Not exactly about bias – in fact not at all, but it’s Christmas … the Sage of Peebles on Kirsty Young and the departure of Michael Grade.
“Another Two Daisies On The Grave Of Lord Reith”
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir Dec 25, 08:09
Christmas 2024
[img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTfvHOazmwSdziiXrJ8aiUmo5XeXHyUE2QTvQ&s[/img] - Zephir Dec 25, 08:07
Christmas 2024
[img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDr4ahaVxyzuX2tSxl6qToYcgyHY6G_fhiEQ&s[/img] - Zephir Dec 25, 08:06
Christmas 2024
[img]https://www.spectator.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Screen_Shot_2021-09-07_at_14.32.54.png?w=796[/img] - Zephir Dec 25, 07:55
Christmas 2024
My son, highy quailified, required to wear business attire amongst females who turn up in whatever they want, and required… - Zephir Dec 25, 07:06
Christmas 2024
It is shits like the above that should have it hammered into their heads that it was white working class… - Zephir Dec 25, 01:55
Christmas 2024
ALL the following from recruitment adverts Disgusting for any young white male comprising the vast majority of the potential construction…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
More on the BBC’s drop in standards. Norman Tebbit writes on the BBC’s broadcast of bad language, from the Mail on Sunday, 31 March 1999:
Is it really correct to swear at the BBC?
The BBC’s plans to increase the broadcasting of bad language, from The Times of 28 July 2005:
BBC Ready for Radio Four-Letter Words
“BBC bosses accused of ‘systematic attack on the family’ as they smash broadcasting’s last taboo”, from the Mail on Sunday of 19 March 2006:
The BBC-word
JBH – I don’t know where you stand on the increasing use of 4 letter words on BBC. But I personanly find it quite offensive. I don’t care for this so called 9pm watershed Swearing seems to be the ilk of the so-called BBC-type comedians. The elite. It reminds me of the film “Educating Rita”, where Julie Walters discovers that the “upper class” can swear with impunity but that it seems quite offensive to the “working classes” (in public at least.) Yes I know these times have gone but it was not that long ago. I always find the cleverest and most humorous of comedians can make you laugh without using 4 letter words. Ken Dodd springs to mind.
Jon:
This is clearly a slow thread so I might as well sound off.
Anyone who knows me also knows I have no compunction about using bad language. I’ve been given to “eff” myself in the occasional post on this blog too, in order to strengthen a particular point. (Having had a career dominated by the road haulage and oil exploration industries one tends to embrace the vernacular.) Sometimes the use of bad language can enhance a performance. Billy Connolly springs to mind. But overall its increasing use on television is leading to an increasing coarseness of British society itself, especially among Britain’s youth. Indeed, we have become so inured to bad language on television we barely object even when its use is utterly gratuitous.
Your point about the 9.00 watershed is a good one. The watershed merely acts as a portal into the world of adulthood: what teenager does not like to demonstrate their adult credentials? It’s why kids start smoking and drinking. So when swearing suddenly kicks off at 9.00pm it conveys the subliminal message: this is how adults really behave when kids are not around. So if you want to cut it out on the street, get effing and blinding. The consequences are there for all to see. In my home city of Manchester teenagers and pre-pubescent children swear freely on the tram system, busses, shopping malls and streets, right in front of elderly folk, using language that would not be out of place on a oil rig in the Sahara. Parents from sink estates can be heard chastising their toddlers with language that would make a paratrooper wince. I find it really unsettling and sad that the country that did so much to civilise the world has become so thuggish, disrespectful, and plug ignorant.
As the dominant broadcaster that sets the national standard, the BBC must take the lion’s share of the blame for the decline in civility in British society. How did it come about? Well, like this: no one likes to be thought of as being an old-fashioned prude in the “Mary Whitehouse” stereotype, whilst everyone does like to be regarded as a free-thinking and tolerant. And so, with the BBC dominated by liberals falling over themselves to demonstrate to each other both their open-mindedness and their disregard for stuffy “middle-class” values, the peer pressure thing kicks in as usual and so swearing becomes more and more prevalent. It’s an inexorable manifestation of too few people within the BBC having either the foresight or the concern to see what its ultimate accumulative effects will be. The kind of loutish behaviour for which Britons are now infamous across Europe is something I have not witnessed during any of my visits to America, where you can ride around on the Washington and New York subway systems all day without hearing a single swear word, and I find it no coincidence that swearing is not allowed on U.S. television.
