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.
Don’t believe all you read in the papers.
The outturn costs of BBC News 24 in the 2006 Report and Accounts is given as £23.1 million up from £22.9 million in the year the article you quote (claiming £50 million) was published.
So, if Table 15 of the document you linked to has News 24 production costs of £5,000 per hour (5,000*24*365 = 43.8m) does that mean that your figure illustrates 4,140 hours of repeats on this network per year?
John Reith:
You’ll remember no doubt how Neil Hamilton exposed the BBC’s inherent leftism (a phrase which would be coined years later by the BBC’s very own Robin Aitken), following his plucky libel action over Michael Cockerell’s infamous Panorama stitch-up “Maggie’s Militant Tendency”. No doubt you remember too Hamilton’s famous Sunday Times article in which he gave chapter and verse on the programme’s Goebbels-like propaganda techniques:
“MY BATTLE WITH THE BEEB”
Panorama branded me a virulent racist but the programme was transparently false. I had been tried and found guilty but I was determined to fight back. It was the start of a three-year battle to clear my name costing half a million pounds”
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/9859/2542ng7.jpg
Continued:
“At last we attacked the enemy and put our case”
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4898/9585fp2.jpg
Tell me John, what are your views on the Guardian’s report of 21 October 1994 (i.e. the day following the publication of its original discredited “cash for questions” story) in which the writer reports that Hamilton’s action against the BBC had created an antipathy for the man within the corporation? Here’s what the Guardian reported:
“The corporation eventually stumped up £20,000 in a libel settlement in 1987 … but the lengthy process made Mr Hamilton a confirmed enemy of the BBC and investigative journalists generally.
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/8409/19941021guardianp03accocm7.jpg
Surely, if the BBC was staffed by impartial reporters, they would not consider anyone their “enemy”, would they? Is this little slip by The Guardian not actually indicative of how the BBC is in fact stuffed to the rafters with political bigots? People who share the same bigoted DNA as the racists with whom even the BNP doesn’t wish to associate itself?
Correction:
Robin Aitken’s phrase was “Institutionised Leftism”
Strange how we get the views of the Somali community in the UK now…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6215403.stm
…But not when the Union of Islamic Courts was running the show.
Could it be that had pro-UIC views been expressed by them back then, this would have led to the indigenous (UK) community telling them to f*** off back to Somalia, something the Beeb would not like to have been party to?
The BBC and its continuing hatred of the US.
US sub crew trapped outside ship
Four members of an American submarine were rescued after getting into trouble in Plymouth Sound. The four crew were on the outside of the USS Minneapolis-St Paul while the vessel was in the Sound and could not get back in.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6217471.stm
and how the local paper reported the same story;
“Coastguards scrambled a helicopter from RNAS Culdrose and sent the Plymouth Lifeboat out to the breakwater. MOD police launches also reached to the scene, where the nuclear-powered submarine was being buffeted in a Force 8 gale.”
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=200174&command=displayContent&sourceNode=200173&home=yes&more_nodeId1=133168&contentPK=16289474
I see the BBC kind of left out the force 8 gale part. Much better to make the Americans look stupid and then to really please their Islamic masters the BBC prints the following;
“The Ministry of Defence said it could not comment on what the vessel was doing in British waters.”
Oh right. According to the BBC the USS Minneapolis-St Paul just happened to turn up in Plymouth. I think you will find BBC that when a foreign navy ship visits these shores, the authorities will have known for around a year beforehand. It’s the little things that point in the direction of foreword planning. Things such as replenishment (food, spareparts etc…) Of supplies. The delivery of mail.(Somebody has to keep it safe until the ship turns up) Shoreleave. (Are you telling me the Police aren’t informed of a load of American sailors in town?) Hotel bookings? (Well some blokes will ensure their loved ones get to visit them in the UK over the Christmas period) Travel plans (How about informing the Port authorities of their movement plans.) If the BBC had scratched even the surface of this story it could have found out just what the American sub was doing in the UK. But instead of looking in the above directions for the answer to its somewhat biased questioned. The BBC uses this quote in which to paint the Americans as unworthy friends.
“The Ministry of Defence said it could not comment on what the vessel was doing in British waters.”
Once again the BBC paints a negative picture of the US in which to please its Radical Left wing bent and its Islamic masters.
