The BBC are at it again. Yesterday I noted how the nationality and immigration status of a police killer is newsworthy if the killer’s American but not if he’s Somali.
Here’s the conviction of a bigamist and con-man.
“American William Jordan, 41, who has at least 10 children, wove a web of lies to con his victims, a court heard.”
Mr Jordan is a naturalised British citizen. But apparently he’ll never be British enough for the BBC.
Here’s the conviction of some killers.
“South Londoners Diamond Babamuboni, 17, his brother Timy, 15, and Jude Odigie, 16, were convicted of manslaughter. The four will be sentenced in February.”
The “South Londoners” are Nigerian nationals and illegal immigrants, but that doesn’t get a mention in the BBC report.
Probably just not relevant or newsworthy. After all, it’s not as if foreign criminals are a big news story.
i have been so taken at times be how the bbc have slanted the news. it is time to rise up and demand proper reporting. people been fed half truths can be much worse than just lying.
sickening. thats all i can say.
Is it too much to expect a comment from “John Reith”?
Or will this be yet another of the many glaring examples of BBC bias which he pretends do not exist?
The original version (or at least the first version I saw) of the christening murder story did say that some of the perpetrators were illegal immigrants – reasonably high up – say the sixth or seventh paragraph. Now the story has been changed and the last paragraph now covers the point thus :
At the time of the murder the families of the Babamuboni brothers and Odigie were seeking refugee status but the Home Office has since tuned turned down their application and they will be deported once their sentences have been served
It’s interesting that they have gone out of their way to amend this, deleting the explicit reference to “illegal” in favour of this rather m’learned friendish formulation. Presumably the point is that they think it is incorrect to refer to them as illegal immigrants in connection with the murder, since at the time of the murder the illegality of their presence had not been conclusively established. To any normal person, obviously, they were and are illegal immigrants, but such is the determination to avoid such a formulation if at all possible that they’ve gone to the trouble of this circumlocution.
Is it too much to expect a comment from “John Reith”?
Or will this be yet another of the many glaring examples of BBC bias which he pretends do not exist?
GCooper | 22.12.06 – 3:11 am
In similar instances he’s simply claimed that the BBC is faithfully following the court report.
We aren’t fooled.
Probably because the BBC assumes all Nigerians are illegal……………just as child-molesters in Oldham, Blackburn, and Keighley can only be reached via the mosque
It is a great game of fill in the blanks just as in the USSR they never broadcast news of plane crashes unless one had happened in The West around the same time
Trash coverage by trash TV. jr hang your head in shame. Nothing more to be said.
That sentence –
“they will be deported once their sentences have been served”
I think the first “they” refers to families of the murderers and “their” obviously refers to the murderers themselves. Am I right? It’s poorly written though.
GCooper:
Is it too much to expect a comment from “John Reith”?
Or will this be yet another of the many glaring examples of BBC bias which he pretends do not exist?
GCooper | 22.12.06 – 3:11 am | #
Not unless somebody’s made a spelling or syntactical error whilst criticising it. But he’ll come back on in a few weeks challenging us to find ‘just one’ example of BBC bias. Wood and trees spring to mind for John Reith. We should pity him (Biased-BBC – Compassionate Conservatism In Action…).
The only way to entice JR to comment is to psot sum grmmaticla and speling errurs.
Speaking of nationality, how about that ‘US Nazi guard’ facing deportation?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6202319.stm
Merry Christmas from the other side of the pond and thanks to all of you for countering the negative anti-American propaganda.
Well spotted once again.
The BBC is merely doing the Job assigned by the elites in the corridors of power and the F.O are they not?
All the unquestionable Bias so well documented on this website is merely the work of idealistic dupes manipulated by those elites.
of course the BBC is the “FAULT LINE” by which these elites manufacture consent for the bothersome general public, who mostly swallow the propaganda without question.
Unfortunately, it is necessary to make use of state broadcasters in democracies to stay in power. Dictatorships do not have to waste time with such matters- threats, intimidation and violence are so much easier and quicker to manufacture consent. No need for the expense of armies of state manufactured dupes to brinwash the public.
