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.
Whoops…
try this link
Just finishing on BBC Radio 4, yet another programme sympathetic to Islam: ‘Analysis: Telling Muslim Stories’, 8-30 to 9 pm.
It was an architypal BBC narrowly
focused view, with majority opinions excluded. The gist of the non-debate was who was being the fairer: UK Muslims, or the UK liberal press, including the BBC.
But it was ‘archetypal’ BBC.
With, laughably, a ‘Have Your Say’.
James I McAnespy: The Radio 1 playlist comes in several flavours these days (A, B and C etc) If you check it out http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/playlist.shtml
you can see that it contains no X-Factor winners or Westlife. Obviously these records get played on the Radio 1 Chart Show, but otherwise you’d be unlikely to hear them.
In New Music We Trust.
Izzie writes:
“Since when was it news that millions of muslims went to Saudi for the Hajj? BBC news seems to think it is of great importance to all of us and repeatedly shows them walking round the black box, with a typically reverential voiceover.”
Amazing the attention you can get when your advocates blow up tube trains full of innocent people, isn’t it?
Even disregarding all its other crimes against this country, the BBC’s fawning over Islam since 9/11 has been sufficent to justify the removal of the licence fee.
Jack Hughes | 28.12.06 – 8:51 pm
Further to my post at the head of this thread, here’s another two press cuttings supporting your condemnation of the Beeb over its Archers PC agenda:
Two letter to the Daily Mail of 21 November 2006:
“What’s left of the BBC?/Amridge too far”
http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/7137/9938vd0.jpg
Plus Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday:
“Ruth unfaithfull? This PC spin is ruining Ambridge”
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/3251/20061105mailosruthunfaizj1.jpg
Together with the aforementioned hilarious letter from Ian Philip of March 2004 to the Sunday Telegraph:
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/5895/20040307stelegraphanevewu7.jpg
– and the aforementioned searing discourse by Stephen Glover in the Mail from last month:
http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/7428/8287yf5.jpg
– I make that four for your collection. (Make sure you keep them somewhere safe.)
(Incidentally, the link to John Turner’s excellent post on the BBC (D)HYS is: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&threadID=5079&start=15&tstart=0&edition=1&ttl=20061228220246&#paginator
(It’s the third or fourth one down)
“Even disregarding all its other crimes against this country, the BBC’s fawning over Islam since 9/11 has been sufficent to justify the removal of the licence fee.”
All those who agree say ‘Aye’
AYE!
*roar of the silent majority who live real lives blighted by crime, high taxes, worsening services and ever increasing prices, NOT the gold plated pension proofed, over paid and under worked government and public service class including the BBC…*
Jonathan Boyd Hunt: Interesting piece from Hitchins. You realise he doesn’t actually listen to the show and he admits in the piece?
Anon wrotes:
“Jonathan Boyd Hunt: Interesting piece from Hitchins. You realise he doesn’t actually listen to the show and he admits in the piece?”
A comment that might have been useful, had you addressed whether Mr Hitchens was right or wrong.
So it’s a few days after your side decided to flex its muscle and decides to have a bash at the internationally recognised government in Somalia. But instead of the so called (islamist) favourites coming out on top in this showdown. (as per BBC predictions) they instead get their arses kicked and lose a war of their own making.
So how does the BBC save face?
Why it plays the victim card for the ROP™;
Eyewitness: ‘Everything is unpredictable’
Somali human rights activist Ali Said Omar, 27, describes the mood in his country’s capital, Mogadishu, after Islamist fighters flee and Ethiopian-backed government forces arrive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6214263.stm
So lets see how the BBC defends the defeat of its ideological masters as taken from the above article;
1) “Speaking to people I did pass it seems as if our city is full of tears, waiting to burst. Most seem very worried, some terrified, waiting to know what to do.”
Pounce says;
“Why BBC, why don’t the people do what they did a few months ago. You know when the Islamists took control.
2) “The fighter planes were coming from the sea and US ships from their Djibouti base are in the Indian Ocean. People really do believe that the US is part of this mission.”
Pounce says;
“As per BBC S.O.Ps, If in doubt blame the US”
3) “Last night before the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) left they told the city that they were fleeing so that fighting would not take place in the streets, so women and children would not be harmed – they said we’re doing this to save you.”
