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.
Biodegradable | 27.12.06 – 12:19 am
+ Jon & Bryan
When Israeli children are hurt by Arab terrorists they are merely “Israelis”.
No. In the first iteration of this story which you linked to @
http://newssniffer.newworldodour…/18800/diff/1/ 2
the first sentence of the standfirst, printed in bold type says:
A rocket fired from the Gaza Strip has injured two children in southern Israel, Israeli medics have said.
The fact that the BBC reported this claim so early in the story (and highlighted it in bold ) is clear evidence that the journalist who wrote it was certainly not trying to disguise the fact that the injured were minors.
You are right, of course, that it wasn’t in the headline. I think people here are too obsessed by headlines. (Bryan this time).In any case the age of the injured was unverified at the time this was published • and as it turned out, the Israeli medics were imprecise. . (The reporting convention is to call minors up to 12 years of age ‘children’, 13-18 yrs ‘teenagers’.)
All sorts of other facts might have been in this headline • the breach of the ceasefire, for example. But you can’t get every salient detail into a headline • hence the need for standfirsts and body copy.
This was a moving story. To talk about updates being ‘stealth-edits’ in this context is silly.
Reading version one, it is clear that the story came initially from a flash report from Israeli official sources. The BBC reported these statements together with what Islamic Jihad said.
By the time of version two • the focus of the story had moved. The detail that the ‘children’ were in fact ‘teenagers’ was corrected. The new focus was on what Israel might do • Olmert was holding talks to discuss the next move.
By the time we get to version three • Olmert has decided. Hence the focus is now on Olmert’s instruction to resume military strikes.
Jon
“restraint” in quotes
Yes • in quotes because it is disputed. More than a dozen Palestinians have been killed and others arrested in raids during the ceasefire. Some might describe this as ‘restraint’; others wouldn’t. Impartial reporting requires the quotes/attribution.
Shouldn’t “in retaliation for recent Israeli military raids in the West Bank” be in quotes?
No. Reported speech is fine here because the fact of the raids isn’t disputed.
The Israel/strikes headline and abstract reads:
Israel to resume militant strikes
Israel moves to resume strikes against Palestinian militants firing rockets, after an attack injures two boys.
The caption on the photo reads:
“The decision came after a rocket attack injured two Israeli boys”.
These are reasonable, and it’s a good sign that the BBC actually reported (for once) on the rocket attacks.
However, describing the boys as “hurt” when they were badly injured, one in serious condition, is pretty ridiculous.
dave t:
Such a pity we can’t term limit our PMs like the US Prez as Blair would have been gone years ago…!
Of course the converse is that Thatcher would have been replaced by Heseltine or someone equally odious in the mid 80s. On the other hand someone who was keen on finishing what she satrted might have turned up… but I guess we’ll never know.
John Reith:
I think people here are too obsessed by headlines.
Any good journalist knows that the headline makes the story. It’s what attracts the attention, not the actual contatn of the story. Best example is still the Sun’s early edition “GOTCHA!” It put across a very specific belief.
Editors have to try and summarise the story in the headline as best they can, and the wording of a headline is a very good indicator of what the editor believes is important about the story, and equally what they believe is unimportant.
Equally valid headlines for the above story could be: “Two children die in palestinian rocket attack”, “Israeli youths killed by rockets”, or “Cease-fire breaches by Palestinians continue”. They all put across different views of the same story and show different beliefs. What this should render obvious is the BBC’s anti-israel stance, as all of its headlines tend to favour a specific belief; that Israel is the aggressor and that the palestinans are always victims.
Seems I’m mixing up stories, but the point stands. If you substitute “are hurt” and “injured” in the first two headlines you’ll get teh same sort of effect.
archonix
First, headlines have specific uses in newspapers that don’t apply to the web (eg selling more copies). Second, newspapers may use headlines to make value-judgments – but the BBC isn’t supposed to do that. Headlines are supposed to be brief and factual.
In this case, the BBC didn’t know the ages of the injured when version one went out. Had they relied on the Israeli medics and run with a headline saying ‘Israeli children…’ – they’d have got it wrong.
Putting ‘children’ (in quotes) would look daft.
Besides – this wasn’t a human-interest story.