I’m sure the Beeb could run far more efficiently if they did’nt have to deal with the general public – in any case they do a terrific job in “distancing” themselves from the unwashed hordes as much as poss.
As for John Reith, reading his posts, i can only applaud his efforts and skills to restore the status quo and hope he will find one day, more renumerative employment within Whitehall’s corridors of power where his skills can be put to full use, possibly in the depts that deal with Anglo- Saudi relations.
Probably the BBC’s over-detailing is due to a perceived need for disambiguation. Since “William Jordan” is a name which does not automatically reveal his carrier’s race or nationality, the author of this report does not want the common reader to miss this little detail. Hence, the need to add “American”, in the service of full clarity.
“Babamuboni”, “Timy” “Odigie” are implicitly recognizable as foreign (in Britain) and possibly African to the trained eye of the common reader. So there is no need to belabour the point, as far as the BBC is concerned.
One might argue that the BBC is meticulously anxious to adjust the reader’s scale of understanding, to the miligram.
It’s the same nuanced difference as between “visible” and “invisible” minorities. The “invisible” minorities (such as Jews) almost always merit more particularization and focus. As the lawyers are fond of saying: in order to remove all doubt.
Noga | Homepage | 23.12.06 – 1:53 pm | #
except that according to some commenters here the bbc is not above quoting the british name of some instead of their, um, shall we say more ethnic-sounding name.
i find it difficult to accept that editors assess whether or not to state nationality based on the perceptions to which a name may give rise. this seems to me a judgment call of the worst type. how on earth can they know for sure what people will assume based on a name? in any event, why leave it up to people’s assumptions?
“the trained eye of the common reader”? really?! the eye of all those little englanders?
in any event, your last statement, IMHO, contradicts your general thesis. for the editors to surmise that they know what people will assume is hardly a recipe that will “remove all doubt”.
if your post was written to be facetious (honestly, my untrained eye is still not sure if it was or wasn’t!) please disgregard this post!
“i find it difficult to accept that editors assess whether or not to state nationality based on the perceptions to which a name may give rise. this seems to me a judgment call of the worst type.”
That’s why it’s “biased BBC”! Its editorial additions and omissions are all judgment calls intended to create an affect, which has nothing to do with the core message and information that are delivered in these twin stories.
Not to be facetious now, omiting mention of the ethnicity in the case of Somali immigrants was honourable, in my opinion. But adding Jordan’s American provenance stinks of something not at all admirable. Shall I go on?
Noga | Homepage | 25.12.06 – 1:54 am |
ok, noga, i think i might have misunderstood you…too much christmas cheer, perhaps?
enjoy.
Sorry. I meant Nigerian immigrants.
Noga,
I’m not sure what’s honourable about not mentioning the past nationality of immigrants who commit crimes.
If it’s evident that a high proportion of immigrants from Nigeria, as an example, are a drain on the welfare system and represent a disproportionate percentage of the criminal population, why hide the fact?
(That’s just part of my mendacious campaign of racist vilification according to John Reith, though he has yet to provide me with his own evidence thereof.)
For the same reason that it was dishonourable to mention Jordan’s American former nationality. It was done in order to draw attention to an immmigrant who hailed from a place that is considered contemptible by the BBC editors. It meant to tell the readers, in a subtle way: Look what or who came out of the American woodwork. It is meant to re-inforce an animus. The fact that they avoided doing this in the Nigerian immigrants’ case proves that this addition in the American one was not accidental.
As for your the gist of your argument: If there is a problem with Nigerian immigrants, then it should be debated openly and decently, backed with facts and statistics, in order to try and prevent it. But such a debate cannot take place in a fair manner, when the British public is being pre-conditioned to take a hostile position encouraged by the media to judge an entire minority (or an entire nation) by the misdeeds of the few.
The best disinfectant is sunlight. But the BBC’s way of handling these knotty issues is to shine a 25W bulb that conceals more than it reveals by partially revealing by its very bad light quality.