Pounce says;
“Oh those caring Islamists, remind me again how they didn’t mind setting off the odd car bomb now and again or even shooting people dead for watching football on the telly?
4) “When the Islamist Courts took control they recruited some of the different militia groups, trained them and taught them about Islam.”
Pounce says;
“Yup, nothing like the Koran to keep one faithful”
5) “No-one is giving much consideration to the transitional government as they are only being guided by the Ethiopians who are in turn are guided by the Americans.”
Pounce says;
“Blame the yanks for everything”
6) “People here are very angry with Ethiopia and then secondly with America. But not with Britain. Although the UK is very alike to the US, the understanding here is quite different, people here do not have animosity to the people of the UK.”
Pounce says;
“In the UK we can commit as many crimes as we want and get paid to do so and if we get accused of shooting a policewoman dead, we get to dress up as a woman and flee back home. Dover here we come”
Unable to accept that their masters have had their arses well and truly kicked the apologists at the BBC come up with a load of what ifs , what could happen and what may happen in which to whitewash the fact that when it comes to fighting Radical Zeros have as much gumption for tactics as the BBC has for telling the truth.
The BBC defending the indefensible.
Reith: “Taken together, all BBC News outlets reach about 80% of the adult population of the UK.”
Given that the BBC pretends to be free, and Sky requires a subscrption. People might feel they are getting a good deal for the ‘free’ service.
Of course SKY doesn’t employ government agents to locate and lock up the poorest in the community for non payment of the SKY subscription. You know sort of people the BBC targets – single mothers and unemployed and people on benefits. The uh, most vulnerable in the society.
Reith: “It’s clear whose news the overwhelming majority prefer.”
Of course a real test of public preference would be if the BBC were voluntary subscription like SKY. Then we would clearly see which service the ‘overwhelming majority’ preferred
“Of course a real test of public preference would be if the BBC were voluntary subscription like SKY. Then we would clearly see which service the ‘overwhelming majority’ preferred”
An excellent idea – what does JR think about it?
Anon | 28.12.06 – 10:50 pm
You say:
“Jonathan Boyd Hunt: Interesting piece from Hitchins. You realise he doesn’t actually listen to the show and he admits in the piece?”
My answer to your question is “Yes”. Hitchens makes clear that he’s formed his view from accounts by a source he terms his “Ambridge correspondent”. Judging by the other accounts to which I provide links, plus our own correspondent Jack Hughes, it seems Hitchen’s “Ambridge correspondent” was spot on.
APL | 28.12.06 – 11:15 pm
You say:
“Of course SKY doesn’t employ government agents to locate and lock up the poorest in the community for non payment of the SKY subscription. You know sort of people the BBC targets – single mothers and unemployed and people on benefits. The uh, most vulnerable in the society.”
Well, on this evidence provided by the redoubtable organ The Lincolnshire Echo, featuring our own correspondent Jonathan Miller, your account appears to be accurate. Check out:
“Is this just a licence to print money?”
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/7105/20050519lincolnshireechgx9.jpg
Continued:
“Price and Prejudice: Why we didn’t cough up”
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/8647/20050519lincolnshireechff8.jpg
Continued:
“How the BBC gets a licence to spend £2,798m…”
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/9094/20050519lincolnshireechyv8.jpg
Allan@Aberdeen | 28.12.06 – 2:36 pm |
and when will bibles be allowed into saudi arabia? or crosses/crufixes?
in any event, why on earth should i accept today’s jihadists based on what those who may or may not be their spiritual predecessors may or may not have done centuries ago?
Jack Hughes – I agree with the post but the BBC seems to be winning with its non-reporting of facts about the USA if this load of rubbish reccomended by 65 people has anything to go by.
Added: Tuesday, 26 December, 2006, 11:21 GMT 11:21 UK
My wish:
That the USA is sanctioned and blockaded for its multiple war crimes, its use of atomic weapons, its stockpiling of banned weapons, its appalling human rights record at home and abroad, its failure to pay dues to the UN, its trading with and support for dictators around the globe, its failure to sign Kyoto, etcetera, etcetera.
And that our brave Prime Minister leads the rest of the world in achieving this.
More a dream than a wish really.
[thinkingandbeing], Swansea, United Kingdom
Recommended by 65 people
Sign in to recommend comments
Alert a Moderator
Now this person and the other 65 people must be either stupid or far more likely they have been brainwashed by Justin Web and his ilk. It sounds as if it was written by a BBC Editor. God help us all.