It was first a ‘significant breach of ceasefire’ story that turned into a ‘Israel ponders response’ story – which eventually became an ‘Israel to resume targeted attacks’ story.
So the initial ‘Gaza rocket injures 2 Israelis’ tells us where the rocket came from and what it did.
The only improvement I’d want to make on that headline/first para would be to try to remind the reader of the ceasefire a tad sooner.
http://newssniffer.newworldodour…/18800/diff/1/ 2
Just a little reflection on the intellectual abilities of prominent BBC employees: I watched celebrity “Millionaire” over the holiday. One of the celebrity duos was Fiona Bruce and Nick Ross. During a little chat with Chris Tarrant, Fiona Bruce gave a little synopsis of her career, during which she been employed as a researcher and had subsequently worked all over the world (at the licence-payer’s expense, of course). You would, therefore, expect her to have a reasonable degree of general knowledge. We come to a question: If you travelled from Brazil to South Africa, which ocean would you cross? Arctic, Indian, Pacific, Atlantic. Guess who wasn’t sure, and suggested using a lifeline. Nick Ross had to assure her that it was indeed the Atlantic. Perhaps they don’t have maps at the BBC.
as Blair would have been gone years ago…!
dave t | Homepage | 27.12.06 – 11:59 am
‘fraid not….. two fixed terms of five years from May 1997 would last ’til May 2007.
.
“We all know that the truth is that it was the “Palestinians” who called the ceasefire and broke it within minutes”.
Dec.26th
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/080601mideast/im:/061226/481/akcf10112262151
.
John, while I agree that each of my headlines wasn’t exact, neither is the BBC’s. It isn’t neutral. I’d also disagree with your statement that headline writing on the web doesn’t have the same purpose; it does, as a matter of fact, because getting page views is no different to getting people to read articles in a newspaper. So, for that purpose, a headline has to be, as you say, succinct (or brief, it’s all the same really) and to the point but it also has to tell a story. Every piece of text tells a story, no matter how short or convoluted it may be.
You can probably tell I have a media education now. 😉
The BBC certainly manages to be brief, and it certainly manages to tell stories with its headlines. The point is, those headlines taken as a group tell a very specific story, which has already been demonstrated several times on this site.
The only improvement I’d want to make on that headline/first para would be to try to remind the reader of the ceasefire a tad sooner.
A tad sooner? I’d have made it the first point in the headline myself. Any good editor worth his salt would do something similar, since you have quite a story there; Palestinians saying they’ll honour a cease-fire they’ve already breached, and that they’re breaching again, and again and again. Lies on top of lies which should be reported as exactly that, but they aren’t. That, my friend, is indefensible in an organisation that is supposed to be providing an unbiased public service. Newspaper editors can do whatever they like with the story because they’re free agents, without obligations to anyone but their boss and the shareholders. The BBC has a responsibility to be accurate and it’s failing the spirit of that commitment by focusing badly.
So we have a story that should be about persistent breaching of a ceasefire turned in to a “morally ambiguous settlers hurt” story. We have the burgeoning new war in the horn of africa reported as if the ethiopians are aggressors against a legimiate government when they’re fighting to protect a former enemy from a new one, and we have continual snide remarks and asides from presenters behaving like children, and who really should know better.
I won’t say I’m above such behaviour myself (I can be very mean, in fact) but, like those newspaper editors, I’m a free agent. I have no public responsibility beyond what is deemed illegal and what is morally obligated by my beliefs. I also don’t forcibly extract people a small fortune from people so they can hear me being snide and mean.
Which, I think, is rather the point of this whole argument yet again. I would still have issues if the BBC were a private company putting out these same headlines, but they wouldn’t have an obligation to listen to my complaints beyond what they placed on themselves, and I wouldn’t have an obligation to pay for it. They do have an obligation and they’re failing quite remarkably when we can get better and more unbaised news about such things from arab and communist chinese newspapers than from the BBC.
archonix 27.12.06 – 2:30 pm
those headlines taken as a group tell a very specific story
Here are the headlines currently atop stories about Israel/Palestine on the ME page:
Israel to ease West bank Passage
Palestinian Strife Condemned
Israel Releases Palestinian Cash
Israel to resume militant strikes
Israel Approves West Bank Settlement
So what story do you read into that?
