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.
What’s Anthony Wedgewood-Benn got going for him in this poll, apart from the unstinting support of the people who are organising the vote?
A lot of people think of Benn and say “You know where you stand with him”. Because, judging by appearances, it seems to be true. I mean, at least he’s consistent in his blathering, unlike most politicians…
I do suspect a certain amount of vote rigging, of course…
People like JBH are right to pursue cases such as ‘cash for questions’.”
F***ing Hell, time for another Diana enquiry then…
Cockney | 16.12.06 – 5:01 pm | #
Keep the blinders on and earplugs in, Cockney.
” Bryan | 16.12.06 – 7:24 pm |”
bryan -i’m dubious of it. scroll up and you can see that my criticism of his usage of the word “stolen” , suddenly turned into “well, he took it ,but he paid it back..”
but on the FIRST page , it says STOLEN.
sorry JBH , but that just undermines your case on page ONE. and if thats just page one, then i hesistate to read any more.
if you had a case, you would have sold the story for millions to the Daily Mail or some other anti-Blair publication by now.
but that hasnt happened – which tells me that the story doesnt have legs.
and to be honest – there as as many opponents to Blair on the LEFT as well as on the right. if JBH’s case had legs, you could be damn sure it would be lapped up by the likes of George Galloway or the SNP by now.
it hasnt.
Let’s hope she’ll be OK. Wasn’t it Shakespeare who said Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned?
I think the lady’s been scorned and she’s hitting back:
But when all the delegates were taken to see President Ahmedinejad for a mutual admiration session, the BBC, unlike other foreign media, was excluded from covering it. So much for Iranian freedom of speech.
Bryan | 16.12.06 – 4:24 pm | #
not so fast…when iran (for one) comes in for continued snickering
and innuendo then maybe my ears will prick up. so what am i supposed to believe, if the bbc had been invited that would have meant that just maybe there was freedom of speech in iran after all?
what the bbc might consider showing us is that before this “conference” iran has made a mockery of freedom of speech, during this event iran has made a mockery of freedom of speech, and AFTER this event… (ok, ok, so the bbc don’t do predictions – or do they?)
but i won’t hold my breath…any organization that can have one of its “star” presenters bleating on uchallenged about how iran has a “form” of democracy inspires me with no hope at all. as i’ve said before, i doubt that the bcc would be so charitable if the u.s. prevented blacks from voting because they are black, as iran prevents women from voting because they are women. and such an organization is truly shallow and visionless (barring any sinister explanations) if it cannot question (its perspective on) a state’s democratic credentials until it, through one of its own, is subjected to such a state’s shortcomings.
If JBH is correct, the behaviour of The Guardian in the case of ‘cash for questions’ would be enough to destroy it: no other newspaper would dare to ruin one of its own. Note, for example, that The Guardian lends some of its printing capacity to The Daily Telegraph. It would be unlikely that The DT would advance JBH’s argument. And does anyone (apart from GoJT)really believe that Galloway or the SNP would wish to demonstrate that a TORY government was undermined by criminal actions?
sorry, not bcc, but, of course, bbc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6186987.stm
Critics have accused the US military of inflaming insurgencies by failing to gain the trust of local people.
more weasel words .. name the so-called critics!
ghost of john trenchard | 16.12.06 – 11:38 pm and 11:43 pm,
I think Allan@Aberdeen a few posts up has answered your 11:43 pm point.
I take your 11:38 point, to a degree. I think JBH’s use of the word “stolen” is part of his dramatic flair but I agree that it does undermine his case. “Misappropriated” would perhaps have been a better word to use, especially since it is later revealed that the money had been repaid.
But it doesn’t necessarily follow that since anti-Blair publications haven’t taken up the case there is no case to take up.
amimissingsomething | 16.12.06 – 11:59 pm,
You make fair points. The BBC’s coverage on Iran’s thugocracy has been unchallenging and submissive, even at times adoring, to put it politely – no doubt because of Iran’s anti-US and anti-Israel stance and the fact that it’s a Muslim country. So should we get excited when a single BBC journalist starts showing some integrity and grit?