As Pounce points out this is yet another shockingly biased piece of reporting by the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6214263.stm
Ali Said Omar, who the BBC labels as a “Somali human rights activist” is clearly writing from the viewpoint of the Islamic courts …. ask yourself if these Islamic courts were as popular as Ali Said Omar claims … then why has the populace not lifted a finger to defend the territory that the Islamic Courts controlled? Eritrea stood up to and defeated the Ethiopians after many years of fighting because they had genuine popular support. The Islamic Courts thyugs only have support amongst the BBC which seems hell bent on giving succour to any Islamic Fundamentalist movement that exists no matter what their crimes have been. It simply beggars belief.
Omar goes on to say:
“If our city goes back to how it was six months ago it will be very complicated.”
Im certain it will be for the likes of you Omar and those who have been party to dispensing “Islamic Justice.”
Your time has come mate. Pack your bags and come to England where your BBC pals will be waiting for you.
I’m with this one.
Added: Tuesday, 26 December, 2006, 11:19 GMT 11:19 UK
That HYS moderators will not allow any more comments whose authours repeatedly promulgate embarrassing disinformation because they never bother to familiarize themselves with easily verifiable facts and data before they hit their keyboards.
Mirek Kondracki, USA
Recommended by 63 people
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=5079&edition=1&ttl=20061229000728&#paginator
i knew i botched that
should be ‘crucifixes’
sorry
This is how the Radical Islamic Daily Quds Al Arabi which is based in London and whose editor Barry Atwan is ofetn invited by the BBC to comment on Arabic and Islamic affairs views the collapse of the Islamic forces in Somalia.
It appears that the speed of the collapse, reminiscent of the collapse of the Taliban has wound up Barry and his friends at the BBC somewhat.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6212049.stm
PAN ARAB AL-QUDS AL-ARABI
The Islamic Courts forces are made up of a group of clean and pure believers who wanted to bring an end to bloody chaos sustained by warlords and militia leaders.? It managed to expel highway robbers and the Mafia gang. However, the US, which tore apart the unity of Somalia, overthrew its government, blew up its stability and starved its people, was not pleased with this achievement and moved in to overthrow the courts.
Ethiopia will pay high price for its interference in Somali affairs. Disorder will prevail in Somalia, which will become a safe heaven for Islamist groups from inside and outside Somalia, with the help of the Somali people this time round. Will [Ethiopian Prime Minister] Meles Zinawi succeed in Somalia, in achieving what his masters in USA failed to achieve in Iraq?
HERE you can see what the clean and pure believers were getting up to when they were in charge.
• politically motivated killings
• unlawful killings
• kidnapping
• torture, rape, and beatings
• harsh and life threatening prison conditions
• arbitrary arrest and detention
• denial of fair trial
• restrictions on freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, religion, and movement
• discrimination and violence against women, including rapes
• female genital mutilation (FGM)
• abuse of children
• trafficking in persons
• abuse and discrimination against clan and religious minorities
• restrictions on workers’ rights
• forced labor, including by children
The BBC and rewriting history in which to make the victims the aggressor and the aggressor the victim.
Palestinian deaths ‘rose in 2006’
Israeli security forces killed 660 Palestinians in 2006 – three times more than in 2005, according to an Israeli human rights group. B’Tselem, which monitors human rights in the occupied territories, said the figure included 141 children. At least 322 had taken no part in hostile acts, the group said. In the same period, the number of deadly Palestinian attacks on Israelis has fallen – 23 Israelis were killed in 2006 compared with 50 last year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6215769.stm
There you have it folks. According to the BBC the Pal let up on attacking the nasty Israeli and guess what, the blood thirsty fatherless people that the jews are just had to kill a few more pals in which to express their gratitude.
I return to this golden nugget from the BBC;
“In the same period, the number of deadly Palestinian attacks on Israelis has fallen”
Note how in writing the latter as “Deadly attacks” the BBC dodges the issue of total attacks. Now while I don’t have figures for attacks by Qassam for 2006 a quick search gave me a figure of 1000 rockets by the 9th of June 2006 fired against Israel this year.(that was six months ago) That is a barrage of rockets against a sovereign country for no other reason than racial and religious hatred.