Scott Kennedy:
“As of July 5, 840 Palestinian rockets were fired towards Israel from within Gaza. Meanwhile, during the same period, Israel fired 8,300 shells and rockets into Gaza, nearly ten times the number of Palestinian rockets.
In the past five years, Palestinian HMRs and mortars have killed ten Israelis in Israel (including several Arab citizens of Israel) and seven Israelis in illegal Jewish settlements within Gaza, for a total of 17 deaths.
In slightly more than four months, on the other hand, Israeli forces have killed 400 Palestinians in Gaza. More than 40 percent of those killed were civilians and more than 60 of those killed were children.
We are told that Palestinians target civilians and the Israelis only kill civilians by accident. This may sound reassuring, but the Israelis killed more civilians in one “accident” ten days before my visit, than the Palestinians have killed with all their Qassam rockets in more than half a decade.”
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6284.shtml
A very interesting one, considering a number of them don’t match the headline on the actual story pages.
Eg “palestinian strife condemned” becomes “palestinian in-fighting condemned” on the story page. It’s possible (though not likely) to infer from the former that the “strife” of the palestinians in general is being condemned by nebulous condemners of such things, but there’s little indication as to what the strife actually is. Given the context of the BBC’s previous reports, further inference would be that Israel might be to blame. So, for that one I’d probably write “Clergy Condemn Palestinian Infighting”. Still fits and gets more of the story across too.
Same with “Israel Approves West Bank Settlement” (which is rendered as “Israel Backs W Bank Settlement” on the ME front page as I view it, and “Israel Approves W Bank Settlement” on the actual page), though I agree it’s a fairly accurate headline.
“Israel to ease West bank Passage” I have no argument with, since it gets across the bulk of the story quite well.
Don’t have time to give my “expert analysis” (hah!) of the rest since I have to go out with my wife, but my point wasn’t merely the current crop of headlines but the general trend of headlines produced by the BBC regarding the area. It’s been pointed out on this site before, and will be again (and I recall you took part in the rather lengthy discussion of the point, too) so I won’t go in to it too much. The BBC, like any other media organisation, makes editorial decisions on how headlines should be written, and the majority appear to be heavily slanted toward BBC favoured groups and against those they dislike. As I explained, in a publicly funded organisation with a charter obligation to be unbiased, this is simply wrong, and for every example of an apparently unbiased headline you can find I reckon there’ll be a dozen very baised examples found by others here.
“John Reith”,
As others have ably pointed out in my abscence “the headline is the story” and no amount of excuses and explanations from you can change that.
You say that a report of two young Jews seriously hurt, possibly left crippled for life, by a rocket fired indiscriminately at a civilian area is not a “human interest story”, then please explain why the injury of arab children, on a beach for example, is a “human interest story”.
Yes, it was a developing story – the BBC developed it from covering the two young Jewish victims into “Jews on the attack, once again.”
Claiming that headlines in a newspaper and headlines on a web site aren’t the same is pathetic. I would venture that there is more chance a reader of a newspaper will read at least the first few lines of an article than there is that a surfer would click on a link. Thus the average Joe Surfer only gets the message that two Israelis are hurt rather than two very young Israelis are seriously injured.
Did you ever succesfully explain why “Palestinians” are always “killed” in headlines while Jews simply “die”?
Just returned from a short break when I watched some of BBC World’s TV coverage. I was surprised that they were showing adverts like a commercial station – in fact exactly the same adverts that CNN were showing. How come a supposedly non-commercial broadcaster is showing ads? How is BBC World funded? Perhaps JR could explain.
Just caught sight of News 24 about the launch from Baikonur. That Clare Marshall is hopeless and seemed to have no clue as to what goes on.
Anyway it was amateurish – really leagues behind what used to happen in days of James Burke………………but more than that it showed just how professional CNN would be and how naff News 24 eally is
The BBC and how it defends a belligerent ideology for losing a war they started..
