Pounce comments on one of today’s front page stories at the BBC:
Skin bleaching cream couple fined
A couple believed to have earned £1m selling toxic skin lightening creams were ordered by a court to pay nearly £100,000 in fines and costs. Yinka and Michael Oluyemi sold banned bleaching concoctions from their two cosmetics shops in south-east London.
[snip]
The church-going couple, who lived in a £725,000 house in Sydenham, have three children, including one who is studying law.
Pounce writes:
Ok help me here. Why is the fact that these people go to church (thus pointing out they are Christians) in the story?
Pounce goes on to say that there are numerous BBC stories that pointedly don’t inform you of the faith of non-Christian criminals or alleged criminals, even where it is much more relevant than that of the Oluyemis. One such, the plumber charged with terrorism offenses, Kazi Nurur Rahman, whose mastery of the mysteries of the U-bend is always considered worthy of mention when other more relevant aspects of his life are not, has become an in-joke here. When I went looking for a comparative story to illustrate Pounce’s point I knew my search would not take long. In the event it took about ten seconds. Also on the England front page this morning was a story concerning the murder of his wife and four daughters by Mohammed Riaz. This crime took place in Accrington last November.
A search for “Accrington” and “Riaz” on the BBC news website got fifteen relevant results (the one at the bottom of page 2 refers to someone else). Only one of these fifteen, this one, mentions that Mr Riaz was a man who “did not socialise much, other than at his local mosque.”
Note that I am not saying that the murder of his family necessarily had anything to do with Mr Riaz’s religion. The possibility of a so-called “honour killing” was raised widely in the press and explicitly not discounted by the police, but eventual investigations pointed to the most likely prime motive being something to do with the breakdown of the Riaz marriage. We’ll never know. However the likelihood of religion being a factor was higher than for the vastly lesser crime of Mr and Mrs Oluyemi.
PS
I guess John could be Jean.
Looks like John Reith gave his pals at the BBC a call to ensure that Muslim was mentioned here in the small print.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6235279.stm
in the past when members of ROP have been caught in the act by the authorities the BBC would have used the epithet “Londoner” or “father of two” or “British man” , or “art critic” , or “web designer” ….
see HERE
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6143340.stm
anything but the M word … note however that the Headline still reads Protester Found Guilty …. then look to the right and read a number of backsliding “analysis” pieces by the BBC each aimed at mitigating the mindless violence shown by radical islamic protestors throughout the world
typical is this piece by Paul Reynold one of the more biased BBC reporters
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4708216.stm
“So you lot get totally Fisked by JR once again!And rather than accept it with good grace you just errupt into a giant wild-eyed frothing mass of paranoia. ”
Hello Mr brave anonymous…..
The problem is NOT that the BBC used church going it is that they didn’t NEED to. And I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the Beeb to say similar things about a certain faith beginning with I whose members seem to be frequenting brothels etc before going out and shooting unarmed policewomen.E.g “Mr X, a devout Muslim, who attended a brothel before going onto shoot PC S”
Which is exactly the same thing as we have here. We are asking why it is mainly the Christians who get these sort of unnecessary stereotype labels stuck on them in reports whereas the cowards at the Beeb always avoid adding similar things to reports on other faiths. Either all are equal or none are equal. In the Beeb some are more equal than others…..
PS I wouldn’t say JR “Fisked” anyone since Fisk gets things wrong so many times…after all it was he who thought Jesus was born in Jerusalem….amongst many other mistakes from this Middle East expert.
Lo and behold my post was overtaken by Bijan’s….
Hi Dave
I think you may not understand what Fisking is. The whole point is the Fisk (much like JR in fact) deals in half truths/untruths all and is subsequently “Fisked” … hope Wiki definition helps.
Cheers
PS I wouldn’t say JR “Fisked” anyone since Fisk gets things wrong so many times…after all it was he who thought Jesus was born in Jerusalem….amongst many other mistakes from this Middle East expert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking
A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form. Named after Robert Fisk, a British journalist who was a frequent (and deserving) early target of such treatment.
“Meanwhile the original post remains on the front page, despite being totally discredited”
Hmmm, precisely which part of the front page story has been discredited?