Well, yes. It’s like a breath of fresh air. Though I concede that we’ll have to wait and see whether this is just a flash in the pan, based on Harrison’s personal dislike of the regime, or whether the BBC as a whole will come to develop and sustain incisive, tough reporting on the new Nazis.
The BBC would no doubt counter this argument by pointing out that it has to be impartial. However, it failed its own impartiality test in the first place by getting into bed with the mullahs and besides, there is no middle ground between a terrorist regime and its intended or actual victims.
… we’ll have to wait and see whether this is just a flash in the pan, based on Harrison’s personal dislike of the regime, or whether the BBC as a whole will come to develop and sustain incisive, tough reporting on the new Nazis.
Interestingly she makes a comparison we’ve often made here:
In the BBC there’s a lot of talk about impartial broadcasting. I’ve always wondered how that would work if you were the BBC correspondent in Nazi Germany reporting on Hitler.
Would you not have to take sides? Well I got closer than ever before to this problem reporting on Iran’s Holocaust conference.
John Reith:
On occasion I have remarked how I have been given to mellow towards you, such has been the apparent reasonableness of your utterances. Though I have been aware of the possibility that you were merely posturing for tactical effect, I tend not to think the worst of people until they prove themselves worthy of such opinion.
More fool me. This time your behaviour reveals you to be a dishonest and/or reckless person of the worst order. I now realise why you hold BBC News & Current Affairs so highly and defend it so vehemently. Clearly, it’s because this gargantuan organisation that shapes our lives and society reflects your own ethos and morality.
Let me take you • and “the gallery” • on a voyage of discovery of your arrogance and your recklessness and/or dishonesty.
What is remarkable about it is that you had no reason to be dishonest and every reason to be careful. This, then, begs the question: “If John Reith is prepared to make false statements deliberately or recklessly unnecessarily, why should anyone believe any of his statements of fact that are crucial to important points?”
The background:
In my post of 14.12.06 – 11:42 pm ( http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116595993263478419/#321770 ), I pointed out to you last Sunday’s BBC documentary on the death of Diana, in which the voice over stated that the Neil Hamilton ‘cash for questions’ affair “helped bring down the last Conservative government”.
I then referred to the timely emergence, in the final days before Neil Hamilton’s 1996 libel action against The Guardian was due to start, of three Fayed employees, namely: Alison Bozek, Iris Bond, and Philip Bromfield • plus Fayed’s mysterious U.S. lawyer, Douglas Marvin, who, happened to ‘discover’ their involvement in processing cash in envelopes. I drew your attention to the book by The Guardian’s barrister, Geoffrey Robertson QC, in which he admitted that prior to these three people’s last minute ‘discovery’, The Guardian’s defence had actually relied entirely on Fayed’s word. To back up my claim I pasted in a link to a photocopy of the relevant pages from Robertson’s book on Image Shack here:
http://img287.imageshack.us/img287/2484/02hthejusticegamep36937cd7.jpg
I pointed out that the BBC had never interviewed these people and, taking all the aforementioned facts into account, I asked you:
“Do you not think it odd that the BBC has never interviewed these 3 absolutely crucial Fayed staff?”
I added:
“Indeed, the BBC has never even published their photographs.”
To make my point I pasted in the hyperlinks of four Google image searches of the BBC’s website of their names, none of which produced any results:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=+%22Alison+Bozek%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&btnG=Search
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=+%22Iris+Bond%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&btnG=Search
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=+%22Philip+Bromfield%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&btnG=Search
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=+%22Douglas+Marvin%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&btnG=Search
To demonstrate further the suspicious oddness of the BBC’s lack of interest in these people, I then pasted in two links of image searches of the BBC’s website of two key witnesses relating to the Jeffrey Archer controversy, namely Ted Francis and Angela Peppiatt:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=+%22Ted+Francis%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&btnG=Search
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=+%22Angela+Peppiatt%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&btnG=Search
I concluded my post with a question:
“Tell me John, can you think of a cogent reason why the BBC has published 15 photographs of Ted Francis and four of Angela Peppiatt and none of Alison Bozek, Iris Bond, Philip Bromfield and Douglas Marvin?”
