as they present The Conspiracy Files this week on 9/11.
The Editor’s blog has some interesting comments that the BBC have left up:
Comment 44:
Anyone who has read and absorbed “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” will know it is all part of their megalomaniacal plan to give us a one world government. They are using events like Sept 11th, July 7th in London (another government sponsored terror event) to fear us all into giving up our liberties! The sheep need to waken up and smell the coffee. The British are as bad as the US, they are run by the same group of Zionists. Blair and the cash for honours scandal? He was under growing pressure from it and BANG, a “plot” to behead a muslim soldier and an apparent pandemic of Bird Flu put that story firmly to bed. Waken up people! We had few problems with terrorists pre 9/11, now it seems the goverment on both sides of the atlantic are hell bent in creating this monster that is Islam against us when the whole concept was made up in one of their think tanks !
Apparently “Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them”. The editor being Mike Rudin.
I’ve also seen similar anti-semitic sentiments expressed by commeters on Peter Hitchens blog – Daily Mail readers.
At least when you hear somone use the term Daily Mail Reader perjoritively you know what to interject now.
The comment also directs readers to a site which contains anti-Jewish, holocaust denying material.
Have emailed a complaint – will keep you updated on any response.
Even for al beeb this is outrageous.
Occam’s Razor anyone?
Have you seen comment 44’s webpage?
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/
Anyone from the BBC should have checked it out “truthseeker” before posting the comments. These guys are just disappointed men looking for status.
Fran: I have also complained – but alas I think it is pointless – the BBC is becoming a monster.
Anonymous | 15.02.07 – 7:42 pm was me. sorry
I can’t work out if that site is far right or far left. I guess if you go far enough you meet people coming the other way.
nbc
Islamists would use Ockham’s razor to saw someone’s head off.
Don’t be surprised by this – the BBC were, after all, happy to print the mad conspiracy theories that the Americans caused the Asian Tsunami. For them no opinion is too insane to print if the target is America.
My guess is that they will leave these comments up for another two or three days, and then languidly remove them claiming a “mix up”, or staff “shortages” (!!) or some other lie.
Jon/Anonymous – “I have also complained – but alas I think it is pointless – the BBC is becoming a monster.”
I don’t think it will be pointless – knowing a couple of people who introduced the Editors blog to the site I suspect they will be very unhappy that post got through moderation – it clearly breaks the house rules to me
The moderation of the comments on the Editors Blog, is as far as I know, not done by BBC staff, but out-sourced to the same agency that does the message boards.
How about this comment on Mike Rudin’s “conspiracy”:
11. At 07:00 PM on 14 Feb 2007, Almir wrote:
Has the BBC got nothing better to discuss?, every week you bang on about this, I do not for a second think that the Americans caused this outrage. Islamic terrorists are the cause, why not try reporting real news?, not everyone in the UK wants your PC version rammed down their throats.
Oh and before I have the Guardian brigade telling me I am wrong, I want to point out two more things……I am Muslim, my family is Muslim and not one person I know has any doubts about who caused this outrage, and although it pains me to say it, it was other Muslims.
The BBC is doing a dis-service to the memory of all those lost and should understand that it is causing huge issues with how people in the Muslim world try and face up to these evil people.
Martin,
It’s now nearly four hours since people complained and the comment is still there.
I raised the following question on the open thread this morning but it’s worth repeating here. The Editors is meant to be a blog written by BBC editors. Every post I’ve read on the blog was written by an editor of whatever section of the BBC. But Mike Rudin is simply described as the “series producer” of The Conspiracy Files. So why has he been allowed to join this rather exclusive club?
“So why has he been allowed to join this rather exclusive club?”
guess it’s to do with advertising?
Laban | 15.02.07 – 7:51 pm |
I can’t work out if that site is far right or far left.
I go with the authoritarian/libitarian & big Gov/Small gov axes rather than left & right in politics. That way you see that the so called ‘left’ and ‘right’ parties are very similar indeed. In fact if you look at the policies of the BNP and the SWP there isn’t a huge gulf between them.
the comment is still there in its entirety.
@Ralph – “Martin, It’s now nearly four hours since people complained and the comment is still there.”
Yep – I think we are in agreement here – the comment in question is vile and should not have passed moderation on the BBC’s site.