Blame the US
US wary of Somali ‘terror’ links
The United States has closely followed the gains made by Somali government forces, supported by Ethiopian armour and troops, against Islamist militiamen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6212321.stm
The Americans have worked closely with Ethiopia, using troops based in neighbouring Djibouti. There is no suggestion that American forces are involved in the current Ethiopian offensive in Somalia, but Washington has satellite images and intelligence information that would be extremely useful to Addis Ababa as it attempts to crack the Islamic Court’s hold on Somalia.
So there you have it folks, the BBC blames the US for usurping their ideological masters in Somalia. Strange how they use speculation and rumour in which to lay their corner stone of why the Islamists are losing a fight they started.
No doubt the BBC will have numerous stories of atrocities committed by the Non Islamist forces. Funny enough I don’t see the BBC stating that the Somalia government is weak anymore.
Archonix wrote:
“You (JR) say that a report of two young Jews seriously hurt, possibly left crippled for life, by a rocket fired indiscriminately at a civilian area is not a “human interest story”, then please explain why the injury of arab children, on a beach for example, is a “human interest story”.
It’s rather simple and we’ve seen it happen elsewhere – Jews aren’t quite human. The BBC is attempting to reduce the Jews of Israel to a level of lesser concern.
I note earlier that Lurker takes issue with a rabbi who opined that Europeans in the wider were responsible for the Holocaust. I agree with the rabbi. Nazis did the killing but who handed the jews (nighbours, colleagues etc) over to them? Please don’t cite Ann Frank as an example of European compassion: she was ratted on and died in a concentration camp just like the millions of others. In order for this to happen, the population has to be conditioned by the subtle, almost subliminal, background music which instills in the listener the idea of the lower status of the future victim, just as the BBC is doing now. Who will deliver the coup de grace to the Israeli nation (Iran?): when it happens, we’ll be conditioned to believe that ‘the Jews had it coming’ thanks to the BBC’s depiction of them.
Disclaimer: I am not Jewish and I have no Jewish acquaintances.
BioD
To those of us from a broadcasting tradition the headline most emphatically ISN’T the story.
The story is the story – the headline is just a label telling you broadly what the story is about.
A menu isn’t a meal.
Besides – generally speaking the headline isn’t even written by the person who wrote the original story (true in newspapers as well). Headlines are usually written by subs, not by reporters, correspondents etc.
The BBC doesn’t as a rule write much about individuals who are killed or injured in the ME. If they did – and if Anon’s figures above are right – there would have to have been 400 stories about dead Palestinians in Gaza in recent months – 60 of them kids. ..let alone the thousands killed in Iraq.
Sometimes an individual story will be told – as an exemplar – but this wasn’t one of them. Anyway – the ‘fact’ they were children turned out to be false.
The focus was rightly on what would happen to the ceasefire deal.
The final version doesn’t remotely suggest ‘Jews on the attack again’.
Oscar
BBC World is commercially funded.
270 million homes in 200 countries – bags of advertising…all helping to keep the licence fee down for the UK residents who pay it.
The BBC and how it defends a Tyrant as a victim to the masses..
Saddam sees death as ‘sacrifice’
Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has said he is ready to die as a “sacrifice” for Iraq, urging his countrymen to unite against enemies. In a letter written from his prison cell, Saddam Hussein said his death would make him a “true martyr”.
The former leader could be hanged on any day over the next four weeks, after an appeal against his execution failed. The sentence is for killings in the town of Dujail in the 1980s. A trial for a second case continues.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6212393.stm
The BBC and an article about a despotic tyrant which makes him out to be some sort of victim at the hands of (you’ve guessed it) the US.
Err BBC how about explaining in that glowing report just why Saddam is going to get his neck strung? I mean this doesn’t do the victims of Dujail any justice at all;
“The sentence is for killings in the town of Dujail in the 1980s.”
Killings?
Here is what the BBC omits from the story;
” Dujail was the site of an unsuccessful assassination attempt against then Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, on July 8, 1982. The town was a stronghold of the Shiite Dawa Party, a group strongly opposed to Saddam Hussein and his war with Iran. Saddam Hussein was visiting the town to make a speech praising those who had served Iraq in the fight against Iran. While driving through the village centre, his motorcade was attacked by one or more members of the Dawa Party. The president was unharmed in the three-hour firefight which ensued.Saddam Hussein ordered his special security and military forces to carry out a reprisal attack against the town. His orders were obeyed. A total 150 of the town’s men were killed in the attack or executed later, a number of which were boys 13 years of age.[1] 1,500 people were also incarcerated and tortured, while other residents, many of them women and children, were sent to desert camps. Saddam’s regime destroyed the town and then rebuilt it shortly after. In addition to these punishments, 1,000 square kilometres (250,000 acres) of farmland was destroyed; replanting was only permitted 10 years later.”