Continued on next post…
…..Continued from previous post
In your reply of 15.12.06 – 11:56 am ( http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116595993263478419/#321805 ) you said:
“As for the lack of images •
The BBC News website was only one year old when these people were (ever so briefly – 2 days??) in the public eye. The thing was run on a shoestring by former Ceefax people. Pics weren’t a big priority. What’s more – these people were publicity shy – they didn’t give interviews and insisted on their privacy. There’s no law that compels anyone to talk to the BBC – or allow the BBC to film them.”
In my response of 15.12.06 – 4:22 pm ( http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116595993263478419/#321820 ) I said:
“You say that the BBC’s website was in its infancy when they were controversial. But these people first had public roles in the Downey Inquiry of 1997, and the BBC’s website was well and truly up and running then. They also had key roles in Neil Hamilton’s second libel action of November-December 1999.”
In your response of 15.12.06 – 6:25 pm ( http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116595993263478419/#321840 ) you stated with brusque authority:
“The BBC’s website was launched in November 1997. A little thing I know, but you really ought to be more careful if you are an investigative journalist trying to persuade sceptical editors that you’ve unearthed a major conspiracy.”
Now I felt sure that the BBC had had a news website running before that, as I thought I remembered the BBC’s web news reports during the May 1997 general election. I did a quick search and found the entry for bbc.co.uk on Wikipedia, confirming that it had, in fact, been founded in 1994. Accordingly in my next post of 15.12.06 – 7:03 pm ( http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116595993263478419/#321843 ) I pasted in the link to the Wikipedia entry and stated:
“Get your facts right John. The BBC launched its website in April 1994, not November 1997 as you say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc.co.uk
You responded on 16.12.06 – 9:32 am ( http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116595993263478419/#322204 ) thus:
“J B-H – I do have my facts right. We were discussing news stories on the BBC site… If you had actually bothered to read the wiki page you linked, then you would have known that the 94 site was originally a kind of club for early adopters that turned into a corporate website with some education pages. Your lack of attention to detail combined with a rude and aggressive tone and an over-eagerness to accuse others of getting things wrong just gets up people’s noses.”
Your arrogance and insistence left me surmising that my memory must have been playing tricks on me, and that I must have remembered reading news reports of the May 1997 election on Yahoo’s news site instead. I therefore decided to leave it at that. More fool me.
Below John Reith are links to THIRTEEN BBC NEWS REPORTS published between 1 May and 5 August 1997, ALL of which refer to Sir Gordon Downey’s investigation into the ‘cash for question’s’ affair, NOT ONE of which even mentions that Downey’s “compelling evidence” verdict was actually based entirely upon the three Fayed employees’ evidence, still less shows their bloody faces. Indeed, NOT ONE of these reports even mentions their names • though The Guardian’s own barrister, no less, confirms that the whole case against Neil Hamilton rested entirely on their evidence:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/05/0501/tatton.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/news/0501/tatton.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/05/0515/hamilton.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/05/0522/brief.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/06/0610/downey.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/07/0701/sleaze.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/07/0703/downey.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/07/0704/downey.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/07/0717/brief.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/07/0729/hamilton.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/08/0801/standards.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/08/0805/hamilton.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/diary/128050.stm
POUNCE, WHERE ARE YOU WHEN I NEED YOU?
The BBC and half a story? NO, THE BBC AND NONE OF THE STORY. JUST PURE, UNADULTERATED AGITPROP, MISINFORMATION, OMMISSION OF IMPORTANT FACTS, AND PROPAGANDA POSTURING AS NEWS CONCERNING THE CONTROVERSY WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE BBC ITSELF, HELPED BRING DOWN THE LAST CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT.
John Reith, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to demonstrate the BBC’s deeply dishonest reporting • and your own unworthy defence of it • time and time again.
ghost of john trenchard | 16.12.06 – 11:43 pm :
Your thought, along the lines of “if JBH’s caims were true, someone would have done something about it”, is an entirely reasonable and logical one to hold. Indeed, I use such a phrase as a curtain-raiser to Section One of my website that deals with the news blackout of our investigation (I say “our” because I conducted the investigation with Malcolm Keith-Hill, who now lives in Brazil). Check out:
http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%201/indexa.html
Forming one’s views from the actions (or inactions) of others is a natural human instinct and society wouldn’t function if we didn’t act this way. But as history shows us, in certain circumstances such behaviour can have calamitous consequences.