Indeed, in the States, even good manners are enforceable by law. Should an able-bodied person fail to release their seat to an elderly or infirm person on public transport they can find themselves on the receiving end of a hefty ticket. When I first saw the notice on the Washington subway system warning of the fine for such discourtesy it initially struck me as over-the-top, but after a few seconds thought I realised that such public display of required standards of civility merely embeds in the national American psyche the sort of decent regard for others that all civilised societies ought to embrace • and which we here in Britain are losing fast. We all laughed our socks off at Borat’s travel across America, but the movie provided a vehicle for an amazing insight as to just how polite • not naïve • your average Americans are, even when provoked with outrageous and deeply offensive, albeit hilarious, behaviour.
But the Americans’ natural politeness and tolerance is not to be confused with lethargy. In the U.S. there exists a vast array of organisations who support America’s tough broadcasting laws, and even if expletives were allowed to be broadcast on US TV, these bodies would not, for example, allow the BBC to get away with its transmission of “Jerry Springer the Opera”, which is so littered with profanity and obscenity even its author agreed it ought not to have been shown. Over here, the BBC is such an arrogant and irresistible force, when 50,000 Christians tried to stop its transmission it went ahead anyway.
No doubt Michael Grade, Mark Thompson and Mark Byford had got together and agreed amongst themselves: “F*** them, the B***ards.”
I’m afraid I have never been to the US, but from what you say it sounds almost like the British 1950s style manners have not been eradicated there as it has here.
In regards to the media and especially the BBC – they now seem to go out their way to be lude and “controversial”. In fact I’ve noticed that this is now pushed hard when advertising forthcoming programmes – it seems to be their selling point.
The excuse for these “standards” seems to be that the programmes reflect society – but I do not think this is true – IMHO it is the other way around. The discussion on the Archers in an earlier debate springs to mind.
And as for Jerry Springer the opera – the “excuse” the BBC gave was that the people complaining were fundamentalist Christians and not representative of the population – and also that they did not believe in censorship of this kind. We all know this was a falsehood.
If the media did not have any effect on society then how can we explain the cult of the celebrity? Go to any school in England and you will see how this influence has evolved with kids called Chelsea, Kylie, etc.
Is this a modern phenomenon? Probably not but it now seems to be accepted as the norm and is reflected in society today. People do look at how “celebs” behave and use them as role models.
I missed the ‘chav’ comment on radio 4, but it’s all part of the ‘informalisation’ of BBC news. Coverage of the recent murders in Norwich included references to a victim’s “mum’n’dad”! I supposed we should feel lucky that her ‘nan’ or her ‘kids’ weren’t available.
BBC news bulletins are being turned into ‘gay vegetarian mates in a pub’. There’s the same slang, same gossip, the same matey jokiness, the endless first name chumminess and infuriating ‘thanks very much for that’…
It the complete and utter lack of gravitas that really bugs me.
I have always found the use of first names when the BBc are interviewing people quite patronising, especially when they are elderly (mind this goes for any “public service” these days)
Jon “I have always found the use of first names when the BBc are interviewing people quite patronising”
Do you think that politicians are patronising BBC interviewers when they insist on using the interviewer’s first name?
Given that the BBC person probably hates the politician’s guts, I’ve always regarded the politician as a pathetic creep who should show more aggressiveness towards the hack. (Mrs Beckett’s sole good feature)
“Do you think that politicians are patronising BBC interviewers when they insist on using the interviewer’s first name?”