The BBC also leaves out of the equation how terrorists launched an attack from Gaza on Israel killing a number of soldiers and kidnapping another.
The BBC in promoting the issue of ROP™ victim status. Kind of omits the fact that Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005 and since then has been subjected to terrorist attacks since day one. (Hell since the so called cease fire in Oct the Pals have launched over 60 rocket attacks) So maybe just maybe could it be possible for the BBC to explain that the main reason why so many Pals have died this year isn’t because of Israeli aggression but rather the aggressive nature of the Pals (just look at the ongoing bun-fight between Hamas and Fatah) who if they actually tried to help their own they may find that all that money which they spend on buying rocket parts, bullets and bombs could feed the unemployed father of 11 rug rats and the owner of 31 canaries and consequently find that the jews don’t feel the need to send in the troops,F16s, AH64D and M109 SPG in which to avenge the latest terrorist attack.
The BBC and rewriting History.
Ref my last on how the BBC reports on the number of Israeli caused deaths in 2006. It appears the BBC for some strange reason forgot to mention this snippet;
“According to B’Tselem almost two thirds of the Palestinian deaths occurred since June when militants kidnapped Cpl. Gilad Shalit to Gaza.”
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20061228-050358-4715r
I wonder why?
bbc news 24 – no mention at all about saddam being executed this weekend.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16384738/
maybe they’re all upset about the somali islamists getting their asses kicked by the ethiopians.
I don’t know if anyone is interested, but this story caught my eye this morning – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6214655.stm
This seems to be rather poor reporting on the part of the Beeb. I’m not a scientist or anything, but even I can see that there are potential flaws with the apparent results of this study. For example, I would suggest that a large contributory factor to this apparent result would be that women who spent that much time doing housework would be more likely to cook meals from scratch rather than eating overprocessed crap and junk food (and I would be interested to see how the rates of cancer amongst those for whom they cook – husbands, kids etc – compare to the rest of the study group).
In addition, if the women in this study had that much time to spend doing housework, they’re probably not in paid employment, so that reduces the risk factor for cancer anyway (less stress, of course!).
Really, what’s with the lack of critical thinking these days?!
Lizzie | 29.12.06 – 8:59 am
I’m not a scientist or anything
Well we can thank our lucky stars for that.
A more conscientious reading of the article you quote together with some cursory due diligence on your part would have noted:
1. That this was a report summarising (accurately) the findings of a scientific study in the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention.
2. That this learned journal is published by the American Association for Cancer Research.
3. That all articles are subjected to peer review.
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/misc/about.shtml
The editorial board of the Journal comprises some of the leading experts in this field:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/misc/edboard.shtml
Now, it may be that you are better qualified than these specialists to pronounce upon the supposed methodological shortcomings of the the study. Or it may be that you’re just an armchair smartarse. Who can say?
But one thing’s for sure. It’s not the job of BBC journalists to go second-guessing the scientists involved. Nor, on the other hand, is it the job of BBC journalists to make exaggerated claims for research. That’s why the BBC uses cautious language – as in this piece: ‘a study suggests’. Not, ‘a study proves’. Were another group of scientists to raise questions about the study, the BBC was report those too. That’s what impartial reporting is all about.
So your line:
This seems to be rather poor reporting on the part of the Beeb
is unwarranted. Poor reading on your part more like.
APL | 28.12.06 – 11:15 pm & Allan@Aberdeen
Sky News doesn’t require a subscription. It’s on Freeview.
Or it may be that you’re just an armchair smartarse. Who can say?
Come on John Reith, don’t be so snotty and superior. Is the season of goodwill already over for you?
That’s what impartial reporting is all about.
You have a strange sense of humour. that’s actually not at all funny.
maybe they’re all upset about the somali islamists getting their asses kicked by the ethiopians.
archduke | 29.12.06 – 4:02 am
No doubt. Now they’ll probably sulk and give us as little news as they possibly can about Saddam.
Bryan
Come on John Reith, don’t be so snotty and superior. Is the season of goodwill already over for you?
When assorted airheads refrain from casual insults aimed at Her Majesty’s Broadcasting Corp, I shall be all sweetness and light.
Quite refreshing…
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=5077&edition=1&ttl=20061229120238&#paginator
Can “technical problems” be far away?
John Reith wrote:
Sky News doesn’t require a subscription. It’s on Freeview.