What I was trying to point out was that the moderation is not done by BBC staff but contractors, and it is now out of office hours, and the moderators decision won’t get reviewed by BBC staff until tomorrow. And I reckon that they will be unhappy that it didn’t get pulled.
Do we all think that is a satisfactory state of affairs? No, I guess not.
Do we all think the alternative, that every comment on the BBC Editors site is pre-moderated by the person who wrote the original piece is better…?
For the record I have also complained about that post
But what about freedom of speech? It is not consistent to criticise PC and then invoke it to censor a conspiracy theorist.
guess it’s to do with advertising?
Hettie | Homepage | 15.02.07 – 11:00 pm
I was thinking it’s because Mike Rudin presented such impeccable politically-correct credentials along with an exciting prospect for extended America-bashing that the editors simply had to welcome him with open arms to the club.
‘Do we all think the alternative, that every comment on the BBC Editors site is pre-moderated by the person who wrote the original piece is better…?’
I just want comments to be moderated by someone with enough brains to notice something like this. It’s hardly difficult.
“I just want comments to be moderated by someone with enough brains to notice something like this. It’s hardly difficult.”
Difficult to do, probably not. Difficult to get right 100% – that I’m not so sure.
To be honest, I don’t think the exact implications of bringing up the protocols is average-man-on-the-street knowledge
Seriously, if you moderate a blog or board on the BBC site I think you can expect nearly two-thirds of your decisions to remove a post to end up with a complaint being lodged against you and having to be referred to a supervisor.
When Mr NWO’s post is pulled (as I sincerely hope it will be when someone with a bit of sense reviews it) you don’t think he won’t email a huge long rant that the only reason it was pulled was because the BBC is actually part of the global conspiracy etc? And he also paid his Licence Fee/Telly Tax and is being denied his free speech by the pro-Israel right-wing bias of the BBC?
I’d bet you he/she will.
And that has to be processed equally with the complaints any of us made against the original post
Yes, I think it’s advertising the series. It reminds me of BBC tv adverts on R4 in the sense that what is advertised is shown by a different medium from where it is advertised. The purpose of the Editors blog is
“Welcome to The Editors, a site where we, editors from across BBC News, will share our dilemmas and issues.”
The only dilemma like sentence is this one: “Trying to prove or disprove these alternative theories is not easy.” The rest is a teaser.
He also claims that the 9/11 programme will be first in the series whereas in an earlier post he says the Princess Diana story was the first
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/12/conspiracies_wont_go_away_1.html
Maybe we can expect more of this sort of promotion of programmes on the Editors blog in the future.
The BBC HYS and editor’s blog are more than “moderated”, they’re censored.
I’m not exactly from the BBS generation, but I’ve been on the net for a long time and moderating a board usually only means a combination of something like:
· Removing swear words
· Removing unwanted content (porn, links to pirate sites, etc)
· Removing and keeping out spam
· Removing flames and banning the absolute crazies after people start complaining and after warnings (but it is verging on censorship)
The BBC site goes far beyond these and is absolutely the most “moderated” place on the net I have ever contributed or tried to contribute to. Nevermind them removing stuff, they don’t even allow a lot of things to appear in the first place. Yet even with all this “moderating” comments like the Protocols of Zion one get through? This, to me, smells more of selection and censorship than moderating.
Does anyone remember how there used to be a lot more “reactively moderated” comment threads back when the new system was launched? The lack of these also smells of them trying to censor people.
Above all else, why the hell is it all done by a third party anyway? Surely the BBC is big enough? When they claim “no, the BBC is unbiased”, does that also apply to the third party? Why is the comment system, which should take as little as 30 minutes to create depending what it’s being integrated into, a huge bloated Java piece of ass (as you can tell when it errors)? I thought the BBC was meant to be cutting edge, or is that only 20 years ago?
On the bright side, the amount of anti-BBC, anti-PC and just generally right wing comments at the BBC site have vastly increased. And this is only what’s getting past the censors. I hope this reflects the general British population and is not just right wing US blogs sending people to assault the BBC.