“Then straight into an advertorial for the muslim hajj trip to Mecca. This was upbeat and enthusiastic. Gushing, even. We learned that the hajj was super, calli, fragilistic,
expiallidocious. It just went on and on. I expected to see a number to call when I was ready to turn muslim.”
Very funny and accurate summary of last night’s news Jack. Since when has going on the hajj been news? It has been an annual event for around 1300 years. Now Muslims NOT showing up in Mecca for the hajj – that would be news.
Appropos of the Housework/Breast cancer link it is well known that childbearing reduces the risk of this particular cancer. Since traditional homemakers and mothers do more housework couldn’t that be the causative factor?
Roxana, none of the current research is looking at ’cause’. The epidemiological studies conducted to date, at least in the papers that I have read, have merely demonstrated an association.
In other words as one variable changes so a different variable changes in the same or contradictory way. This does NOT mean the two variables are related to each other in any causal link, but does open up useful areas for further work. Far too many news articles simply make the illogical jump that if variable A and variable B can be shown to move together then A must be caused by B.
Thus in the present story we get the drivel from the journalists, who probably got it from the Press Release, that more housework will produce less breast cancer. Note that is not what the paper says it reports that it has been demonstrated (somewhat imperfectly) that women who do more house work appear to have less incidence of breast cancer.
A useful way of expressing this fallacy is as follows. Long hair has a stong association with human gender, but cutting your daughters hair does not turn her into your son.
Anti-americanism, breast cancer, jihadi video games, all at Christmas….
Just to cheer you guys up a bit, have a look at this – read the FIRST review:
Jonathan (Cambridge):
Naah, you don’t want to read THAT to cheer you up, you want to read THIS!!
http://www.tesco.com/books/product.aspx?R=0826494277&bci=245|Business*4291322823|Aitken,%20Robin
Here’s the blurb:
This book asks a big question: can we trust the BBC? The BBC is the most famous media brand in the world and it is growing bigger and more powerful every year. Its reputation depends on honest and accurate journalism. But this book argues that the Corporation’s own pervasive left wing political culture imperils its impartiality. It demonstrates how some groups and viewpoints get favourable treatment while others are left out in the cold. The book examines the concept of ‘public sector broadcasting’ and asks if that has come to mean simply radio and television free of commercial bias. It argues that there are other ‘hidden persuaders’ that we the audience should be alert to. Drawing on the author’s twenty five years as a BBC reporter and executive, the books blends analysis and sharp polemic to paint a vivid picture of life inside the news machine from a uniquely privileged point of view. It also tells the story of how the BBC responded to a dissident in its own ranks. With the future of the BBC now the subject of a government White Paper, this book will be a timely contribution to the debate about public broadcasting.
Should keep JR busy fror a while.
Baghdad update:
Announcement on Iraqi TV:
Saddam will hang tonight at midnight local time GMT +3.
Of course they ould be wrong, but thought I’d let you guys know first.
Tim, Baghdad’s unbiased reporter
Jonathan Boyd Hunt:
That doesn’t cheer me up much – I knew this all anyway, and most people will simply ignore it and buy the party line as they always have done and always will do.
I like section 3 – who ARE these people?
Tim,
Contradictory reports coming out of the BBC, he’s been handed over to the Iraquis/he’s still in US custody, some say he’s already dead… you may well have scooped them all :+:
Subject: Saddam ‘in Iraqi custody’
From: BBC Breaking News Alert
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:08:27 +0000 (GMT)
Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has been transferred from US to Iraqi custody, his lawyers have been told.
For more details: http://www.bbcnews.com
…
US denies Saddam handed to Iraqis
Don’t know yet Bio (Can I call you that for short)
My Source: Our local security team.
I might have to revise that to 1200 tomorrow, a little confusion, but Iraqi TV saying 12 tomorrow.
I’ll come back soonest.
We work closly with our locals here, mixture is 65% Sunni, 35% Shia for the record.
Good guys and we travel the streets daily with them – Trust our lives 100% with each other.
Tim:
Don’t know yet Bio (Can I call you that for short)
Feel free 😉
Stay safe!
New on the BBC’s website:
Saddam Hussein executed – your tributes.
Allan@Aberdeen,
He’s already written his own (which al-Beeb published in full), except he forgot to say how modest he is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6213119.stm
Funny really;
One of those dates in history when you always remember where you were and what you were doing.