The BBC was the only media outlet which included the irrelevant words ‘church going’ from the original PA story. – Still True
This is against the specific policy guidelines of the BBC as stated by John Reith. – Still True
The BBC frequently omits such facts when the story is about one of its favoured victim groups. – Still True
To coin a phrase this is a bit like being fisked by a dead sheep
I’m new here (long time reader though) and hesitant to add my tuppence worth – but it appears John Reith is losing this argument, and his stroppy dummy-spitting attitude is proof of that:
The real story of this particular thread is that – yet again •one of your fruitcake conspiracy theories has ignominiously collapsed.
John Reith | 05.01.07 – 6:42 pm
So if you dare to disagree with the BBC defender and protector, you are immediately a fruitcake conspiracy theorist?
Tut, tut. Not much of a defence, is it Mr Reith?
Easy: Al Been don’t report the news, they make the news or rather they are the news. The term ministry of truth springs to mind. You believe what we are reporting or we’ll kill you (by raising the TV tax even further). There should be mass protests against tax funded media outlets. It’s becoming a fight for freedom and our survival depends on it.
Make that Al Beeb, sorry.
“but it appears John Reith is losing this argument, and his stroppy dummy-spitting attitude is proof of that:”
He is losing simply becasue his position is untenable.
The BBC is an old fading joke…..and he is clinging on to it like old duffers cling to the British Empire……
The BBC is just another part of Britains fading Empire……..and he is a fading part of it…..
get ready for sackings, redundacies, and strikes as Neo labour put the BBC to the sword in these coming weeks…..
And though I can’t stand Labour either, at least they have woken up to what a dangerous, and out of date anachronism the BBC is……
Reith reminds me of “Comical Ali”…..Saddams press secretary that said “the Americans have all been defeated, and are no where near the Airport”…as the US tanks rolled past behind him……..
Reith sounds like he is losing, becasue he IS losing……..
Reith, is on the losing side, and DESPERATELY trying to hang on to his pathetic career…….
The BBC is dead, dying, sick, terminal…..
Good Riddence…..
Anonymous | 06.01.07 – 12:43 am |
Hear, Hear
I’m more concerned about the BBC statement that the English Cricket team were “whitewashed” in the ashes series.
Surely this is derogratory to anyone who has ever been cremated!
Tim, I’m more concerned about the Cricket team being whitewashed than anyone’s statement that they’ve been whitewashed. All those long nights in front of Sky Sports to see us lose 5-0.
Didn’t the BBC once do live cricket? And live league football? Ryder Cup golf? Year by year, we seem to lose a live sporting event on the BBC, yet the licence fee continues to rise well above inflation. If the BBC is refusing to spend money on these events – where its broadcasting was once a source of pride – why does it need more money off us when it has obviously been saving it by cutting these events? The BBC and value for money, indeed. The BBC’s sporting output – Wimbledon, bowls, darts without any of the good darts players, snooker and Rickmansworth Working Men’s Association v The Black Bull at Hillingdon in the FA Cup 7th Preliminary round. Quality.
Sorry to go off topic here, but I’m inclined to agree (and admit my own guilt) that race and World Affairs tend to dominate this website. For examples of the BBC being biased, and for examples of terrible broadcasting, look no further than its sports coverage. Ian Wright’s semi-literate rantings are a prime example of bad broadcasting, and Shearer’s advice that Rooney should “deck” Ronaldo after England got knocked out of the World Cup – well, what a marvellous example to set our children. Shearer and Wright still work for the BBC. Examples of BBC bias in sport include the endless pro-Liverpool slant in football, the campaign to get Geraint Jones dropped in favour of Chris Read in cricket (report the facts…). And an organisation that retires off the excellent Barry Davies and increases the airtime given to know-nothing numpties like Alan Green needs its head examining. Dumbing-down indeed.
Heron,
I’ve mentioned the following a few times before but this seems an appropriate place to repeat it.
I don’t know what the 2006 Soccer World Cup coverage was like in the UK, but the World Service was almost totally disinterested in the England side, reserving its enthusiasm for the competition, with wall-to-wall coverage of England’s opponents such as Trinidad and Tobago and Ecuador – this quite apart from the obligatory disproportionate PC focus on other underdog teams such as those from Africa.
I listened to a bit of prerecorded commentary on an England game that the World Service played back and was amazed by the dull, unenthusuastic response from the commentator (delivered in an impeccable English accent) to an England goal.
I have no doubt that he was backing the other side, but he didn’t have to make it so damn obvious.