So is BBC Views 24. So, again how does BBC News 24 compare with Sky News? Are their respective ratings commensurate with their respective budgets?
We already know that the Beeb itself concedes that “opinion formers” prefer Sky.
‘When assorted airheads refrain from casual insults aimed at Her Majesty’s Broadcasting Corp, I shall be all sweetness and light.’
Like HM Armed Forces who thought it so biased they called it the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation?
Ever consider that your attitude here just feeds the public’s opinion of those who work for the BBC?
HM THe Queen’s been more than a little stand-offish about “Her” Broadcasting Corporation in recent years, following events like the Diana interview et al. But then again, she’s always been far more in touch with real life than have the Al-Beeboids.
Happy Hajj!!
Pounce and Bijan Daneshmand
I can’t believe the reporting on Somalia, I seem to remember an earlier post (via DrinkingFH)on how the BBCs Somalia dept., was already deliberately distorting news, and presenting a rather too sympathetic depiction of the Union of Islamic Courts(UIC) as doing a Mussolini, with at least the trains running on time, etc. Exactly the same line that the effete liberal BBC journalists recite with their tacit sympathy for the Taliban in Afghanistan in their alleged “war against opium”! Note how the BBC portrays the Ethiopians as evil imperialist aggressors, when in fact they have helped liberate Somalia. It’s no wonder when they are interviewing UIC officials. I guess if you are accused “by both Ethiopia and the US” you get even more tea and sympathy at the BBC.
Somali troops enter capital city
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6214379.stm
(Last Updated: Thursday, 28 December 2006, 20:26 GMT )
Senior UIC official Omar Idris told the BBC: “We know what happened in Iraq… I think this is very, very early to say that the Islamic Court forces were defeated.”
Almost all Somalis are Muslim and after years of lawlessness, many were happy to have some kind of law and order under the UIC.
But,(sic) some are wary of the hardline elements among the UIC.The UIC have staged public executions and floggings of people they have found guilty of crimes such as murder and selling drugs.UIC leader Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys is accused by both Ethiopia and the US of having links to al-Qaeda – charges he denies.
Lizzie may not be a scientist, but I am, and have just spent a few minutes reading the original article. [Lahmann et.al. 2007 (16)1]
In passing this took some time to identify since the BBC failed to reference it either by date of publication or by lead author.
JR states somewhat caustically that the BBC report provides an accurate summary. Well, that depends upon what you mean by accurate. The summary and headline states that housework cuts breast cancer risk and clearly intends to give the impression that this is significant and applicable to all women. As in most sensationalised science reporting by the media the tendency is to hype the ‘story’ out of the science and omit the caveats so that all reserach appers to be a ‘breakthrough’ as opposed to most research which, as this study does, actually makes incremental progress within a major area of science.
I suspect, particularly as the journal has not yet appeared in print, that the source of the BBC article was a Press Release issued either by the the EU who provided soem of the funding for the study or by the German Institute of Nutrition where the lead author is employed. Thus a friendly journalist can produce a good news story that is good for future grant applications but potentially spins the science.
Note that authors state that data were only available on past year physical activity, and thus the effect of physical activity in different time periods of life on breast cancer risk could not be examined. In addition, there were no data available on the frequency, duration, and specific intensities of occupational activity; hence, only categories of occupational activity were recorded. Furthermore, there were few study participants who were categorized in manual and heavy manual occupations, thereby limiting the assessment of the effect of intense occupational activity on breast cancer risk. Finally, some misclassification of physical activity levels is likely in this study thereby introducing nondifferential misclassification bias that would have biased the results towards the null.
There have also been several studies by other workers which do not show the same effect.
The conclusion of this brief scan of the paper is that here is a well conducted piece of work, which has a number of confounding factors that could have compromised the data. The study agrees with some previous work and disagrees with some others and adds a little more to the general knowledge in this area. No major breakthrough.
No doubt JR will now tell me that the story does say that the study ‘suggests’. Indeed it does, but the highlighting of this paper from the hundreds of others published in January gives it an importance way beyond ‘suggests’. I suggest it was published because it looked like a good story pushed from an overhyped press release.
Talking of studies and research papers, here’s one that was fairly widely covered by the media, including the New York Times, but not worthy of a mention by the BBC. I wonder why…
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/human_shields.htm
Anonymous | 29.12.06 – 12:26 pm
So, again how does BBC News 24 compare with Sky News? Are their respective ratings commensurate with their respective budgets?