The BBC is like the The Sun when it came out with headlines like “Freddie Starr ate my Hamster” ( which interestedly “In May 2006 the BBC nominated “FREDDIE STARR ATE MY HAMSTER” as one of the top British newspaper headlines of all time.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Starr)
Its seems that it is the same for all television these days. If you can come out with “controversial ” programmes you get high audiences. It may turn off right thinking people, but you will be surprised how many people believe in this stuff. After all I have heard quite intelligent people discussing “last nights Big Brother”
I wonder what the BBC think this is Educational or Entertainment?
The BBC are very clever at advertising their programmes – you will often see billboards pushing BBC programmes.
I think if the BBC were sold off they would still survive along with the Sun and the Daily Sport. Because people seem to love trash (and those numerous trashy women’s magazines).
FTP: “I hope this reflects the general British population and is not just right wing US blogs sending people to assault the BBC.”
I think you will find a great number of them have either left Britain or intend to do so (I would be one of them but alas I am too old to emigrate)
The BBC are very clever at advertising their programmes – you will often see billboards pushing BBC programmes.
I’ve only ever seen these in London and it was quite surprising how bloody many of them there are once I started paying attention.
Do they actually appear anywhere else though?
I really don’t have as much confidence in the BBC’s advertising. I know exactly when the next Stargate, Galactica, 24, etc are on Sky One or in the US and when to, ahem, download them. But I don’t have a clue when anything is on the BBC. Even with a show like Qi that I want to watch, I usually don’t realise that a new series has started on the BBC until it’s almost over.
FTP: “On the bright side, the amount of anti-BBC, anti-PC and just generally right wing comments at the BBC site have vastly increased. And this is only what’s getting past the censors. I hope this reflects the general British population and is not just right wing US blogs sending people to assault the BBC.”
I think that the number of right-wing brits on HYS has also increased, but what seems to tilt the balance is the growing number of Americans and even Israelis now allowed in. There were times when a Mid East topic would have no Israeli comments at all, though I know for fact of Israelis trying to get in.
In recent weeks there has been a noticeable change. As an Israeli, I had previously got used to having all my comments rejected, while now every single one gets published. A change of policy, no doubt.
Recommendations are a different matter. I reckon here the Americans weigh in, though I have no proof.
I worry sometimes that we want things both ways, want to have our cake and eat it. When the BBC, AP, or Reuters neglect to inform readers of some crackpot or vile statement that an anti-western or islamist figure has made, we accuse it of hiding the facts, sparing that person bad publicity. Yet when the garbage gets through we want it censored.
Be honest – if Ahmejinemadman had written the post under discussion, accusing the Jews of a worldwide conspiracy and terrorism in search of a one-world government, and the moderator had deleted it, we’d be all over them for ‘protecting’ the lunatic.
Which way do we want it? Personally speaking I’m quite happy to let people put their cards on the table, it might even wake people up to the truth of the BBC mindset.
FTP,
Does anyone remember how there used to be a lot more “reactively moderated” comment threads back when the new system was launched? The lack of these also smells of them trying to censor people.
Exactly. I don’t remember when I last saw a Reactively Moderated thread – though I don’t follow HYS regularly.
The Editors blog usually attract comments from well-informed, articulate people and the moderation appears to be unbiased. This Conspiracy Files post has seen the quality both of comments and moderation take a serious plunge. As Hettie says, it’s basically advertising the series and it really looks like a conscious decision was taken to push the pro-conspiracy theory comments. And where did this flood of conspiracy theorists suddenly come from?
Looks like a bit of nudge-nudge, wink-wink stuff going on here.
And comment 44 is still there. My bet is they wont remove it. It fits in perfectly with the BBC’s agenda.
Michael,
I’d be happy if the BBC allowed every comment through, but they don’t. Comments praising Britishness, capitalism, America and so on are blocked while a completely ridiculous one about a 100 year old hoax is allowed through.
If they allowed every comment through then the Protocols of Zion one would get lost in the noise, but the way it is now it gets prominence. Also, less informed people might assume that if the BBC allow it through then they are also lending their support to it and that it might be true. Anyone with common sense would dismiss a crazy Protocols site hosted at Geocities, but on the BBC, how could they be sure?
Which way do we want it? Personally speaking I’m quite happy to let people put their cards on the table, it might even wake people up to the truth of the BBC mindset.