Simple answer – Yes
Jon:
Both your posts nail it. The BBC has done enormous damage to this country • and the embittered apparatchiks who run it (and those who help steer it from the offices of The Guardian) won’t be happy until they’ve done a whole lot more. As we speak a whole generation in this country and around the world is being brainwashed into despising the world’s greatest force for good since the British Empire. Why? Because the U.S. is a bastion of conservative thinking, that’s why.
I was recently in Boston on business and I can affirm JBH’s observation on the high standards of politeness in mainstream America. The high quality. of spoken English was also noteworthy.
Here are three articles on Jerry Springer the Opera. I recommend a reading of them all, for taken as a whole, they address the BBC’s drop in standards, arrogance, use of foul language, and its anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-society reporting:
Daily Mail, 7 January 2005: BBC’s sworn enemies
Daily Telegraph, 8 January 2005: BBC to show Springer Opera despite 50,000 complaints
Mail on Sunday, 9 January 2005: What right does the BBC have to fill our living room with obscenity?
Here are three more:
Sunday Telegraph, 9 January 2005:
‘Such invective and filth is inexcusable’
‘Scotland on Sunday’, 9 January 2005:
Under fire and brimstone
Daily Telegraph, 13 January 2005:
They see Christians as fair game
Final two:
The Times, 13 January 2005:
BBC chief defends ‘Jerry Springer’
Mail on Sunday, 16 January 2005:
BBC Springer show IS offensive for TV says man behind stage hit
Allan @ Aberdeen – yes, and one wonders why the liberal elite think that showing dumbed down swearing and estuary rubbish is going to actually improve the lot and attitudes of the millions that view it. The behaviour of people in Eastenders is extremely shoddy but portrayed as ‘normal’. (Note I don’t watch Eastenders normally but Christmas means unusual choices)
50,000 or 500,000 Christians condemning it – it doesn’t matter. 5 Islamofascists could get the BBC to do whatever they want by making a credible threat to cause physical harm to the BBC and their employees. By sneering at the well-founded complaints of Christians the BBC will force a small minority of Christians to do the unthinkable and resort to violence, as indeed some Sikhs did a few years ago.
“Do you think that politicians are patronising BBC interviewers when they insist on using the interviewer’s first name?”
Talking of Americans – one thing has struck me when you hear them being interviewed by BBC types (US politicians included) – they tend to address the interviewer as “Sir” and the politeness does tend to disarm the interviewer.
Just imagine if that was encouraged here – T. Blair el al would not have to launch a “Respect” agenda.
One of the reasons why Americans are despised by British liberals is because they are generally polite and civil. This is seen as naive and simple, as opposed to the “sophistication” of being cynical and obnoxious.
The standards of the English middle-classes have slumped alarmingly over the past 20 years.
And the Americans have a Christian tradition that goes deep into their pshyche. Could this be another reason why the BBC try and treat them as simpletons. People might say hang on but don’t Muslims get a lot of respect from the Liberal lefties – and that would be true but that is not because of their religion it is because they are opposed to the US. Just imaging if Muslims actually supported the US the BBC would have to search for another group to suck up to.
To D. Burbage ref Eastenders, I noticed that the majority of people were white yet, last time I was in that locality, my eyes told me that most of the inhabitants were not white. Are my eyes lying to me or are the BBC hiding something from the country? Usually the BBC are quite up with portraying the ‘gritty reality’. Why not in this case?
Well blow me down with a feather. No sooner do we rightly put the Dear Old Leftist Aunty Beeb in the frame for the way this country’s society has gone down the toilet, a poll published in today’s Sunday Times reveals that the concerns we’re expressing here and now on this very thread actually feature high in the list of concerns of the population as a whole • and though the BBC is not targeted by name in the poll as part of the cause, the media certainly is • which, in Britain, most certainly does mean the BBC. Here’s an extract:
“Rudeness and bad language are the most common irritants in everyday life, cited by 60% of respondents. Other daily gripes include call centres, inconsiderate use of mobile phones, traffic wardens, ugly buildings and piped “muzak” in lifts and shopping centres.