BBC News 24 – 5.1 million (weekly)
Sky News – 3.6 million (weekly)
Sky also produces the News for Channel Five. There isn’t exactly a queue to watch it.
Its audience is a tiny fraction of BBC 1’s news audience. So people do have a choice of news providers between BBC and Sky on all platforms. They consistently opt for the BBC. Last month the BBC’s reach increased to 83%. Among ABC1’s (which includes most opinion formers), that’s 88%.
As for respective budgets • I don’t know. Do you?
Arthur Dent writes:
“I suggest it was published because it looked like a good story pushed from an overhyped press release.”
Indeed!
“John Reith’s” attempt at a condescending put down of Lizzie, aside, she is quite right to be sceptical of much of the “whizz-bang medical breakthrough” tripe she comes across in the media and to which the BBC shows little immunity – as your, more considered, look at this report amply demonstrates.
Those who were adults at the time will remember what a disastrous period the mid seventies were for the UK. A corrupt and criminally incompetent Labour administration (how history repeats itself) ensuring that Britain’s post-war decline was accelerated from a gradual degeneration into a full-scale avalanche. So I was pleased to see the Daily Telegraph, and to a lesser extent, the Daily Mail, cover the release of Cabinet papers from 30 years ago which illustrate just how appalling Labour were.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/29/npro29.xml
The Mail focuses on Labour preparing to abandon the Falklands, but does provide a link into their economic bungling.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=425244&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=425241&in_page_id=1770
It would seem however that this is all too much for the bbc website and ceefax. Their coverage of the papers is restricted to this:
1976 Falklands invasion warning
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6213121.stm
Bearing in mind that these are Cabinet papers from 1976 the bbc even manages to insert this into its text:
This has led some critics to blame prime minister Margaret Thatcher for the war, saying the decision to plan the…………
This is classic propaganda. Propaganda by selective reporting and propaganda by omission and propaganda by distortion. Not a peep about Labour economic mismanagement
At least Sky News (which the decision makers prefer over bbc news) fronted out the aptly named Ed Balls this morning by saying “So what do you think about these papers that show Labour totally messed up the economy?” Of course the Jodrell didn’t answer.
bbc bias? Anyone recall Comical Ali and his statements, the gist of which were:
Assorted journalists: “Are the Americans at Baghdad Airport?
Comical Ali: “These are lies, propaganda”
AJs, “There are reports of American tanks in the suburbs of Baghdad”
CA, “These are lies, there are no American tanks here”
AJs, “Isn’t that an American tank over there”
CA, “Where”
AJs, “There” (All pointing at this stage to large American tank half a mile away)
CA, “No”
AJs “We can see it”
CA “No you can’t”
Well this blog has certainly attracted its share of Comical Alis and what a motley crew they are too.
bbc bias.
No there isn’t.
But we can see it.
No you can’t and you’re all airheads for even thinking that a 22,000 strong, 3 billion pound, publicly funded organisation would harbour such people. Why they’re all wonderful and all so clever and gosh, don’t you all wish that you were like them.
Actually the bbc do cover the economic crisis in this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6212557.stm
However read and you’ll come across gems such as:
Many historians regard Callaghan’s handling of the crisis as an example of consensual Cabinet government at its most effective – his prevention of ministerial resignations was a huge personal political achievement.
Still propagandising.
Callaghan was an idiot just as he had been as Chancellor devaluing in 1967……….he and Healey were out of their depth and the Treasury set them up just as in 1931. The data they were using was wrong………….they were conned by The Treasury and fell right into the trap
So people do have a choice of news providers between BBC and Sky on all platforms.
Yes the word “platform” is very salient because the BBC likes to include Internet users as BBC-enabled which is a bit rich really.
I was surprised how long it took BBC to pick up on the story of the Prague plane hi-jack the other day – I sometimes think they have no knowledge of events in Western or Central Europe.
Basically News24 is far inferior to CNN and amateurish with that Clare Marshall who is dingy – her report on the Baikonur launch was dire……….really dire…….embarrasingly dire.