I also recall a BBC description on its website of the performance of a Pakistan cricketer as “sublime.” Does one really have to get that carried away by the abilities of the opposition?
Some of the most startling examples of subversive, anti-UK bias can be found in the BBC’s sports coverage.
I know its bad form but the posts from the so called “John Reith” character are so empty headed and predictable (although exposing their groupthink mentality / stupidity is amusing) is it not possible just to refrain from engaging with him, and certainly not to ask any direct questions to him/them.
They are never answered anyway with anything other than obfuscations.
Problem is, John Reith tries to discredit commenters – who then feel obliged to defend their comments.
But I agree it’s pointless to ask him questions – though I’m still trying to get him to have a listen to the following example of anti-Israel bias, since he claimed that Allan Little, the driving force behind the bias, is not anti-Israel:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/152_inside_red_cross/page2.shtml
Reith, who works for the BBC and is apparently chummy enough with the staff to know that a majority is “contemptuously dismissive” of this blog, claims the link doesn’t work for him. I found the above working link after fiddling around with the World Service archives for a few minutes.
Maybe Reith doesn’t realise he has to scroll to the bottom of the page to find the audio link. But that’s a very big maybe.
What interests me is that the article in question found it appropriate to mention the child studying to be a lawyer but not the disabled one. Could it be because mention of the latter might invoke sympathy for these criminals?
It sounds to me very much like the left-leaning Beeb editor merely included those things which he/she saw as demonstrating the moral turpitude of the couple which includes owning an expensive home, having a kid in law school and going to church.
Heron and Bryan: their output in what even American media now call simply “the World Cup” was not always favourable to England’s opponents. Their coverage of the eventual winners was so atrociously negative, dismissive and just plain stupid – with Italy-Ukraine being a breathtaking instance of commentators seeming unable to see what was going on on the field – that I ended up watching most matches with the sound off. Mind you, Italy has never been popular with the British sports commentariat; I have a feeling that every time we win a game, two British journalists get nosebleeds. But 2006 was beyond any precedent.
Well, I don’t know about Italy but if I had to choose between the lesser of two evils I’d rather see the BBC show favouritism towards England than fall over itself backing opposition such as Trinidad and Tobago or Ghana.
I suppose that if the final had been between Italy and England we might have seen the World Service show a faint glimmer of patriotism towards the mother country.
Bryan: I am not talking about favouring one side – I am talking about reporting what was actually taking place on the field. Italy-Ukraine was, for 90 minutes solid, a tale of one team – Italy – pressuring the other – Ukraine – into its own half, until Ukrainian resistance snapped and three goals flowed in. But while nine Italian players, perhaps, out of eleven, were spending all their time in the Ukrainian half, what were the BBC’s geniuses saying? “Italy are quite good at this – sitting back and letting the opponent come to them.” This is not only cliched, it is plain wrong – the Italian World Cup-winning teams of the thirties were notably aggressive, and at any rate this Italy was trained by Marcello Lippi, and Marcello Lippi always turns out teams of fighters. But at any rate, whatever cliches these people had learned at their mother’s knees, here and now they simply were not seeing, observing, reporting upon, or commenting, what was actually going on on the pitch in front of what one supposes should have been their eyes. No, they were repeating their own inbred prejudices and incestuously supporting each other. And when, in the second half, Ukrainian resistance was finally broken, the commentators, perhaps aware that they had just made complete monkeys of themselves, suddenly started pretending that Italy had changed their strategy after the break – which was false.
Like I said, prejudice against Italy I expect; British sports journalists are notorious for this and have been for decades. Brute incompetence, especially from former professionals, is however quite another matter.
I think many people would see the name ‘Oluyemi’ and think Nigerian (rather than Muslim) and therefore fraud. The church-going’ is a simple attempt to divert attention from that.
The BBC would love to engineer that stereotype out of existence. Trouble is anybody with an email address or an ebay account knows all about the endemic nature of Nigerian fraud. The Beebs ham fisted propaganda is naught compared to that.
Fabio, it seems that incompetence is somehow expected from the BBC these days. At least according to what John Reith keeps saying.
Fabio, I noticed that the BBC’s general commentary towards Italy during the World Cup became more anti-Italian the further the Italians went and I believe it was for the following reasons:
the Italians fielded a team of Italians i.e. Italians of clear Italian descent born in Italia playing for Italian teams;
France fielded a team of mainly non-French, of African descent or directly African, with a couple of token Europeans, and that is the BBC’s model of a future-Europe.