Oh poor Saddam I hope he really suffers these last few days on the Planet. I take it the BBC will issue Black armbands when he taken to task for stealing oxygen.
Mr John Reith writes;
“The BBC doesn’t as a rule writes much about individuals who are killed or injured in the ME.”
Nah it just promotes stories of how an unemployed terrorist (who happens to be the father of 11 children) bemoans the west for not paying him for having such a large family.
Allan@Aberdeen | 27.12.06 – 4:56 pm | #
Allan, I didn’t write what you quoted me as writing, though it does provide a good example of what I was trying to say before.
Sorry A, it was BioD.
THE BBC COVERTLY WORKING HAND IN GLOVE WITH THE ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT OF IRAN
It is a little reported story that the BBC has in 2006 been working diligently behind the scenes with the Iranian Foreign Affairs Ministry and elements within the British Foreign Office to subvert the official British Government position which is to isolate Iran, and has instead sought to deepen its existing commercial ties with the Islamic government of Iran and to promote the Islamic Government of Iran and its policies both within Iran and Internationally. The effort to subvert British Government policy is currently funded from our taxes to the tune of £250 million by means of a British Foreign Office grant, and as such constitutes a serious breech by the BBC of its charter obligations. I have set out the background to this story, which should interest anyone concerned about “journalistic integrity” at the BBC.
With the election of Ahmadinejad in June 2005, it became clear to elements in Iran’s Foreign Ministry that they would need to make a strenuous effort to ensure that Iran did not become isolated as a consequence of the hard-line stance of its newly elected government. Iran reports confirmed at this time a number of meeting were held between members of the Islamic Government, elements in the British Foreign Office and the BBC with the aim of arriving at a mutually beneficial arrangement.
An understanding was reached and since early 2006 the BBC has been making strenuous efforts to provide as much positive coverage of the position of the hardline Islamic Government by biasing it reporting from Iran , and in return the Islamic Government of Iran has attempted to provide some credibility to the BBC by pretending to block its out put and more significantly by allowing the BBC to expand its commercial operations in Iran.
You may have followed the attempt last month of a number of BBC “journalists” (Reith & Co.) on this website to validate the claim that the BBC has had its operations curtailed in Iran. This followed reports put out by the BBC in early 2006 that it was being censored by the Iranian Government.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4644398.stm
“The Iranian authorities have started to block the BBC’s Persian language internet site, for the first time.”
The story was especially interesting to me as I like most Iranians living in Iran know it to be false. The BBCs Farsi website has never been blocked and it is common knowledge amongst Iranians that since 1979 the BBC has consistently reported favorably on the Islamic Revolution and Government and sought at every turn to mininise reports that would cause the Islamic Government of Iran embarrassment. So I dug a bit deeper to first confirm my suspicions and then to attempt to understand what the BBC has been up to in Iran in 2006. Refuting the BBCs claims to being blocked by the Islamic government was easy. After a little Googling I found for example this report by an Iranian blogger.
http://hoder.com/weblog/archives/015688.shtml
Hossein Derakhshan (a so called “independent” Iranian blogger but in fact is very supportive commentator of the Islamic regime) inadvertently confirmed here that the Islamic Government has never blocked the BBC. “So I concluded that the filtering has been a technical glitch in the Iranian-made filtering software and it’s not a policy. The combination of The Guardian’s inaccurate reporting and RSFs unfair and partial press release made a lethal mix last week and numerous news outlets used this to reinforce the negative image of Iran.” My suspicions that the Iranian Government and the BBC were working behind the scenes in a co-ordinated manner were heightened by this contrived story filed by Frances Harrison.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6087434.stm
“As our correspondent finds, working as a journalist in these troubled times is no easy matter, especially if you are a woman.”