“People have become incredibly selfish,” said Simon Fanshawe, an author and broadcaster who has written about modern manners. “I think we’ve lost a real sense of collectivity. There’s too little respect for public spaces.
Just over a fifth of people (22%) cited the monarchy as a source of pride, but the number of respondents who picked the BBC (13%) and parliament (5%) was far lower.”
(Hat tip to will | 31.12.06 – 1:00 pm on the current Open Thread)
So, for the majority of people foul language is a major issue, while only 13 per cent of the British people are proud of the foul-mouthed BBC. People are starting to wake up at long last and are joining the dots. Thirty years ago when British society was so much more civil than today nearly everyone would have been proud of the BBC. (I know I was as late as the early 1990s.)
I’m not through yet – there’s more. The poll to which I refer in my previous post also stated:
“Immigration tops the list of issues that people worry about most on a day-to-day basis (47%), closely followed by antisocial behaviour such as vandalism and graffiti (44%).
As it happens, concerns about graffiti were expressed by the then Home Secretary Jack Straw in a piece for the News of the World published in March 1998, entitled:
“Lout of Order: Graffiti and litter lead to crime”
So, did the BBC take Mr. Straw’s cue? Er, not quite. Instead, the Good Old Aunty Beeb’s anti-everything pinkos produced a strip cartoon heralding graffiti artists as role models, even folk heroes. Check out this report from the Sunday Telegraph of May last year entitled: BBC accused of encouraging yobs with cartoon that ‘celebrates graffiti’
The sooner the BBC is broken up and sold off the better this country will be. It is proving itself time and time gain to be this country’s number one enemy • exactly as Conrad Black stated in his searing letter published in the Daily Telegraph in July 2003, entitled: “This hostile BBC is a menace to Britain”
Teenager fined £80 for swear word
“”I was shocked when the female police officer gave me the fine, very shocked.
“It is not every day you swear and you get an £80 fine. It is just absurd, really.”
Mr Walker is adamant he will not pay the fine and will challenge the penalty notice in court next month.
‘Not normal’
“In my eyes I have not committed any crime whatsoever,” he said, adding that swearing was a normal part of the language he and his friends use.
A Kent Police spokeswoman said: “The public expect us to tackle anti-social behaviour. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4734350.stm
Here is some research carried out on behalf of broadcasters including the BBC.
“At the top of the pyramid was BBC1 – this was expected to be the most ‘responsible’ of the channels as it is paid for by the licence fee and, therefore, ‘owned’ by all. It was expected to set an example for other channels to follow. As the data show, few respondents felt that ‘strong’ language on BBC1 was acceptable. When the converse question was asked –
‘On which channel is language particularly less acceptable?’ – BBC1 headed the list, with an overwhelming 92% mentioning the channel.”
Click to access ASA_Delete_Expletives_Dec_2000.pdf
And just to reinforce that the BBC is listening to the licence payer:
“Every culture has a rich tradition of swearwords, and those on the other side of the galaxy are no exception.
With our guide to swearing your way through the Uncharted Territories, you too can be cursing like a drunken Peacekeeper in no time at all.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/farscape/swearing/
And here is something you may be interested in to see how far the BBC will go.
http://www.buzznet.com/tags/tourettes/video/
NB. I don’t know if that last link is a hoax or not as I could not find any other references to it. I would like to know if it is though.
I do disagree with the original comment about “chav” and “no-brainer”. The chav, alas, is a social reality that is well identified by the word; and “no-brainer” seems to me both a witty and a useful way to identify the kind of question that needs only be asked, to answer itself. Slang in that sense is simply a part of the evolution of language, and to disapprove of it is as foolish as to insist on travelling on gearless bicycles.
But I wholly agree about profanity and rudeness. Britain once set the standards across the world for good manners; it is a tragic loss that now people should imagine that there is anything worldly and sophisticated about lack of consideration and decency.
And Alan, I used to live in the East End until a couple of years ago. It is true that more than half its population is various shades of brown these days. But of late, I noticed an increase in pink-skinned, fair-haired types – speaking excellent Polish. Another item that the Beeb’s “realistic” soap opera seems to have missed.