Tim, Al Mansur (red zone) Baghdad, Iraq
If the HYS on Saddam’s death sentence is anything to go by there really will be an outpouring of grief and sympathy when the noose does finally tighten:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=4607&edition=2&ttl=20061229191427&#paginator
I was so impressed by the repeated assertions of the Hajj pilgrims that they respect other religions and are peaceful that I almost rang to book a flight to celebrate Sunday Mass in Jeddah. Now had the Beeb then balanced the report by pointing out FGM, the appalling way women are treated, the repeated murder of non Muslims, the refusal to allow churches into Muslim countries despite Christian countries allowing huge Mosques (some of which house extremists) etc etc THEN I might have said ‘what a jolly balanced piece of reporting that was’.
Unfortunately and as usual I am unable to do so for some reason….
Daily Telegraph scoops multi billion pound news gathering bbc yet again:
Israel allows arms to reach Fatah
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=TF5IR5MXMIV51QFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/12/29/wisrael29.xml
Fair dues TPO, al-Beeb did report it quietly:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6216365.stm
While Al Beeb continues to give daily publicity to the non-news Hajj, Al Beeb does not find space for this at present:-
” Thai Islamists Target Buddhists ”
( Washington Post 29 Dec.)
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com
Bio
I must stop relying on the bbc’s website search tool.
The BBC and its pro Hamas bias.
Abbas forces get weapons shipment
Forces loyal to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas have received an arms shipment from Egypt with Israeli approval. A senior Israeli military official, Amos Gilad, said the shipment aimed to reinforce the “forces of peace” against the “forces of darkness”. Neither Egyptian nor Palestinian officials have confirmed the shipment. Israeli officials said they approved the shipment of 2,000 rifles, 20,000 ammunition clips and 2 million bullets. The shipment comes at a very sensitive time. Over the last month, 17 Palestinians have been killed in violence between the Fatah faction, led by Mr Abbas, and Hamas, which leads the Palestinian government. The arms shipment came less than a week after the Palestinian president held talks with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Israeli officials have said they support strengthening Mr Abbas against the militant group, Hamas.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6216365.stm
And how the Manchester Guardian reports on the very same story;
“A senior source in the Israeli government said Mr Abbas had requested the arms to help stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel and improve his position. “We are trying to strengthen the presidential guard against the other forces in Gaza. We want to see if they are capable of stopping the rocket fire. It’s an opportunity to show that they can deliver. Everyone says that we must give Mr Abbas a chance and this is what we are doing.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1979641,00.html
Here is a comment that was pulled from BBC HYS I wonder why?
“What should happen to Saddam Hussein?
Written by Tarka Dhal on Sun Nov 05 10:02:58 GMT 2006. 4 recommendations.
When I left Afganistan I was able to free of the Muslim religion. A malignant and vengful religion based on unsound teachings and followed by people that are educated to 12th Century standards……I know this, I was one of them. The Muslim faith keeps its followers in the dark ages.
As a Muslim I would have said don’t hang him, gouge out his eyes and cut off his head.
As a Christian, I say forgive. His God will judge him,”
sorry here is the link:
http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/bbc/threads/show/4607
An excellent example of Beeb bias there – well done Jon!
I eagerly await coverage of the next Military Pilgrimage to Lourdes whereby every year Catholic Servicemen and women travel to Lourdes with disabled ex Forces and their families to pray for recovery etc. Oh wait. Military. Catholic and mostly White Non Muslim. Damm! three strikes already!
Oh and very sympathetic to the disabled especially those injured defending this nation. Well that’s it then – no chance of a series on even the twilight zone on BBC4
And No, that steaming pile called “Songs of Praise” won’t allow the Beeb to claim they show lots of Christian stuff…..
Jon, cause its got nothing to do with the subject!
Do you think there is some evil, tree-huggin liberal standing over every moderator in HYS telling them which comments to delete to fit their opinion? If this goes on throught the Beeb, how long do you think it would be before this was splashed over the tabloids? Except this never happens!
These people are probably working for a contractor, many may have little or no interest in politics and simply have a list of criteria which they use to filter comments ie. relevance/offense/libel etc.
The delusion of some here is what really concerns me. You people must know that you need help. Why not make it a New Years resolution to seek professional advice?
Perhaps you could all use your time more contructively by knitting headscarfs for all the poor Muslim women in the UK that dont have them. Only kidding!