With respect to controversial issues, we all judge the truth of a story by the way the media, of which the BBC is the prime force, itself reacts. That’s why BBC bias is so pernicious and surely the reason that this blog was founded in the first place. No?
Oui!
After the suggestion that JBH try and get his investigation featured on that comnspiracies show, several people belittled the idea as if the cash for questions scandal was a small thing. If JBH’s conclusions are correct, this is nothing small. It’s huge. The media standing by while certain sections of it actively bring down a government in order to install their own preferred party? In other circumstances it would be called a coup. The mere fact that it was bloodless and appeared legitimate because it was en election removes nothing from this fact; if he’s right, the BBC didn’t merely act in a biased way, but it actually sought to change the government in power, and succeeded. An unelected organisation that is fed by taxes changing the government in order to bring in one more favourable to its own ideals? Am I the only one that thinks this is a horrendous turn of events?
dave t
Thanks. For me, and, be in no doubt, the BBC and The Guardian, that was a very significant “Oui” indeed.
archonix:
Any more comments like that and you’ll have the bastards sending up someone to knock me off my pushbike.
Thank you JBH for a superb example of media manipulation. Rieths only getting up your nose because he needs an excuse not to confront you and your evidence. Please don’t give up.
Al Beeb at its dhimmi worst, TV News 24, with the misnomer programme ‘Hard Talk’
giving extended air-time to
Anjum Chaudri “of the Omar Bakri group of jihadists” (references below).
See- ” British Muslim leader: only Muslims are innocent.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org (17 Dec.).
For critique of al Beeb’s implicit
acceptance of ‘Palestinian’ view of economic sanctions, see:
‘Fitzgerald: “Crippling Economic Sanctions”‘
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch
17 Dec,).
“With respect to controversial issues, we all judge the truth of a story by the way the media, of which the BBC is the prime force, itself reacts. That’s why BBC bias is so pernicious and surely the reason that this blog was founded in the first place. No?”
actually, thats a fair point.
another example of the MSM conniving with each other is the QanaGate affair that Mr North of EU Ref did such sterling work on during the summer. That escalated into the whole “fauxtography” scandal where major news agencies were caught publishing doctored photos.
Not an example of bias, but yet another example of £3 billion worth of extreme sloppiness.
For my sins, I was watching songs of praise. They introduced the following hymn:
The first Nowell
And the error was repeated throughout the lyrics.
(On the off chance that anybody doesn’t know, the correct spelling is Noël….)
Also, I just watched my first episode of “Robin Hood”. What an appallingly low quality production for something which clearly has received so much money. They even managed to get a jibe in at “tax cuts”.
The acting was poor, the delivery was poor, the costumes were… bizarre, the bows were wrong, the dialogue was stupid. Robin Hood was also wearing something which at a glance looked like a thigh holster
And to top it off, we are expected to believe that mediaeval peasants thought exactly like modern-day progressives…
Now you know where liberals come from…Sherwood Forest!
Except THESE ones steal from the poor to give to the rich and idle under NuLabour!
Jonathan Boyd Hunt
You can shout and scream in bold type. You can keep on repeating yourself. You can throw your toys out of your pram. But it won’t change the facts of history.
The BBC News website (as it is now called) or BBC News Online (as it was then called) was launched in November 1997. Fact.
Here’s a story from the BBC about its founding editor getting the OBE.
The 56-year-old founded the BBC news website in November 1997.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4082733.stm
In case you don’t believe the BBC, here’s Answers.com (quoting wikipedia):
BBC News Online (more recently referred to as simply the BBC News website) is the BBC’s news web site and part of bbc.co.uk. Launched in November 1997, it is the most popular news website in the UK
http://www.answers.com/topic/bbc-news-online
Here’s a press release from a California-based software company that supplied some of the techie stuff that powers the website. Why would they lie?