The story is nothing more than a desperate attempt by the BBC to salvage a shred of credibility amongst ordinary Iranians … the overwhelming majority of whom have long distrusted the BBC and believed that it works closely with elements in the British Foreign Office to support the Islamic Government and nurture better ties with it while whitewashing its many crimes. You can see the most recent example of pro-Islamic Government BBC propaganda ,School Day 24: Iran-UK-US here … a pathetic attempt to show that schools and teaching in Iran were very much the same as that in the UK and United States.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6215360.stm
What the BBC seeks to minimise is the reality of life in Iran a country where students have fought with little success and at great risk to expose the criminal elements that form Iran’s Islamic government
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1974334,00.html
Notice that typically the BBC when reporting this event makes every effort to provide the official Islamic government version,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6169773.stm
“Mr Ahmadinejad responded calmly to protesters’ shouts of “Death to the dictator”, an official spokesman said. The president reportedly described the hecklers as an “oppressive minority” and continued his speech.”
The real story on the BBCs commercial ties with the Islamic Government can be read in part here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1892417,00.html
“But the plans are also likely to prompt renewed claims that the World Service, funded by grant in aid from the Foreign Office to the tune of £245m a year, is becoming an instrument of foreign policy.” Its strange that in teh Blogosphere in general and even on this website this covert co-operation between the BBC and the Iranian Government has received little to no attention.
What with Xmas over I thought I’d drop in to see what the Beeb has been up to. Reading John Reith’s pseudo-forensic posts made me feel so sorry (but not really) for him.
The final version doesn’t remotely suggest ‘Jews on the attack again’.
John Reith | 27.12.06 – 4:59 pm
“Israel to resume militant strikes” is pretty close though isn’t it?
(BTW, what’s wrong with “Israel to resume strikes on militants”, would 2 extra letters break the bank?)
That the entire article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6211159.stm now bears absolutely no resemblance to the original report on the two injured boys – it has mutated into the story on Olmert ordering a resumption of “pinpoint action against rocket-launching squads”.
If the two boys had been “Palestinian” we’d be treated to interviews with grieving family members, terrorist leaders vowing revenge, NGOs condemning the rocket fire, emergency sessions of the UN Security Council and who knows what else.
No mention either of the latest rocket attacks:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881985627&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
The point about Ford and not being elected was that he wasn’t elected Vice President, he was appointed after Spiro Agnew resigned. He then succeeded to the Presidency when Nixon resigned. Other Vice Presidents who succeeded to the Presidency, such as Coolidge and LBJ, were elected Vice President.
And while I’m passing, I also noticed the Christians elated over cash award story on teletext – headlining their alleged elation about a cash award was utterly ludicrous as they showed no interest in the cash at all, and said they were going to give it away.
Didn’t you hear? Money-grubbing christians are nearly as bad as the jews these days, parsimonious theiving do-gooders. Not like those kind, sharing, charitable muslims who will give you shelter and food at the drop of a hat… as long as you’re muslim.
Hugh Fitzgerald:
” Very early on Christmas morning
I happened to tune in to the BBC
World Service. I thought there might be something, perhaps King’s College Choir, or the aptly-named Raniero
Cantalamessa in Rome, or perhaps someone musing on the fate of Christians in Iraq, other than that moral idiot and historical nitwit, the current Archbishop of Canterbury.
” But that would have been a different BBC. This BBC, the BBC of
John Simpson and July Swallow and Robin Lustig and Barbara Plett of the ready tear for Arafat, is a very
different BBC from that of Huw Weldon. And it lived up to my grim expectations. It did not disappoint.”
Read all of Hugh Fitzgerald’s critique of William Dalrymple’s
verbal assault on Israel (and, for good measure, Fitzgerald points to
Dalrymple’s ommision of reference to
Muslim enslavement of Hindus in
Moghul India).
“Fitzgerald: a Tribute to William Dalrymple”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/articles/
hughfitzgerald/php (26 Dec.).
Biodegradable – I am not apologising for BBC stealth edits. I followed your link and that is what I found.
What happened to the BBC news article today about ‘doubts’ regarding the Saddam verdict? He might be innocent…? I can’t seem to find the link now, but it was in the top 5 read news stories this afternoon.