Merry Xmas (Beeb political correctness of course!)
“The delusion of some here is what really concerns me. You people must know that you need help. Why not make it a New Years resolution to seek professional advice?”
WE’VE been saying this to the BBC for years….. Oh Great One Man Army and Liberator of Kabul! 😎
The BBC keeps telling us that Somalia had been dominated by warlords and anarchy until their friends in the UIC took control. I have yet to see a single report which at least briefly mentions the fact that the breakaway Republic of Somaliland (former British Somalia) has had a fully functioning government, armed forces, education system etc since 1991. All this has been achieved without sharia law. Indeed, despite having the shahada on their flag, Somaliland promotes itself as a secular republic. Imagine that BBC?
http://www.somalilandgov.com/
Simpson John wrote:
“Jon, cause its got nothing to do with the subject!”
Has this one then?
“Added: Friday, 29 December, 2006, 12:16 GMT 12:16 UK
I cannot believe the duplicity of the puppy dog Blair. We in the UK will not allow the extradition of people to the US if they could face the death penalty in adherence to the policy of Protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In fact, Protocol 13 to the ECHR abolishes the death penalty even in times of war. But of course, it’s all right if you have fought an illegal war and set up a kangaroo court as long as his master Bush says so. Will that absolve his guilt as well then?
Mark, Newcastle”
I for one do not see any difference exept thats its from the “lefty” side
Or this?
“Added: Thursday, 28 December, 2006, 12:34 GMT 12:34 UK
Iraq was better with Saddam. Really he is guilty for hundreds of death. Now lets think, is Bush good to US, you north america answer, please. Is bush good to the world?? I am south american and I can say NOOOOOOOOOO, he is the worse, worse than Saddam, he killed and massacred much more than Saddam, has been doing terrible and unhuman things around the world. Will he be hanged up?? Lets allow iraquian, palestinian, lebanese, iraniana, etc judge him, ok?
Mara Lucia, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Recommended by 43 people ”
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=5091&start=30&tstart=0&edition=1&ttl=20061229220042&#paginator
Or this?
“Added: Thursday, 28 December, 2006, 15:31 GMT 15:31 UK
Hitler was given tolerance by Europe until the USA and Russia finally forced the issue and ended his rule. Europe, is a cowardice and useless power.
R J, Detroit, United States
Sorry? USA and Russia forced the issue? Please go back to the history books.
Tony Caban, United Kingdom
Recommended ”
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=5091&start=90&tstart=0&edition=1&ttl=20061229220042&#paginator
ad infinitum
“Merry Xmas (Beeb political correctness of course!)”
John Simpson:
Christmas was the 25 December or didn’t the BBC tell you that. Its now the 29th December. A bit late don’t you think. Or have you forgotten the date of Christmas at the BBC.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt @ 29.12.06 – 6:24 pm | #
JBH – thanks for the tipoff – I’ve placed my advance order.
Simpson John | Homepage | 29.12.06 – 9:54 pm:
You say:
“Do you think there is some evil, tree-huggin’ liberal standing over every moderator in HYS telling them which comments to delete to fit their opinion? If this goes on throughout the Beeb, how long do you think it would be before this was splashed over the tabloids? Except this never happens!”
Simpson John, you make a salient point. The answer is this: the BBC’s leftwing, liberal, anti-conservative, anti-Christian, anti-Israeli, pro-Muslim-extremist, pro-leftist bias that this blog exposes every hour of every day, is not in fact the product of some gigantic conspiracy within the BBC. The truth is rather more mundane but no less important: the Beeb’s inherent bias is in fact a product of immense peer pressure that results from an employment policy that focuses specifically on recruiting staff from the readership of a certain liberal-left newspaper called The Guardian. Over a period of a couple of decades, the Beeb’s staff has become so inherently leftist, the result is that most of the BBC’s staff fall over themselves to demonstrate their leftist credentials in their reporting to their colleagues. The proposition that BBC staff ought to report issues impartially would immediately place their careers in jeopardy.
JBH writes:
“The truth is rather more mundane but no less important: the Beeb’s inherent bias is in fact a product of immense peer pressure that results from an employment policy that focuses specifically on recruiting staff from the readership of a certain liberal-left newspaper called The Guardian.”
Well said.