Michael, Hackney | 16.02.07 – 9:23 am
Good point. All censorship does is hide the true nature of the enemy. But when a comment to the BBC pushes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which has been exposed as a vile, anti-Semitic forgery, then people have the right to expect some editorial intervention from the BBC.
Too ofen we’ve seen comments allowed to stand even though they go against the BBC’s own rules – as long as they suit its agenda. That’s hypocrisy. It’s also obviously damaging to whoever is being unjustly targeted by the comment’s author.
@bryan – “And where did this flood of conspiracy theorists suddenly come from?”
Er, Bryan, have you ever _been_ on the internet 😉
Martin,
Having moderated forums myself it’s not that hard. If you are not sure or you get a lot of complaints you just hide the post until you can reach a fair decision.
By the way the post is still up.
Am on phone to BBC now. The chap on the other end seems to be trying to take my concerns seriously.
He;s checked out rense.com and truthseeker’s own website ..
will keep you up to date ..
Good work Fran. I’ll put in a complaint.
I happened to catch Mike Rudin and colleagues having a cosy sofa chat promoting his programme on BBC1s breakfast show yesterday. They talked as if the issue had no political dimension at all and was only a matter of ‘psychology’ – whether you ‘trusted’ other people or not and more blah of that kind. Incredible.
@Ralph – “By the way the post is still up.”
Yep, I saw. I complained again
Oscar
Well the nice young man on the BBC info team commented that the sites referenced had frightening stuff on them. He certainly sounded concerned.
He’s said that someone should be contacting me later today by phone or by email to respond to the issues the comment raises.
Your description of Mike Rudin’s take on the programme exactly fits in with the disdainful way in which the BBC dismisses those who point out that TV can have a harmful influence on people’s thinking and actions.
Martin Belam,
Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear enough. There’s an agenda here. It’s as if Rudin and his BBC buddies got into a huddle and tried to find every way they could to promote it. The quality of comments to The Editors blog took a drop with Rudin’s post and at the same time swung markedly towards the BBC’s agenda. Why? How?
Good going, Fran and other complainants. Let’s hope the BBC wakes up on this one.
Bryan and FTP – your points about BBC hypocrisy in this matter are well made and I agree completely – they cannot censor selectively.
The point still remains though, that the continuing presence of this ‘moderated’ comment on the BBC website proves a lot of what we say to be absolutely true – get it taken down and we lose some ammunition.
As for the idea that leaving it there might encourage belief inthe Protocols, I still believe that someone is going to believe the Protocols only if they are already predisposed to do so, and if they so predisposed then they have more than enough anti-Jewish material to feast on without the Protocols in any case.
But on the question of principle, I agree completely – it is the fact that more reasonable comments are censored when they support Israel/America/the West etc while this is allowed through, completely unacceptable, and in this instance morally shameful.
Fran
Glad to hear the message is getting through to someone at the BBC. Lets hope they act now – that comment has been up there a shockingly long time.
It is STILL there, I have joined in making a complaint.
Does comment #44 also qualify as advertising? Although if I saw it in a thread that wasn’t about conspiracy theories I’d call it outright spam.
Comments #72 and #74 are the same. Either somebody has an agenda to let every crazy through or this is some terrible moderation.
As for where all the crazies came from then it could just be that the usual visitors of the editor’s blog can’t be bothered with such a stupid thread, while the conspiracy theorists are heavily motivated to be heard.
In my opinion, there probably is some cowardly Gaius Baltar like character in the current US administration/CIA/FBI who cocked up big time and has covered his arse. But how do people go from that to completely crazy conspiracy theories?
To me this programme is the sequel to the now-little-mentioned “Power of Nightmares” when the BBC tried to tell us that there was no coordinated Islamic Terrorism.
Then 7/7 happened…
Unfortunately one poor Brazilian was mistakenly shot by the London police three weeks later which proved to be a Godsend for the left-wing in this country as they were able to divert their attention (or should that be able to divert OUR attention) from 52 corpses to 1 corpse (If you think this is paranoid, read Nick Cohen’s comments as to how he viewed 9/11 in his book “What’s Left?”).
I have little doubt that somewhere in White City, some commissioning producer is thinking hard about a documentary which ‘shows’ that the four London bombers were not actually the bombers but MI5 or some other part of the security services.