Jon:
Nice work. I was wondering that myself about that clip. I’m inclined to suspect that it is indeed genuine, for if it had been faked, wouldn’t have been more logical to purport it to have been broadcast on a terrestrial Beeb channel instead of BBC3? And it did have a professional look to it too.
Torchwood is appalling for the language and the way it says things. It is watched by children when it appears on BBC2 as well as BBC3 so having one female character complaining about a male character having a hard on one week and then sleeping with him next week before confessing to her boyfriend a fortnight later hardly gives the impression of happy families and polite manners we would all like does it? Actually a few of my students swear like troopers but they always apologise if they let slip one in class. I tend to try and defuse it by telling them my 90 year old granny will have a heart attack and go ‘Help ma bob’ before collapsing…. gives them an excuse to laugh it off and get back to work.
Do the so called intelligentsia who write these plays and things on TV etc actually know what people talk like in places outside Islington or the posher parts of Manchester ? How much more patronising can they get?
The BBC is dying, but very slowly like mortgage tax relief and the NHS.
Bruce Almighty was on BBC1 at 8PM on or around boxing day. By 8:05 or so Jim Carrey had already said “shit” and a couple of minutes later it was followed by a bunch of middle fingers.
What excuse does the BBC have for showing swearing on TV almost an hour before the watershed? Not to mention that many parents probably let their kids stay up because it’s a Jim Carrey film.
I also recently heard “shit” at around 8:40 on UKTV Gold (50% owned by the BBC), but they’re not as popular a channel so I don’t expect quite as much from them. Channel 4 seemed to be trying to break down the watershed 6 months ago and I heard swearing at 10AM, 4AM and plenty of times around 8AM. But they’ve stopped now and they are meant to “push the limits” or whatever.
Above should be “10AM, 4AM and plenty of times around 8PM”.
Err.
Above should be “10AM, 4PM and plenty of times around 8PM”.
I’m frankly amazed at the gushing about ‘American manners’ and language. The BBC’s drop in language standards has an effect on teaching EFL (English as a Foreign Language) but nowhere as much as Rap music and mainstream Hollywood movies. At least the BBC material targeted at learners keeps up some standards of English.
This is probably because teenagers (at least those who don’t speak English) don’t watch the BBC.
We no longer can ask students to bring in a favourite piece of music to class. We’ll end up having to explain why expletives deleted the prostitute girlfriend (ho) deserved a bullet (popped a cap) after the drug deal fell through.
Even children’s film, think South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut can’t be brought into the classroom. It’s no wonder that EFL students sometimes use unacceptable language without quite knowing what it means.
I doubt the BBC really has that much influence, on language or manners, for good or bad. Rather, as with its pro-Islamism and anti-Americanism it copycats the American left who in turn copied the French left.
oops.
Should be ‘American’ manners and language.
Like the Beeb I became a little sloppy with the ‘quotes’.
O/T:
Did anyone else die of embarrassment watching Jools Holland last night?
The Telegraph reports that the BBC Russian Service is bowing to pressure from the Putin Government to show less criticism of his regime.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/01/nbbc01.xml
Bearing in mind that the Russian Service is part of the World Service, run by the BBC but funded by the Treasury, whether the BBC acquiescence is to Whitehall or The Kremlin is unclear. The BBC response to criticism
“The service remains an important and strong source of impartial and independent news and current affairs renowned for asking difficult questions on behalf of its listeners.
We reject any suggestion that we have made compromises in our questioning of any point of view in any debate.” begs the question – if the World Service is not an instrument of British Government policy what is the point of it and why should the taxpayer have to cough up for it? If it is constrained by the requirements of international diplomacy why is it subsumed into a ‘public service’ broadcaster which boasts its independence from Government control?
“Even children’s film, think South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut can’t be brought into the classroom.”
South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut is a UK certificate 15 – hardly a children’s film!
Deegee, it is Hollywood which is trying to drag American language and manners downwards. Hollywood is to the US as the BBC is to the UK.