There is, tragically, a broader dimension, too. The BBC employs a disproportionate number of young people, who have all been recently processed by the UK’s Left-dominated “education” system.
Without experience of life beyond the cosseted realms of our (increasingly) third rate universities and then the state-funded broadcaster which employs them, they have no understanding of how the world works, beyond the pages of the claptrap sociology books they glanced at before being handed their degrees.
Sadly, Simpson John’s post demonstrated the point perfectly. It was littered with errors and failed to appreciate that the hen-coop staff who ‘moderate’ (BBC-speak for ‘censor’) DNHYS are cut from the same cloth as the little twerps who write the headlines and stories for the BBC’s website.
“Added: Thursday, 28 December, 2006, 15:31 GMT 15:31 UK
Hitler was given tolerance by Europe until the USA and Russia finally forced the issue and ended his rule. Europe, is a cowardice and useless power.
The censors should have invoked Godwin’s Law and deleted that one instantly!
Bio
I must stop relying on the bbc’s website search tool.
TPO | 29.12.06 – 7:59 pm
I only find it useful for proving bias or omission, or as in a previous comment for finding stuff like archived playlists of Desert Island Discs, something I assure you I am not in the habit of doing often.
Anonymous
The BBC is more (or less, depending on the way you look at it) than an old dinosaur; it is a 2 billion pound welfare queen; a foul, deeply sick organization of like-minded America-hating, Jewish nationalism-hating, left-wing fanatics who relish every opportunity to serve as apologists for Islamic supremacy and brutality.
The following exchange of emails between myself and a BBC website editor is somewhat dated but I have never posted it here and it remains the quintessential illustration of the BBCs endemic bias, its capacity for idiotic rationalisation, and in retrospect, its abject failure to remedy or even address the problem of its relentless advocacy journalism.
Sir
I’d like to bring to your attention a graphic example of why the BBC receives much criticism with regard to its reporting on the Middle East conflict. As I write this letter, the BBC has on its website, two articles about killings in the Middle East and Africa. One story, about a single Palestinian man killed while he approached a border fence is entitled “Israelis Shoot Dead Palestinian”. The other story, about 100 people killed in a bombing raid by the Sudanese government is entitled “Sudan Troops in Darfur Offensive”. The details on the killings do not appear in the headline nor in the following paragraph printed in bold.
If this example of unbalanced reporting were an aberration, one might suggest that it was due perhaps, to poor discretion being exercised by BBC website editors on this occasion. This type of asymmetric reporting however, is routine for the BBC. When Israelis are involved in the deaths of Palestinians — one in this case • the BBC employs direct, active language in the headline and body of its articles to describe the incident and assign unambiguous culpability to Israel. By contrast, when reporting on the killings of Israelis by Palestinians — or in this case, the murder of 100 civilians by the government of Sudan — the language is typically passive and circumspect.
As a frequent reader of the BBC website (and a TV license payer in the UK), I find the BBC’s bias transparent and deeply offensive. It also represent a clear violation of your public charter to be fair and balanced in your reporting’.
This was the BBC’s reply:
As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the conflict in Darfur take place in completely different contexts, it is clear that different editorial approaches need to be taken. The Middle East editorial team tries – as far as possible – to address each deadly act of Israeli-Palestinian violence in a balanced and objective way, with a focus the team tries to apply to all the countries in its region, even Iraq. That close-up focus is much less likely in African conflicts of which Darfur is an example which are dealt with by the Africa editorial team.
In addition, headlines are not to used to assign culpability, but rather to sum up the story in as brief a way as possible (in a template of 31-33 characters). This inevitably results in an avoidance of longer words, which may be why there may be a slight imbalance. Nevertheless a search through the BBC News website archive produces headlines where:
1. Palestinians are killed without mentioning an agent:
Five Palestinians killed in Gaza (30/12/2004)
2. Israelis are killed with an agent mentioned:
Suicide blasts kill 11 Israelis (14/03/2004)
3. And where there have been multiple (Palestinian) deaths which are not mentioned in the headline
Major Israeli incursion in Gaza (25/10/2004)
To which I replied in turn:
1. Why should the “focus” of BBC reporting be different for the Middle East than for Africa such that your ME editorial team takes a “close-up focus” while your African editorial team takes a — presumably — “remote” focus? Do the deaths of 100 Sudanese merit less personal attention than the death of one Palestinian?