I find myself mostly in agreement with the points you make. However, it’s only dishonourable to mention the American nationality because the BBC withholds the nationality of those it seeks to protect. If it were evenhanded, and mentioned everyone’s nationality, there would be nothing dishonourable about it.
I agree with you, Noga, except that I think that, in order that the facts are presented to us in the fullest possible detail, all nationalities should be disclosed to us, whether American, Nigerian or whatever.
To disclose one and not the other, however, is unequivocally biased against the one that was mentioned, and in favour of the one that was not.
At least we can credit John Reith that he has not come on these boards claiming it was accidental or an oversight. It clearly was not.
Heron
Sorry to disappoint you – but I have looked into this quite carefully.
Here’s what I’ve found.
First of all, the William Jordan story:
As you will know the NUJ, the Press Complaints Commisssion and the BBC have guidelines prohibiting the identification of a person’s race/ethnicity/country of origin etcetera – unless it is directly relevant to the story.
Often the BBC website team have been criticised here for applying the rule as almost an absolute rather than exercising their judgment.
This time what seems to have happened was this:
The original story was an agency court report (sorry Bryan – but true) which came from the Press Association.
The fact that Jordan was American was directly relevant to the story because his means of defrauding his victims included posing as a CIA agent and using (presumably faked) CIA e-mail addresses.
The original PA story included this detail. Hence the PA was justified in identifying Jordan as American by origin.
However, the BBC sub edited the story for length and removed all the CIA references. What the silly billy didn’t think of was that because he/she’d removed them, then the justification for using the term ‘American’ had also disappeared.
Sloppy, yes. Biased, no.
You can find the original, unexpurgated agency copy here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1977283,00.html
Now, the Nigerian killers story:
The BBC weren’t trying to keep the Nigerian origins a secret. The day before the story Laban cites went out, the BBC had run another story about these same killers in which their Nigerian origin was established – and indeed where ‘Born in Nigeria’ was printed in bold as a para heading.
You can find it here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/england/london/6204637.stm
You’ll see that this story and the one that went out the following day have a lot in common.
It looks as though this story was the basis of the one that went out next day – and what someone did was to remove the dental check stuff and replace it with the sentence details…..knocking out the Nigeria reference at the same time.
Was this deliberate? I don’t know. You could make a case that while the Nigerian origins were directly relevant to the first story, they weren’t to the second.
Not a good case……in my view, if you say someone is to be deported, you ought to say to which country that will be.
But once again – sloppy editing rather than bias is at the root of it.
As for ‘illegal immigrants’ – who knows?
They may have come here on a perfectly legal basis and then applied (unsuccessfully) for refugee status.
I was interested in this from John Reith : As you will know the NUJ, the Press Complaints Commisssion and the BBC have guidelines prohibiting the identification of a person’s race/ethnicity/country of origin etcetera – unless it is directly relevant to the story
I didn’t know this, but it doesn’t surprise me. But it’s a splendid example of political bias. The motivation for such a policy is obviously “anti-racism” – ie mentioning someone’s race/ethnicity/country of origin could help bolster or maintain stereotypes about race/ethnicity/country of origin. This may or may not be a laudable political objective, but it has nothing to do with reporting the facts and everything to do with suppressing them. For the very object of the policy is to suppress facts so as to inhibit the growth of stereotypes in the public mind. In fact, trying to suppress stereotype formation/development is not a laudable political objective – whether a stereotype (which is simply a posh word for a generalisation) is, and to what extent it is, accurate or inaccurate is the proper subject of further journalistic acts, not suppression. Generalisation about race/ethnicity/nationality is not of course wholly forbidden in progressive circles, but it may only be done in specified, safe, contexts – where the piece is explicitly about, and critical of, racism etc. This, handily, will obviously fall outside the policy prohibition, for the “directly relevant” exception will then apply.
Memo to Beeboids – if you wish to continue to pretend that the BBC is not rotten to the core with lefty hacks, it is a mistake to highlight examples of slavish adherence to the NUJ rule book. Why not have a rule prohibiting anything that isn’t “directly relevant” to a story ? Obviously because background information can be interesting, informative and entertaining. But some background information is more equal than others.