The Italians had the temerity to refute the BBC’s dream in front of millions.
Yes, Fabio, I got your drift.
Allan@Aberdeen,
Spot on analysis there. Now imagine if the French had been up against, say, Ghana in the final. How would the BBC have handled that game?
Actually, this could become quite an interesting exercise.
Nah, Allan, British journalists hated us just as much when our main striker was the Welsh-born Giorgio Chinaglia. I have my own theory why that is. It is this: England never recovered from the famous 6-3 drubbing by the Hungarians that put an end for ever to the expectation that English teams could beat any foreigner. Before that famous defeat, the English used to invite the winners of each world cup to England and beat them (Italy paid the usual visit in 1936 at Highbury, losing 3-2), but the Hungarians were not even world champions at the time of their victory. From then on they have had to adjust to being merely another team on the international stage; but still today their journalists speak as though it were a disappointment any time the team does not manage to win the World or European Cup.
Now, it so happens that modern football has been dominated by three teams – as shown by world and continental records: Brazil, Germany, and Italy, with Argentina a little further down. Now nobody can possibly hate Brazil: their love for the game, their inventiveness, even their physicality, mean that people who know anything about football tend to be conquered, even against their will. Journalists and fans all over the world are enamoured with Brazil and do not count it a disgrace to lose to them. And while one may hate Germany, one has always to be impressed by them: the combination of rugged size, hard work (which saw off many a better but less fit side, such as France in 1982) and excellent organization imposes respect. Beside, the English cope with their sense of inferiority by imagining a rivalry – a rivalry which is felt in England much more than in Germany. And this leaves Italy. Italy is the team whose frequent superiority some minds simply cannot bring themselves to accept; thus the fable of Italian fouls (when the English foul, of course, it is the ref who is being over-strict) and the one thousand and one rhetorical devices, put-downs and snide allegations with which those of us who can read English are all too familiar. However, what we saw in 2005 was a kind of double-concentrated extract of prejudice and stupidity that prevented the commentators from so much as seeing what was going on on the field.
Whooops, I meant 2006.
Now nobody can possibly hate Brazil.
Least of all the BBC. Here’s why:
*Brazilians are not hideously white
*There is strong anti-American sentiment in Brazil
*Millions of Brazilians are poor.
Soon after the police made that tragic blunder and killed de Menendez, the BBC had a reporter down south, whipping up…er…gauging anti-British feeling among Brazilians, specifically de Menendez’s family and friends. He was a man with a mission, sounding as infuriated by the killing as the Brazilians themselves and making no attempt to canvas an opposing point of view.
It was a gala occasion for the BBC. It was able to strengthen its credentials as an outraged defender of the poor immigrant to British shores, trash the mother country and paint the terror threat as exaggerated.
Three birds with one stone.
Now John Reith will no doubt pop in again and tell us that the BBC doesn’t do outrage.
Yeah, right.
I’ve been an admirer of the Italian national team since 1982. Germany had done the dirty on France (there were Frenchmen in the team then) with dangerous nutters like Schumacher and Stielike taking out any opponent and doing whatever had to be done. Italy however had Claudio Gentile who minced Maradona, plus the fact that Italy played very attractive football to overcome Brazil. Since Italy did the world a favour by beating (West) Germany, I’ve been a covert supporter.
The BBC, on the other hand, will never forgive them for proving the validity of the nation state by using Italian nationals of Italian blood playing for Italian teams to win the World Cup.
I can’t comment on Fabio’s assertions as to English antipathy to Italy, but the BBC’s is not in doubt and for the reasons given.
Allan: you would do well to stop making insinuations about the “non-French” nationality of French footballers. Sure, they are odd colours, but almost all of them were born and brought up in France (the country includes several islands in the Caribbean and elsewhere, which, like other Caribbean islands, produce great athletes in numbers quite out of relation to their size). You sound a lot as though you had a problem with skin colour. At any rate, if you believe that people whose ancestors were not French cannot be French, you ought to have a problem with the 1982 French team – apart from the usual amount of blacks and Muslims, lead man Platini was the son of two Italian immigrants.