I think they’d intended Verdict to mean Sentence, however what do I know, I’ve not studied English in a long long time. Along with most of the BBC’s audience. Using my interpretation of the words, if the BBC wants me to think that Saddam might not have been responsible for the deaths of those Kurds then who am I to argue?
Israel to resume militant strikes
Yes, those nasty Jews again – they are such…terr….er…militants.
Shame, the BBC’s headline writers are so biased they tie themselves up in knots trying to pack the bias into the headline.
Now we look forward to them at least telling the truth about the other side. How about:
Kassam attacks break “ceasefire”
Now why do I think that will never happen?
Any takers on a wee bet that Robin Gibb gets a knighthood for giving Blair and family a free holiday in Florida? He claims he is paying – Mrs Gibb says he is staying there for free….
Oh and will we also see Blair claiming that he needn’t now pay for flights as he was on official business attending President Ford’s funeral?
Is it not a sign of the times and society created by NuLab that one can put forward bets like that and NOT be surprised if they turn out to be true?
Jon:
Biodegradable – I am not apologising for BBC stealth edits. I followed your link and that is what I found.
Jon | 27.12.06 – 8:28 pm
Jon,
No problem, I read your post in a hurry and misinterpreted too.
The roadmap is dead, long live the roadmap!
Not only is it only Israel that violates ceasefires, if the BBC is to be believed the “Palestinians” have been sticking to the roadmap until quite recently.
US raps West Bank settlement plan
Israel said 30 houses for former Gaza Strip settlers will be built in the Jordan Valley.
The 2003 roadmap calls for a complete halt to all settlement activity.
…
The roadmap, which also calls for the Palestinians to crack down on militants, has effectively been frozen for months amid soaring violence between the two sides.
Now read the actual roadmap and tell me when the “Palestinians” have complied with any tiny part of it, much less “cracking down on militants”.
The road map in full
Biodegradable – no problem – thats the problem with the BBc whats said one minute is changed the next.
A quick type into your blog search (at the top of the page) for “Buckingham Palace” or “Royal Family” suggests you don’t seem to care about the disgraceful proportion of airtime the BBC affords to the royal family (i.e. beyond the Queen’s role as head of state).
I put an entry in to my blog about this, spurned on by the fact that Zara Phillips was “sport’s” personality of the year. Have a butcher’s, let me know what you think
John Reith wrote: “..all helping to keep the licence fee down for the UK residents who pay it.”
Bwahaha good one very funny, but that old chestnut is getting a bit past its sell-by. You really must think up some new specious rubbish to feed the proles.
Meanwhile back in the real world the only thing keeping the telly tax down is politicians telling the DG where to shove his demands.
sorry. having just read most of the comments here, the only thing about the BBC bias that most of yous are commenting on is the middle-east crisis.
I personally hate the Corporation’s providing for the middle of the road, in things like radio 4’s schedule that’s rife with religious show (thought for the day anyone?), or desert Island discs that’s nearly always somebody whose tastes begin and end with classical music.
Radio 1’s A list – if it was less a copycat of MTV’s playlist, and more about what new pop music is breaking ground (and obviously, is still palatable to the general public – an example would be Modest Mouse’s song Float On – it could have been a Top 5 hit if it was A-listed), then there would be no reason to spend license-payers money on the two recent stations 1xtra and 6Music.
sorry. having just read most of the comments here, the only thing about the BBC bias that most of yous are commenting on is the middle-east crisis.
Nope, that ain’t true. At times the open threads do tend to get dominated by the Middle East, but there are always several threads devoted to other aspects of BBC bias.
If your comments strike a chord, no doubt a debate will follow.
A title for today on BBC website:
Somalia peace hopes stalled at UN
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6213341.stm
As it turns out further down the article, the “peace hopes” are hinged on stopping the Ethiopeans, esepcially since (horror, horror) they are backed by the US. Clearly, there is need for international intervention for rescuing the poor and innocent Somali Jihadists.
.
The Islamists seemed invincible after capturing the capital, but they have been no match for Ethiopia, which has the strongest military in the Horn of Africa.
Islamic forces abandon Somalia’s capital
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061228/ap_on_re_af/somalia
.