Most fun of all is that 99% of people who work for the Beeb would be utterly bewildered by the notion that there was anything “political” in having a policy aimed at preventing the publication of material that might lead to the maintenance of stereotypes about racial/ethnic/national groups. That’s not “bias”, surely, it’s just “what everyone would agree was right.”
What do I get from John Reith’s explanation?
First, he conjectures that the addition of Jordan’s American ethnicity was due to sloppiness: “the silly billy didn’t think of was that because he/she’d removed them, then the justification for using the term ‘American’ had also disappeared.”
The question remains: And why didn’t Silly Billy think so? Is it because he is conditioned by BBC culture not to think twice about leaving this detail in? Is that the source of his sloppiness?
And then, he conjectures that the omission in the Nigerian case was due to rushing through a job and cutting more than was strictly necessary or even desirable. Again, sloppiness.
Looks like “sloppiness” is responsible for both gaffs, if gaffs they be.
If the BBC were a hospital, and its editors were doctors, then its excuse for making patients more ill would go like this: one doctor inadvertantly left the surgical scissors in the patient’s stomach and another doctor removed a greater section of the sick liver than was needed. So what’s the big deal? In both cases, no ill-will was deliberately intended. In both cases the mistakes were due to sloppiness, NOT incompetence or compromised ethics.
Great post by Dash Riprock satirising the Beeb’s inveterate anti-Americanism:
http://dashriprock.blogspot.com/2006/12/that-said.html
I would say without hesitation, that the BBC is doing its part to create enmity between our two nations. For some of us Americans the only contact that we have with Britain is through your media and newspapers. The hatred of all things American and America is clearly the only message that can be seen. There is a large segment of our population, also, who has no reason to have any affection for you. Than there are the Europhiles and Anglophiles who do pay attention to what goes on across the pond, but unfortunately we are being totally alienated by the constant drumbeat of Anti-Americanism and down right lies that are reported by your media about our country. It would seem according to your media that America is the source of all that is evil in the world. We are tired of the unending criticism and irrational hatred extended from you to us. Nothing that America does is ever good, or worthy enough for you.
I can tell you that my turning point came when one of your MP’s came on American TV to inform us that Britain could not guarantee the safety of an American president on a visit to your country. I was dumbstruck that the hatred for America had reached such a point in Britain that our leaders, elected by the people of the United States of America could not travel in safety to your country. There is nothing equal to that in this country directed at you or your elected officials.
I run into British, German and other European tourists almost daily. I can barely bring myself to be polite any longer such is the complete disdain that is growing in me for all things British and European.
Media Kritter writes:
“I run into British, German and other European tourists almost daily. I can barely bring myself to be polite any longer such is the complete disdain that is growing in me for all things British and European.”
An understandable, if sad, reaction.
In fairness, I think I should point out that the loathing of America tends to run far deeper and far stronger in France and Germany than it does in the UK.
Here, if you ignore the whoopings and screechings of the tiny audiences used to make programmes like The Now Show sound funny, the average Briton is nothing like as viscerally anti-American as the media would like you to believe.
Where older people are concerned, again, if you exempt the phoney intellgentisa, what you find is the sort of mickey-taking affection you find about us in the USA. In other words, good, healthy stuff.
Don’t believe too much that you read in the British Press. And completely disregard the BBC.
GCooper I second that. I have always seen the USA as a great ally to the UK and I just hope that the BBC propoganda does not sap the relationship that has been long and mutually benefical.
God bless America and God save the Queen
If jon seconds that motion, I third it.
“…the loathing of America tends to run far deeper and far stronger in France and Germany.”
Oh, now this fat, stupid, lazy American bastard is starting to get it. It is ok to “loathe” the US as long as France and Germany loathe the US more than you do. Guess what? The only news that makes it across the Atlantic is your “loathing.” Please, with “friends” like you we have all the enemies we need.
The asp speaks:
“…the loathing of America tends to run far deeper and far stronger in France and Germany.”