BBC News is inferior to Tagesschau on ARD/ZDF …………it is repetitive and so prone to product placement like this crappy film on Perfume, or Beatles advertising on postage stamps, – and I know of no other broadcaster outside the UK that hypes supermarkets and shopping as much in News bulletins as in Britain.
You never hear about Metro or Carrefour or Quelle in German TV News the way you hear about Tesco or Sainsbury in BBC reports or Brent Cross or Bluewater Shopping Malls……………..it is a regular Home Shopping Channel at BBC News
As for respective budgets • I don’t know. Do you?
Sky £35m
BBC News 24 £50m.
(Plus News 24 has access to the vast resources of the rest of the BBC’s news gathering organisation)
http://www.davidrowan.com/2005/01/interview-nick-pollard-sky-news.html
Anonymous | 29.12.06 – 2:48 pm
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.
Click to access bbcannualreport.pdf
Last night at 10:30 was when the wheels finally came off the BBC1 news.
It started off well with a report on the helicopter crash. We saw a map of where the crash happened, some background on gas rigs, and an interview with one of the rescue team.
All well-edited and produced. This was a lonely reminder of what every BBC bulletin was like even quite recently.
Then it went downhill with the Hazel Blears story. Random talking heads with little or no introduction. A quaint one-to-one with a lady who looked like she had only just woken up and answered the questions like she had only just woken up. No context – like “when this kind of
thing last happened”. No contribution from other parties – no its just an internal matter between the BBC and new labour.
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.
I took the trash outside and when I came back in it was still rolling. What is with the BBC and its fetish for islam ? No other minority religion gets this fawning treatment.
Fiona Bruce could sit down during this puff-piece, but she was back on her feet and – what’s this ?
A story about polar bears. No its not a story about polar bears, its a general swipe at George Bush. Sorry – no – its a promo for the New Church of Latter Day Climatologists. No its all of the above. Yes all rolled into one. Of course Bush is an immoral pervert who like all americans has
personally caused all global warming and so the polar bears are his problem as well. What a slimey piece of journalism.
Two more stories that I remember – one was unimportant – it was only a British soldier killed while on duty in Afghanistan.
The other was The James Brown funeral – and in a bizarre turn they did a vox pop and found two
african-americans who actually did speak “jive”.
Shoddy reporting all round, with Fiona Bruce standing up and sitting down like a catholic wedding.
And don’t get me started on her strange choice of clothes.
Arthur Dent | 29.12.06 – 12:55 pm
If you are suggesting that the BBC should stop publicizing scientific research papers – then you’re preaching to the converted.
Most are inconclusive. Few are interesting (to me). I’d prefer to ignore the ‘scientific community’ completely. I wish politicians would too – then we’d be spared drivel about BSE being unable to jump species and there being no such thing as Gulf War syndrome.
Sadly, a large section of the public – led by a vociferous science lobby – keeps asking the BBC to do more about popularizing scientific research. Despite the ubiquitous Dawkins, it seems the general perception is that the BBC is ignoring our inconclusive scientists and spending too much time on humanities and arts.
Image nº4 here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6216655.stm
Caption reads A Palestinian boy holds a toy gun next to an Israeli soldier on patrol in the West Bank city of Hebron.
a) If the IDF has a policy of ethnic cleansing and murdering arab children in cold blood how come that kid is happy to play near an Israeli soldier?
b) What kind of parent not only buys toy guns like that for their toddlers, but allows them out on the street where the army are patrolling and could easily mistake the toy for the real thing?
/rhetoric
second link should be http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42396000/jpg/_42396577_palestinian_ap220.jpg
Jihadi video game quotes the BBC:
“A bit like life really” – BBC News
Inspiring the terrorists, “it’s what we do”.
No, JR I don’t think the BBC (and the rest of the media) should ignore the scientific community, any more than it should ignore any part of the community. After all that should be one of the duties of a public service broadcaster.
What I object too is the laziness that seems to be inherent in journalists in simply parroting the contents of a Press Release without the information having gone through their brain. I was under the impression that the BBC employed at least some journalists that were qualified in the areas that they wrote about. I was obviously wrong.
I do not consider myself to be an expert in the particular field under discussion but I am a scientist and I do understand the scientific method and the way it works. It took me less than 10 mins to do a critique of the paper itself and come to the conclusion that the so called story in the Press Release (the story did come just from a press release didn’t it JR) probably wasn’t anything major (and some of that was spent in tracking the text down).