Launched in 1997, BBC News Online attracts some 120 million visitors a month.
http://www.telestream.net/gallery/gallery_3.asp?id=17
If you are still suspicious: here’s the Departmentt of Journalism at the University of Southern California:
BBC News Online was launched in 1997.
http://www.onlinejournalism.com/news/reviews/bbc_news/
I hope you will now accept that what we now know as the BBC News website was launched in November 1997, and not as you have repeatedly insisted in 1994.
In your post Jonathan Boyd Hunt 17.12.06 – 2:29 pm you wrote:
Below John Reith are links to THIRTEEN BBC NEWS REPORTS published between 1 May and 5 August 1997
I opened one at random and found that it was indeed from the BBC Online site but it was not published during the period you so emphatically claimed.
It says quite clearly at the top:
Tuesday, July 7, 1998 Published at 12:28 GMT 13:28 UK
Here, try it yourself and see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/diary/128050.stm
I then opened the other twelve and found not one of them came from the BBC News Website but from a completely different site the BBC was running for election backgrounders in 1997.
If the veracity of your arguments and the quality of your evidence in this small matter are in any way indicative of the approach you take to your conspiracy investigation, then I cannot say I’m surprised that not a single media organization has chosen to believe you.
Geoff, Archonix et al
I read JBH’s website a couple of years back. I was shocked then, and have since been an aggressive defender of Hamilton, despite the fact that I don’t actually like him. If JBH’s claims were not true, then the repulsive Guardian would have sued by now. I never liked their editorial stance, far too irritating when I know I could destroy nearly every argument those left-wingers make from my general knowledge, without any of the investigation a columnist should naturally make. I have since come to detest the paper and all it stands for.
John Reith
what is the possible relevance of some new name being rolled out in November 1997 if the articles written in August that year are presented to you directly from the BBC website itself? Who cares if it called itself BBC News? “A rose by any other name…”, or more crudely if it walks like a duck, and quacks, what is the possible relevance of you trying to claim it’s just a waterfowl when you have been told it’s a duck?
Why do you use irrelevant details for your defence? Surely it can only be because you are wrong and should have admitted it months ago.
…£3 billion worth of extreme sloppiness…
(On the off chance that anybody doesn’t know, the correct spelling is Noël….)
Don’t you just hate it when someone takes it upon himself to tell you how it is and then turns out to be talking out his backside?
Check facts here.
Nep Nederlander:
“Nowell” is simply the anglicization of the French “Noel”. There is nothing wrong with it.
Dear Lord Reith
http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/indmay3.shtml
I guess all of these stories aren’t classified as ‘news’ ?
Anyone know whats happened to DFH? There has not been a post on his blog since Wednesday, November 22, 2006. I know he sometimes posts here so he may be reading.
J B-H
Now to the substantive stuff.
You allege that the BBC has in some way been remiss in failing to interview Alison Bozek.
On this basis, you appear to have persuaded archonix and others here that the BBC has stood by and allowed the Guardian to mount some sort of political coup.
There is one fact that you curiously omitted. One that – given your closeness to Neil Hamilton during the period – you must have known.
That is: at the time that Downey was preparing his report, i.e. in March 1997, Alison Bozek did an interview on terms of declared ‘exclusivity’ with the Mail on Sunday.
Given the exclusivity deal, how could the BBC have interviewed her? So far as I know, she has declined all other interview opportunities.
Once the Downey Report was published, what Alison Bozek had to say was, in any case, in the public domain.
Her examination by Nigel Pleming QC (Counsel for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) is available on the net for all to read:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030iii/sp0102.htm
You write on this blog as though the media (including the BBC) had denied Hamilton a chance to put his/your case. Many readers here don’t recall the details of what happened – so here’s a potted guide:
On October 20th 1994 the Guardian published a story that
…..contd….