Oh, now this fat, stupid, lazy American bastard is starting to get it.
Just how do you know that he’s fat, stupid, lazy and a bastard?
What a prick.
TAS writes;
“Please, with “friends” like you we have all the enemies we need.”
On a personal level, small wonder.
TPO, what are you talking about? I said, “Oh, now this (meaning myself), fat, stupid, lazy American bastard…” I was merely making sure that you Europeans would realize that I am an American by using words that are frequently used in the European press to describe Americans. We are routinely called fat, stupid, lazy, uncaring, selfish, rude, obnoxious, unsophisticated, boorish, moronic, violent, uneducated and now thanks to Mr. Gerald Baker of the Times, who recently referred to us as “your American bastards we are bastards. I will add “prick” to the list, even though I am sure it has been used before.
Let me be the latest to point out that the press here are about as representative of the people here as CNN and ABC are of you, mr asp.
‘I run into British, German and other European tourists almost daily. I can barely bring myself to be polite any longer such is the complete disdain that is growing in me for all things British and European.’
If it’s any consolation, Media Kritter, I regularly see many of your fellow Americans sharing your difficulty at being polite to people from the UK, German and Europe. The difference is that these Americans are tourists here.
‘with “friends” like you we have all the enemies we need’
Toodle-pip!
british bull:
I would gladly keep our tourists home if I could, all I would ask is that you do the same.
Toodle-pip? Whatever.
Media Kritter:
I hope you don’t really share the views of “british bull” – who I have never heard of on this blog before. I must repeat he does not share my views and I doubt that he represents the views of the majority in this country. After all just look at the popularity of US TV shows over here. I somehow think that if we were all US haters they would not be very popular – do you?.
“It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.”
– William Gibbs McAdoo (1863-1941)
To asp and Media Kritter,
As a dumb, midwestern, country girl who lives in “fly-over” country/JesusLand, I understand where you’re coming from.
However,don’t paint all British citizens with a broad brush or all Europeans for that matter. There are alot more like minded or at least, non anti-Americans in Europe than we are lead to believe. Read this blog more often and maybe click a few of their links.
As for British Bull, well he’s just rude. I’m pretty sure every nation on Earth has their share of louts.
Thank God for the internet.
Happy New Year & Cheers to everyone! 🙂
I think the internet is both a blessing and a curse. I think I liked Britain and Europe a lot more when I didn’t know what they thought of us. LOL! I also can’t think of any left wing or right wing news source in the States that is as consistently insulting or as hateful and hurtful as what I read in the German (Germans are the worst, no doubt about it), French, and British press. I can’t think of one here who would treat a “friend” the way we are treated and still expect to keep that friendship intact.
KC, do you remember when one of our newspapers portrayed the French and German UN ambassadors on the front cover of their paper as weasels? The hue and cry, the outrage expressed by most Americans convinced other papers that this is not acceptable.
@Jon
Thank you for your kind words, but I do believe that our friendship is on the verge of collapse. I also believe a poll published last July where 81% of Brits called Americans “vulgar” and 78% believe that America is the “source of all evil in the world.” Not a very sturdy foundation for maintaining a friendship. Also in the poll was my favorite “Who is more trustworthy: China, Russia, Iran or the US?” Britain chose Russia. (I do hope that works out for you.) We didn’t even make the top three.
As for TV, my favorite show is Midsommer Murders. That doesn’t assuage my anger, however, and I don’t believe that we are friends.
“Sloppy, yes. Biased, no.”
JR – ah well thats OK then. Are we to suppose that this blog should change its name to SloppyBBC. Is it then a case that most of the BBC editors and journalists are not bias but “sloppy” Well if this is the case why can’t they employ journalists that are not sloppy? Could it be that most of them have not studied journalism or are they just ignorant of the effect that there sloppiness causes. Do these people put their stories straight on the web site – without anyone else checking it, afterall you employ more people than the population of County Durham.
If your explanation is right I would not call it sloppy its incompetence. Even the Daily Star have stories proof read before they put it out to the public.