But as for the 1982 victory and the habits of the British press, I am not sure whether it was the Times or the Observer who venomously described the Italians as stiletto-carrying backstabbers – forgetting, indeed, the scandal of Austria and Germany contriving a fraudulent draw to let Germany through and keep Algeria out, and the horrors of Schumacher, who nearly killed a player and ought to have been banned for life and sent to jail with it. The point however is that it was not a rabble-rousing tabloid journalist, but one of those gentlemen of the heavy press, who committed himself to statements that would have disgraced a National Front staffer. And the thing is, nobody in Italy was surprised.
The problem with the current ‘French’ team is that France effectively poached players from francophone Africa. If Scotland were to do that, I’d be disinclined to support the team.
Fabio, I think you are spot on. I must add, though, that the reputation that the BBC are keen to convey of the Italians being a defensive, dour, cynical team has not always been undeserved. Managers like Giovanni Trapattoni would probably take this kind of critique as a compliment. I was absolutely delighted to see the Italians eliminated in 2002. Sorry. In 2006, Marcelo Lippi put out a well-balanced team with some flair and an attractive style of play. Note he used two extremely attacking full backs in Zambrotta and Grosso. This is typical of the man Lippi is. It was sad and totally unfitting to hear the BBC wheeling out the tired old cliches about negative Italy, it was not true. It also has to be said, they were much better to watch than England were. I enjoyed watching Italy and they thoroughly deserved to win the final; as it was through the whole tournament, the BBC’s commentary was execrable. Doubly good was that the friend I watched it with had Italy in his office sweepstake and I got free beer all evening.
Heron, of course there is a strong thread of defensivism running through the recent history of Italian football, beginning in the sixties. My point is that this should not have obscured the commentators’ actual view of what was going on in the field. While I will support Italy anyway, I do agree that Trapattoni was nastily risk-averse – though in 2002 we, and Spain too, were got out by referees in South Korean pay. But never mind, that’s a charge we’d have trouble making stick. Anyway, four world cups do not suggest a poor team (though as far as England is concerned, the matter is skewed by their refusal to play in them until 1954, when they would certainly have won at least some of the previous ones).
One last thing: Lippi’s first name has two l’s. Marcello. In Spanish it would be Marcelo, but we are Italians.
For biggest contrast I saw in reporting on Italy’s world cup campaign was the contrast in the shock horror at De Rossi’s elbow on McBride and the ho ho lucky boy response to the Ghanaian who hacked an Italian down when clean through causing a nasty injury only to get let off when it transpired the whistle had gone.
Much like Cameroon brutalising Argentina in 1990 it seems that patronising the Africans extends to having a good old chuckle as they kick lumps out of the more established nations.
As for the Beeb’s football coverage more generally I fully agree that the huge advantage in quality they used to enjoy has been reversed to the point where they now trail in a long long way behind Sky. The nadir was reached when MOTD 2 for the West Ham v Ars*nal and Spurs v Chelsea fixtures featured the ‘punditry’ of Lee Dixon and Ian Wright. Naturally it was concluded that Ars*nal were dead unlucky, Wenger was a saint and Spurs were cheating b*stards. We in London get enough ludicrous pro-Ars*nal bias from the Evening Standard without the Beeb jumping on board.
” Why is the fact that these people go to church (thus pointing out they are Christians) in the story?” The couple in question, who have been disqualified as company directors and fined for selling illegal and dangerous cosmetics. Therefore, perhaps it serves as a reminder that their criminal behaviour that provided their company with turnover in the millsions, went against some of the tenets of this faith (greed and vanity)!!
Ah yes of course Jowo, so what about all these violent muslims, whose RoP is never ever referred to. If your theory is correct it must be because violence is inherent in Islam and thus not contradictory to their behaviour.
Thanks for sorting that out
“Reith, who works for the BBC and is apparently chummy enough with the staff to know that a majority is “contemptuously dismissive” of this blog”
OT: I expect they are contemptuously dismissive of this blog. As they are of working class whites, Christians, Israelis, …………..
They are not as contemptuously dismissive of this blog as John Reith would have us believe. They pay it a helluvah lot of attention.
This had me falling about.
John Reith:
DifferentAnon | 05.01.07 – 4:16 pm
Well spotted DA.
if you don’t mind me rubbing it in, I’ll just repeat the operative part for those with a limited attention span:
Just which one is the ventriloquist and which one the dummy.
By the way I doubt if either one of you/both/solo has ever met an ‘officer’ from the Medicines Control Agency.