Another daisy could be added for the radio 4 ‘From our own correspondent’s’ predictions for 07 which read more like a liberal wish list.Particularly partisan amidst stiff competition was Justin Webb’s (from Washington) whose contempt for all things Bush was quite naked and undisguised. Even Charles Wheeler would have been given a run for his money.
I think it is time a campaign was started to get this man removed from his post.
(I shall write to the CIA immediately….)
“From our own Adolescent” is THE distillation of BBC bias. If you were to sum up the BBC in a 30 minute broadcast, it would be this programme.
Anonymous makes a good point about the South Park film – and who in their right mind would think South Park is for kids anyway?!
Lizzie: South Park is for mental thirteen-year-olds. If you never graduated from pimples and peeking at the big kids having sex behind the bike sheds, that is the right fare for you.
Lizzie,
Unfortunately, there are people who automatically assume that just because a program is a cartoon, it must have been intended for kids to see.
Allan@Aberdeen,
Absolutely right about Hollywood.
Pff! It is never necessary to rebut on the facts when someone fails to get a joke. It is enough to point out to everyone else that Fabio doesn’t get the joke. South Park is an evil satire that takes on sacred cows no other program is willing to touch. It’s tucked away on a cable channel where children aren’t meant to get at it (if you buy your children a plush Mr Hanky to play with, it’s on your head).
As for rap, it is a manifestation of black culture…most certainly a type of American culture, but of a recognizable character in whatever host civilization you find it.
Hollywood? Okay, that’s a fair cop. Sorry about that.
We may disagree about the definition of kids.
My middle school students are poor, black 13~16 yr olds. They do watch South Park; do listen to Rap Music and they do pick up and use all the swearwords without necessarily understanding the literal meaning or when and where they are appropriate.
If South Park wasn’t the best example, listen to the language in virtually any Hollywood action movie. Who does Steven Siegel appeal to if not middle schoolers? Count the ‘F’ words.
My point was that the praise of American manners in this thread was overdone.
Torchwood’s finale tonight was full of gay kissing and almost constant use of the F word. To be honest had any of my staff behaved in such an appalling and disloyal fashion as all the staff did towards Capt Jack or their operating procedures I’d have shot the lot of them!Is this the new BBC meme – always ignore orders from your lawful superiors ? (unless they are lefties of course!)
What a rubbish series this has turned out to be. Torchwood as displayed on the small screen is one of the most anarchic organisations ever…about as based in reality as Jezza Bowen’s impartial reports from Israel. Thank God for Starfleet!
I’ve traveled extensively on the NY subway system in most of the boroughs, and I can assure you, American kids can and do use foul language.
As for the earlier comment about no swearing being allowed on US TV, it’s news to me…try the Sopranos, or, as mentioned already, South Park.
Both are uncut on US TV.
Mick: it’s cable. Broadcast has VERY stringent restrictions (see Jackson, Janet…nipple thereof). Cable is much more Wild West.
The idea was that parents would take more control over kids’ access to cable (which, of course, never happened). Still, I’m often shocked at language and images that come over broadcast TV in the UK.
“Honey! Quick! There’s a penis on television!”
Ah yes, of course weasel, the Janet Jackson shock horror nipple furore.
I didn’t realise about cable/broadcast differences, sorry, I’m not a big TV watcher.
I apologise for the vagueness of this post but a few days ago as I was half-listening to the World Service on “Talking Politics” (I think) someone said that if you took a pee anywhere in the British Empire your c**k would be facing something or other in Scotland and then went on to say something about the a***hole of the Empire. Maybe some UK-dweller could clarify what that was all about.
I’d never heard language like that on the World Service.
Driftwood (torchwood) is really the worst bit of TV ever. It’s like an extremely bad parody of Buffy.
I can watch it for around 10 seconds before turning over to attempt to find a less “paint by the numbers” drama.
I advise anyone who likes to watch good sci-fi to try the new series of Battlestar Galactica. No swearing either you frackers.