JIM, surely reporting on the Royal Family and upholding the nation’s history and tradition should be amongst the prime motives of a national broadcaster if we’re going to have one. I for one quite enjoy seeing what Her Maj and the chaps are up to. And if the PUBLIC want to vote for Zara Phillips as SPOTY that says more about their minor celeb obsessed moronicism than the Beeb – although personally I’d like to see it selected by a panel of eminent sports people.
And while I’m at it, Radio 1 is by far the best of the mass listenership stations at breaking new music etc and steering clear of the endless crap provided by Capital etc etc. I personally think that having a well funded broadcaster able to push decent stuff rather than needing to play commercially safe has pretty much single handedly saved the British music industry from the evils of Cowell and Pap Idol.
And what, James I Mc Anespy, is so wrong in being a ‘person whose tastes begin and end with classical music’??
Jon:
Biodegradable – no problem – thats the problem with the BBc whats said one minute is changed the next.
Jon | 28.12.06 – 1:12 am | #
That is why we have Newssniffer…
http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/articles/list_by_revision
…To keep an eye out for their stealth edits and hilarious typos.
“WISHFUL THOUGHTS FOR 2007
The New Culture Forum brings the cultural news and events you can (not) expect to hear about in 2007…
JANUARY
BBC News press release
(Peter Horrocks, head of BBC News),
“said in his after dinner speech ‘it
is time the BBC recognises the
homicide bombers in the Middle East have the same motives as homicide
bombers in the West’ and ‘are nothing
but barbaric murderous scumbags acting under a veil of pseudo religious nonsense.'” (J.Levi).
http://newcultureforum.blogspot.com/
I wonder if the BBC’s output to Somalia will change now their Islamist friends have scampered out of Mogadishu?
Welfare check…
Is Yusuf Garaad, the author of pro-Union of Islamic Courts reports…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6106398.stm
…Still in Mogadishu?
To counteract BBC’s pro-Islamic Courts broadcasts from Somalia (by
Yusuf Garaad, et al), I suggest bloggers send e-mails of support to:
UK Ethiopian Embassy:
info@ethioembassy.org.uk.
The BBC,its support for radical Islam and half a story;
Islamists abandon Somali capital
Islamist fighters have left the Somali capital as government forces backed by Ethiopian troops advance on the city.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6213499.stm
“Some residents say lawlessness has returned to Mogadishu – which had been under Islamic rule for six months.”
and
A senior Islamist leader, Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, told al-Jazeera television his forces had left Mogadishu “to avert heavy bombing because Ethiopian forces are practising genocide against the Somali people”.
So according to the BBC the Islamists have left Mogadishu. That’s strange as the vast majority of half decent news outlets. (Other than the BBC) mention this little Mr Ben incident.
“Gunmen who had been allied with Islamist militias changed out of their uniforms and submitted to the command of traditional elders.”
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061228/NEWS/612280325/1033/NEWS01
“Gunfire echoed through the streets and hundreds of gunmen who had backed the Muslim militants demonstrated they had broken allegiance by switching from uniforms to civilian clothes.”
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061227/ethopia_somali_061228/20061228?hub=World
As for the BBC image of widespread looting, here is what the rest of the world are reporting;
“Some began looting buildings deserted by the Islamists. One resident said three men and a woman had been killed in a scramble for ammunition and food.”
I wonder if a certain BBC clone wishes to discuss the finer merits of switching allegiance to he who has the most guns in Somalia. A discussion if I recollect correctly said clone accused me of fabricating in which to attack the BBCs defence of the Islamists. Yup nothing like actions of the faithful in which to prove a point.
P.S
I see it didn’t take long for the BBC to push the Genocide angle for its fallen Zeros…
Where exactly is there any evidence of the beeb favouring the Islamic Courts in Somalia? The Islamists have provided abysmal ‘government’ but at least some stability. The Ethiopian backed interim government is more benign but was more at risk from factional warlords and general anarchy. The US backs Ethiopian influence whilst acknowledging the ludicrous complexities and no win nature of the situation. The Beeb has made some effort to put this across.
Still, who cares about complexity when you can play toytown politics as people are dying eh Alan? Let’s all send some emails.