You write on this blog as though the media (including the BBC) had denied Hamilton a chance to put his/your case. Many readers here don’t recall the details of what happened – so here’s a potted guide:
On October 20th 1994 the Guardian published a story that
You write on this blog as though the media (including the BBC) had denied Hamilton a chance to put his/your case. Many readers here don’t recall the details of what happened – so here’s a potted guide:
On October 20th 1994 the Guardian published a story that
sorry….having problems posting. here’s the summary:
On October 20th 1994 the Guardian published a story that TWO MPs – Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith had taken money from Fayed. Tim Smith admitted his guilt and resigned at once. Hamilton denied it and put his case five days later to a panel including Richard Ryder (the Conservative Chief Whip), Michael Heseltine (President of the Board of Trade) & the Cabinet Secretary.
Outcome: The panel persuaded Hamilton to resign.
In 1996 Neil Hamilton sued the Guardian for libel
Result: The Guardian won after Hamilton threw in the towel.
In 1997 Hamilton’s behaviour was a factor in the election.
Outcome: the voters of Tatton threw him out.
Also in 1997 the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards conducted an investigation.
In a 900 page report he said he found ‘compelling evidence’ against Hamilton
Also in 1997 the cross-party Committee on Standards and Privileges looked at it
Outcome: they concluded Hamilton hadn’t lived up to the standards required of an MP
In 1999 Hamilton sued Fayed for libel. The case went to trial before a jury.
The jury found against Hamilton.
J B-H has been on the case for almost ten years. He is yet to turn-up a single piece of hard evidence that the key witnesses in the libel actions were lying.
The smears J B-H today makes against the BBC, he earlier made against Granada TV. He pursued his complaint against them to the High Court.
Outcome: the High Court found against J B-H and his silly conspiracy theory.
Richard | 17.12.06 – 8:10 pm
They weren’t ‘irrelevant details’. This all started because J B-H demanded to know why the BBC website hadn’t printed pics of some witnesses in a 1996 libel action.
My answer was that the website was only launched in ’97.
Too late for the ’96 story.
Though the witnesses were mentioned in some election stories – because they also featured in the Downey enquiry report in mid 1997, these were not on the BBC news website…so you couldn’t expect the full news treatment, pics and all as you might today.
Richard:
Thank you and welcome to B-BBC. Prepare for a fun, roller-coaster ride.
John Reith:
Thank you so much for that. You’ve just provided me with the best opening yet. I’ll get back to you tomorrow.
Biodegradable | 17.12.06 – 11:15 am,
Yes, that is interesting. In fact, that whole From Our Own Correspondent report of Harrisons is packed with observations that can be, and should be, debated at length. It’s as if she is throwing out challenges to the existing order. The usual From Our Own Correspondent report is an unoriginal bit of writing with the writers obediently following a wistful, PC style and never daring to deviate from the same stale old PC conclusions.
That’s partly why Harrison’s effort was such a startling departure from the norm. Let’s hope there’s more where that came from.
jx | 17.12.06 – 9:09 pm:
I congratulate you on the excellence of your research.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6185177.stm
Castro call cheers Cuba officials
A curious absence of any references to human rights abuses pervades this report. Note also the use of “Cuban leader” and “veteran leader” in preference to “dictator.” You can follow the other links from this story and you’ll find he’s never called “dictator” and human rights abuses are not mentioned in the majority of stories about him.
Since we have only just dispensed with the late unlamented Augusto Pinochet, who was invariably referred to as “military dictator” or “former dictator” in BBC reports, all of which without exception mentioned • indeed were usually about nothing other than – human rights abuses, these omissions in the case of Fidel seem strange. Or rather entirely predictable.
It is not the case that no BBC report ever mentions Castro’s critics, or his human rights abuses • perhaps 3-5% of all BBC space devoted to Castro mentions such things. It’s just that with Pinochet it was 85-95% of the space.
ghost of john trenchard 17.12.06 – 6:36 pm: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116595993263478419/#322309
Forgive me for not acknowledging your gracious post. Somehow it escaped my attention.
A curious absence of any references to human rights abuses pervades this report. Note also the use of “Cuban leader” and “veteran leader” in preference to “dictator.”
Yes, al-Beeb aren’t as keen to label Castro a dictator as they were with Pinochet.
In fact, searching the Beeb for references of “Castro” and “dictator” turns up a load of false positives where the old git is written about in stories that mention the “dictator Fulgencio Batista”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/1/newsid_3413000/3413749.stm
Other hits include “dictator” in quotation marks.