2. The suggestion that the substantive difference in headlines is due to space limitations is risible. Please note that the headline, “Israelis Shoot Dead Palestinian” contains 31 characters while the headline “Sudan Troops in Darfur Offensive” contains 32 characters. The latter headline could have just as easily read, “Sudan Army kills 100 in Darfur” which would have required only 30 characters and would have been a far more accurate rendering of the incident.
3. The headline you have provided as an example of the BBC identifying an agent, “Suicide blasts kill 11 Israelis” (14/03/2004), does nothing of the sort. In fact, it overtly fails to identify a Palestinian as the perpetrator of the murders.
As demonstrated, your arguments attempting to justify the different handling of the two stories are weak and facile. The truth is that the BBC maintains a distinct editorial bias when reporting news of the conflict in the Middle East, deliberately maligning the Israelis whenever possible. This is an odious practice for any news organisation, but particularly so for one funded by the taxpayer and pledged to a policy of fair and impartial reporting.
Here’s what I don’t understand about B-BBC. If the BBC is antisemetic the why doesn’t it take the BNP more seriously? After all the BNP isn’t exactly jew-friendly.
And how can one square the pro-BNP and Zionist approach to the world that some on here seem to take?
John Simpson said:
“If this goes on throught the Beeb, how long do you think it would be before this was splashed over the tabloids?”
I don’t know about the “tabloids” as they are more concerned with z-celebs, but here are a few links to the more “serious” broadsheets with articles on BBC bias (and they are not solely from the “right-wing” papers), and this only took me five minutes of surfing.
The BBC’s commitment to bias is no laughing matter
The Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/10/27/do2701.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/10/27/ixopinion.html
BBC bias complaint upheld
The Guardian
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1651260,00.html
The BBC pro-Israeli? Is the Pope Jewish?
The Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-2174641,00.html
Blair attacks BBC for ‘anti-US bias’
The Guardian
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1572712,00.html
Such blatant bias
The Observer
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/comment/0,,1003091,00.html
Church leader accuses BBC of bias against Catholic church
The Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408142&in_page_id=1770
Yes, we are biased on religion and politics, admit BBC executives
The Mail on Sunday
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411977&in_page_id=1770
so how does this square up with the BBCs own guidelines.
“”we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented. ”
http://extdev.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/impariality/
Can you honestly tell me that the BBC actually follows these guidelines? Or is it the case that if they do not agree with a view it is thought not to be a “significant strand”
I apologies if these links have been posted before • but it is for John Simpsons’ benefit.
From the BBC News (sic) website at 0.35hrs:
‘Hajj approaches spiritual climax’
Perhaps “Reith” would care to explain in what sense this “story” is news and why it justifies a placement in “Other Top Stories”?
Otherwise, we might be forced to conclude it is simply another example of the BBC’s craven attitude to people who fly aeroplanes into office buldings and blow-up tube trains.
Anon:
The BNP are not exactly friendly to the ROP™ either – come on Anon use your brains.
Anon writes:
“Here’s what I don’t understand about B-BBC. If the BBC is antisemetic the why doesn’t it take the BNP more seriously? After all the BNP isn’t exactly jew-friendly.”
Could I trouble you to do a little research before wasting our bandwdith with such nonsense?
The BNP may be many things (some of them particularly nasty – for example its economic policies) but it is hardly anti-semitic these days.
Still.. that’s the Left for you. Never let a fact or two stand in the way of a received opinion.
Anon | 30.12.06 – 12:42 am
The beeb is old labour in its views.
Therefore the beeb defines the bnp as “right-wing”.
Therefore the beeb can never side with the bnp even if it agrees with the attributed anti-semitism of the bnp.
This is not the only paradox, of course.
Despite the beeb being feminist and homophiliac in its attitude and recruitment policies it nevertheless supports islam and defends muslims even though the RoP demeans women and slaughters homosexuals.
I suppose that the reason for this is tied up with gaining market share in the muslim world.
Happy ‘Saddam Is Dead Day’ to everybody.
“Your Tributes”?
“Hated by many, mourned by few”
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website
“Some Iraqis will miss Saddam Hussein but many more will not mourn him.
He brought little but war and suffering to a people who should have been among the most prosperous in the Middle East, given the oil wealth the country sits on. ”
A very fair appraisel by Paul. Read it quick before it gets hidden.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6217215.stm