“I also believe a poll published last July where 81% of Brits called Americans “vulgar” and 78% believe that America is the “source of all evil in the world.”
Have you got a link to this poll? I think you will find like many other polls, it was not representative. There has been many polls put out both by the BBC and the World Sevice that are seriously flawed.
Don’t forget that the BBC is a very left wing organisation – it is not the BBC of the second world war. And they are not anti-American per se – they are anti-Republican and ant-Conservative. They are also anti-British, anti-Isreali and anti-Christian. There outlook is pro socialist europe. It is run by the leftist marxist elite like JR.
So please don’t let them get to you. As soon as we get rid of the TV tax here they will cease to exist and not a day too soon.
Anyway I hope all the bloggers across the pound have a happy and prosperous New Year.
Sorry – one more thing Media Kritter – you dont have to take my word for it – but click on the links on the right hand side of the page, read the posts here and I think you will be suprised how many people see the US as the only hope for the free world.
Jon: I don’t have a link to the poll, but I do know that it was not a BBC poll. I will read your recommendations. Thank you, and a very Happy New Year to you and all here.
Jon writes:
“Don’t forget that the BBC is a very left wing organisation – it is not the BBC of the second world war.”
This is very true (though the BBC during that era had more than its share of Oxbridge communists). Sadly, the effect is compounded by the way the BBC picks up and amplifies the nonsense published by the two main British Leftist newspapers, The Guardian and the Independent.
Media Kritter might like to consider the way the US media are skewed similarly to the Left. A foreigner reading the Washington Post, or the LA Times, watching CNN or CBS, would conclude that all but a tiny handful of Americans were anywhere to the Right of, say, John Kerry.
And this, of course, is why political blogs flourish on both sides of the pond.
Judging the mood or opinions of an entire nation by the output of its media is a trap best avoided.
Sorry, instead of: “..would conclude that all but a tiny handful of Americans were anywhere to the Right of, say, John Kerry.”
I meant to type: “.. would conclude that only a tiny handful of Americans were anywhere to the Right of, say, John Kerry.”
Yep, that’s “journalism,” BBC-style.
There is a diffence between our media and yours. Ours leans to the hard left that is true, but it confines itself to expressing criticism, angst, contempt, disgust, and all other negative reporting to the United States. It is most rare to see Europe portrayed in anything other than a very positive light. Most theorize that our journalists see Europe as the Socialist paradise that they would like to see here in the US. Could be.
I think it is because we see you as civilized nations and need no interference from us, nor is it acceptable to comment on your domestic affairs. Unlike one of your newspapers running the headline, “How Could Sixty Million People be so Stupid?” That was absolutely despicable, but it seems, quite acceptable to you as Brit after Brit came on our TV to tell us to “lighten up, we were just joking with you. Wow, it is a sad day when Americans can’t take a joke.” Hmmm…seems to be an awful lot of “jokes” spilling across the Atlantic these days.
The asp speaks:
TPO, what are you talking about?
Having re-read what you originally wrote I haven’t the faintest idea what I was talking about. My apologies. I scan read it and didn’t fully take it it.
I assumed it was one of the occasional offerings we get here from the rabid zenophobe, hate all things US types.
Prick remark is withdrawn unreservedly and hope you accept the apology.
asp –
“Unlike one of your newspapers running the headline, “How Could Sixty Million People be so Stupid?” That was absolutely despicable, but it seems, quite acceptable to you as Brit after Brit came on our TV to tell us to “lighten up, we were just joking with you”
Britain has a population of 60 millions – how many people were interviewed in the piece you read? 5, 6, 20? Who were they? Ordinary members of the Public? Oxford University Lecturers?, Journalists, Political Analysts?
You don’t seem to get it do you – the media here is “leftist” – they are “for” Europe as they see it as a counter to the US. The countries media and a countries people are not the same animal. If you want to believe everything that is written in the media both in the UK and the US then thats fine. But you don’t seem to grasp what this blog is about. There is a bias in the media and it is being exposed day after day.
TPO:
Apology accepted withour reservation, and Happy New Year to you.