54 hits:
Batista dictator site:.news.bbc.co.uk
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=Batista+dictator+site%3Anews.bbc.co.uk&btnG=Search&meta=
325 hits (many caused by the Batista references above):
Castro dictator site:.news.bbc.co.uk
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=Castro+dictator+site%3A.news.bbc.co.uk&btnG=Search&meta=
Doesn’t the fact that Tim Smith MP actually admitted he’d taken money for questions blow a ruddy great hole in Jonathan’s GuardianLies theory?
For starters it means that Guardian editor Peter Preston didn’t ‘invent’ the ‘cash for questions scam’ as a plot to bring down a Conservative government, as Jonathan says. It was really going on.
And why go to all that trouble to frame an innocent Tory minister (Hamilton) when there’s a guilty Tory minister (Smith) ready and willing to ‘fess-up? It doesn’t add up.
The Guardianistas didn’t need Neil Hamilton. The political damage was done.
Nep Nederlander:
“Nowell” is simply the anglicization of the French “Noel”. There is nothing wrong with it.
little black sambo | 17.12.06 – 8:38 pm |
It’s a very rare anglicisation. I don’t recall seeing it in many dictionaries since it’s usually used as a surname rather than the name for christmas, which is commonly rendered as noel even in English.
“That’s partly why Harrison’s effort was such a startling departure from the norm. Let’s hope there’s more where that came from.
Bryan | 17.12.06 – 10:20 pm |”
maybe she’s the canary in the coalmine.
she’s seeing the AhmaDinnerJacket regime first hand.
Totally off topic, but I was watching some trash TV (Sunday night and all that) and who should appear on screen but Greg Dyke referring to the Police as ‘filth’.
The programme was on UKTV Gold.
Only Fools Greatest Moments
http://uktv.co.uk/index.cfm/uktv/Gold.tv/currentDate/2006-12-17/startTime/20
The ‘greatest moment’ in question was the one where Del gets a stripper for Uncle Arthur. At the end of the programme, the real Police turn up, Del thinks the WPC is a stripper and rips open her blouse.
For some reason, that moron Dyke was walking the viewer through the scene and referred to the Police as ‘Filth’.
I’d be interested to know if the show was made when he was head of the BBC. Even my flatmates with no interest in B-BBC said they thought it was a rather ‘weird’ and ‘inappropriate’ thing for the head of the BBC to say.
I’m not sure if the programme is a repeat from a few years ago. If it is, should a man with such outspoken views really have been made head of the BBC?
What do you think about this one JR? Care to jump to his defence? Perhaps it was just a light hearted quip? Just a bit of fun? Let’s face it, they are ‘filth’ aren’t they? Surely ‘everybody’ knows that by now. Institutionally racist was the term wasn’t it? Hideously white? Oh sorry, that’s the BBC….
Grimer-> its not just Greg Dyke – the people that referred to the police as “filth” in the 1980s are now in government.
Migrants ‘shape globalised world’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6183803.stm
Check out this article from the BBC – for the spin on migration throught the world. So Guess what? Yes, Migration works great in the ME to the benefit of both parties while in the West a large percentage of the migrants are illegal and cannot benefit from health and safety rules designed to protect employees.
Of course the article ignores the miserable plight of the millions of immigrants from India and Philipines in Middle Eastern Countries. There is no mention at of all those Indian builders on those Qatar construction sites, that have no rights, that are paid a pittance if at all and were recently on strike as they hadn’t been paid for months…
Beeb u do read socialist worker, now don’t you?
https://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7301
AS pounce says: BBc and half a story
PS
I’ve dumped the TV and the license. It’s so liberating!!
Does this really warrant the second most important slot on the BBC homepage.
Bishop criticises City pay rates
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6188275.stm
“The Right Reverend Peter Selby said it was “insulting” such salaries were justified by performance and said they were “galling” to NHS workers”.
How does he know? He has undertaken any empirical research? Would NHS workers be happy with the stresses of equity trading? We don’t know, all we have is the probably (un)informed opinion of a minor Bishop.
This isn’t half a story, it’s not even a story.