: How poor can you be if you can afford to own, run and maintain a car?
A lot poorer than someone who uses public transport every day, that’s for sure. Have you seen how expensive rail tickets are these days?
It’s like cheap boots vs expensive boots. Spend £15 on cheap boots and they last a while, but then they fall apart after a few months and you have to buy another pair. Spend, say, £90 on a more rugged pair and they’ll last for years. It’s the same with cars. Over the long term you’ll spend a lot less money on getting around than you will on the trains or a bus, especially over longer distances. Now, I commute about 25 miles in to manchester, which isn’t amazingly long. I live 5 minutes walk from the bus and train interchange, which could take me straight to the centre of manchester if I wanted… but it’s expensive. Buses are especially expensive over that distance. Worse, it doesn’t take me anywhere near where I want to go, requiring an extra bus from Picadilly to my work, or taking a bus to Oldham, in the next valley, adding another 15 miles to my trip, then taking another bus to the city. And that through rush-hour traffic.
It’s cheaper to go by car and it gives me back two hours I would waste on the public transport. Simple economics at work.
Reports say lots of things from the stupid to the important but the Beeb doesn’t bother checking the validity of the story it simply repeats it. Oddly though this report without checking always happens to things that are anti big business, anti Bush, anti Israel…
Quite right about the homos on the island! Mind you if Michaelangelo had been straight he probably would have wallpapered the Sistine Chapel.
Anon: Masaccio, Tiziano, Raffaello, Velazquez, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Monet and Picasso were straight.
You ask How poor can you be if you can afford to own, run and maintain a car?
I am unable to woork due to disability and am reliant on benefits. Yes, I do have a car, as out in the country it is often the only way to be able to get around. Many areas are simply not served by public transport and those that are cost me more if I go by bus than if I use the car – and this is taking into consideration petrol costs, insurance, maintennce. Already, I only travel when I really have to because of the cost. With extra expenses from road tolls, “Green” taxes, I will be unable to travel beyond what I can get to by walking. Should my ability to travel to even nearby villages be restricted? Should my ability to participate in what for most are normal activities be restricted because I am poor? There are possibly some who may say that because I do not work, I do not contribute meaningfully to society and therefore cannot expect others to subsidise me. It is possible to be poor and have a car, but it does mean that I often have to go without other things – if I for example have to travel to a hospital appointment to see my specialist (unfortunately,not possible by public transport due to the cut backs in bus services), I have to save money wherever I can, which will include not being able to afford to eat each day.
Welcome to Blair’s Britain, everybody.
Interesting points, Archonix and Anonymous. I live in Israel where I think the situation is reversed. Public transport is pretty good with most places within reach from early in the morning till late at night (though not on the Sabbath) and fairly cheap monthly tickets available for regulars. Employers are required by law to pay for the transport to and from work of their employees.
On the other hand, cars are really expensive here, as is petrol, licensing, maintenance, insurance and the mandatory yearly roadworthy exam.
I think most people assume automatically that those who drive are more well off than those who bus it or walk.
How about “British government exploits workers”
A “report” by “analalysts” says that the British government takes an average of £500 a month from British workers, equivalent to 10 years wages of a Bangladeshi clothing worker.This means they are unable to compete in the global market,forcing goods to be manufactured the other side of the world.
It is now standard for charities or oranisations wishing to publicise their activities by producing “research” or “studies” etc which are then presented as “news” by a willing media. The representatives of these organisations are then given a very soft interview on Today/PM/Five Live, amounting to what can only be described as free publicity.
Strange how many charities commission this “research” just before Christmas.
Additionally, there is an underlying tone of colonial condescenscion in all this – nobody asks what responsibility the Bangladeshi authorities have in all this -surely it is their responsibility to enforce labour laws, not that of the big bad multi nationals – after all -this would be interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign state with a democratically elected government!
JBH’s comments @ 10.12.06 – 9:46 am are interesting in that they quote the grauniad – I seem to remember counting the number of “facts” attributed to “sources” etc during the immediate aftermath of Dr David Kelly’s death – by the time I got to the bttom of page 3 of the graun, I had counted no fewer than 60 such quotes.
Confucious he say:
Quality of news is inversely proportional to the space that news needs to fill.
BBC News24: QED
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time. Kudos.
The BBC is forever reporting what the IPPR says — it’s pretty much a weekly occurrence. Rarely do they bother to inform the viewer about the leftwing credentials of the IPPR, nor its close ties to Labour.
Today the BBC’s reporting what the IPPR has to say about migration — in fact, this is a report by the IPPR, but commissioned and presumably paid for by the BBC. These two organisations (and the Labour Party?) are getting ever closer.
I wonder why the BBC chose the IPPR to conduct a survey? Was it put out to competitive tender? Or is the BBC simply handing over large amounts of tax/license payers money to its favourite leftwing think tank?
‘Rarely do they bother to inform the viewer about the leftwing credentials of the IPPR’
They did last week when the IPPR punted the idea that closing hospital A & Es would save lives (utter tosh of course and designed to assist the party of vermin).
However they only put the ‘left wing think tank’ bit in after 10:30 on the day they pushed the story on the bbc website and on ceefax.
I think it was about 9:30 that I commented here that the bbc had failed to mention the IPPR’s left leanings on both ceefax and its website.
Yes, I remember the BBC interviewing the IPPR for a supposedly ‘ independent’ analysis of Labour’s proposed NHS changes, though I missed the later programmes where you say they did explain the leftwing credentials of the IPPR.
I’d like to think it was mere incompetence, but the BBC are well aware that the IPPR is leftwing, and that it is closely tied to the Labour Party . The IPPR feature so often now in BBC reporting that I can only conclude that a conscious editorial decision had been made to support the government policy regards closure of A&E departments, and many other things as well.
A report says is bad enough.
But “a Joseph Rowntree Trust report says”? You know it’s going to be “bad news”!