At least six of us have complained in various ways about a post that is plainly racist and it is still there yet on Don’t Have Your Say comments critical of Islam come down in minutes.
Odd that.
Just so you know, the third and fourth parts of The Conspiracy Files are
Feb 25th
Dr David Kelly: The Conspiracy Files
In July 2003, Government scientist and UN weapons inspector Dr David Kelly was found dead on Harrowdown Hill. He had been at the centre of a high-profile and controversial row between the Government and the BBC over Britain’s reasons for entering the war in Iraq.
The Conspiracy Files explores the unanswered and, to many, suspicious questions that still surround Dr Kelly’s death, just days after he was questioned publicly by the Parliamentary Select Committee.
The official inquiry into the events surrounding his death, by Lord Hutton, concluded that David Kelly committed suicide. It identified the causes of Dr Kelly’s death as blood loss from a cut to his wrist combined with an overdose of Copraxamol. A public inquest was begun but never completed. Many, including Dr Kelly’s widow, accept the Hutton report’s conclusion of death by suicide.
However, the programme talks to doctors who say that neither the wrist injury Dr Kelly sustained nor the drugs found in his blood prove that it was suicide.
Rowena Thursby, who has set up the Kelly Investigation group, points to claims by paramedics who attended to Dr Kelly’s body who say there was less blood than they would have expected in a case of a severed artery.
The day before his death, Dr Kelly • among emails to friends and family that made no specific mention of any intention to commit suicide • wrote one email to a journalist friend that said: “There are many dark actors playing games.”
Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker has devoted a year investigating Dr Kelly’s death. He says: “The Hutton report singularly failed to pursue any points of interest … [it] seemed to be there to shut down matters rather than open them up.”
He adds: “It’s extraordinary that the rigour, and the legal defence and legal protection for the Hutton inquiry was less than a coroner’s enquiry … and yet this is what was set up by the Prime Minister.”
This charge is disputed by those who say Lord Hutton’s inquiry was detailed and never impeded by the absence of statutory powers as the huge amount of public interest in it ensured that it had the full co-operation of all the witnesses needed.
The Conspiracy Files also reveals new material that casts further doubts over the official account of Dr David Kelly’s death, including the theory that he was assassinated.
And on 4th March, we have
Oklahoma Bomb: The Conspiracy Files
The Conspiracy Files investigates whether the Oklahoma City bombing was the work of lone bomber Tim McVeigh, a decorated Gulf War veteran, or whether there were others involved who are being protected in a government cover-up.
The bombing of April 19, 1995, was the biggest attack on American soil before 9/11, killing 168 people, including 19 children.
The programme talks to conspiracy theorists who claim that the US government not only had foreknowledge of the attack, they had informants inside the conspiracy who actively encouraged the bombing.
The film features revealing interviews with the leading FBI investigators in the case, one of whom, for the first time, is now calling for the investigation to be re-opened.
Viewers can find out more about the series and see how conspiratorial they are with an online quiz at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/
@John Tomlinson – “I have little doubt that somewhere in White City, some commissioning producer is thinking hard about a documentary which ‘shows’ that the four London bombers were not actually the bombers but MI5 or some other part of the security services.”
But if I understand The Conspiracy Files series premise right, the show at the weekend will *not* be about showing that 9/11 was the work of anyone other than Islamic terrorists – it will be looking at the phenomena of the conspiracy theories surrounding the events, showing clips from the conspiracy theory movies, and then debunking them.
I’ve mentioned it on another thread, but if you’ve ever seen Jon Ronson’s “The Secret Rulers of the World” you’ll see it is more than possible to make a documentary about conspiracy theorists without promoting that the conspiracy is true.
However, I haven’t seen the programme yet, as none of us have. Judging from the comments here and on the Editors Blog though, I think all sides of the argument have already made up their minds about what it will show, and will be watching it expecting it to vindicate their viewpoint.
Like Fran I also spoke to someone at BBC Info who was sympathetic and said she’d act as quickly as she could. Yet still comment no. 44 is up. I think the explanation is pretty obvious by now – the BBC don’t have a problem with it and aren’t taking any notice of the complaints.