Andrew McCann has written of his attempts to put his views across to the Beeb over Sweenygate. I am referring, of course, to the bullying, hectoring behaviour (caution, highly entertaining stuff) of the BBC’s fearless sleuth, John Sweeney, as he ventured into the deep hidden danger facing us all from Tom Cruise’s religion, Scientology. McCann’s words are well worth reading. Summary account of the incident here.
He points out the BBC’s complacent reliance on the freedoms accorded them in the US and UK. He demonstrates what true objectivity might mean- the fearlessly equal treatment of all on an equal basis. His analogy was the most obvious one going- between the BBC’s treatment of Scientology and its treatment of Islam- but the point is a deep one.
Talking of his approach to the BBC’s phone-in minders he says:
“I posed a rhetorical question as to whether Sweeney would have lost his temper if treated in the same way by Muslims outside the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca. In other words, would Sweeney have behaved that way had it not been for his own prejudices and the environment in which he found himself?”
Indeed. PS. I notice that Sweeney has done investigations in Saudi Arabia, but one does indeed wonder if he treated the Saudis as imbeciles as he did so, or whether it was their religion he was interested in targeting.
I’m no card player, but assuming that Ace trumps King trumps Queen trumps Jack, then in the BBC’s twisted view:
Ace = Hezbollah
King = Lebanese Palestinians/foreiqn jihadis
Queen = Lebanese Christians
Once the BBC is given the lead by its Hezbollah masters as to whether Lebanese Palestinians trump foreign jihadis or vice versa, one of them will be demoted to Queen status and the Christians will drop to Jack.
From the FT:
BBC’s overseas audiences rise
By Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson, Media Editor
The BBC’s international audiences grew by an estimated 11 per cent last year as the UK state broadcaster shifted attention and resources to the Islamic world and saw strong growth from its online news service.
Jesus, knowing what we know about what the Beeb is feeding us, just imagine for a moment what the Beeb is feeding them.
Weekly audiences grew from 210m to 233m, despite new competition from Al-Jazeera International and France 24’s television news channels.
The growth comes as the BBC is preparing to launch Arabic and Farsi television services that it hopes will expand its viewing figures substantially in the Middle East.
Richard Sambrook, director of the BBC’s global news service, said growth had been particularly strong in Bangladesh, where political instability has driven demand for the BBC’s broadcasts, and in Pakistan and Egypt.
Go figure.
Here’s the link to the above FT article.
The BBC and half a story
Sport quiz for Australia migrants
The importance of sport and the history of aboriginal settlement are likely to be part of controversial citizenship tests in Australia. New details have emerged as to the sort of questions prospective citizens will be asked. It is thought they will include an English language component. The government hopes the tests, likely to be introduced by the end of the year, will enhance social integration. But critics fear they will discriminate against non-English speaking migrants.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6675477.stm
and how the Aussies hear that story;
Muslim outrage over Judeo-Christian values
MUSLIMS are outraged that prospective citizens will have to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian tradition as the basis of Australia’s values system.Australia’s peak Muslim body said the proposed citizenship question – revealed in the Herald Sun – was disturbing and potentially divisive. Australian Federation of Islamic Councils president Dr Ameer Ali said the “Abrahamic tradition” or “universal values” would be less divisive ways of describing the nation’s moral base. Dr Ali said use of the term Judeo-Christian was the result of “WWII guilt”, and before 1945 Australia would have been called only Christian. “That question must be rephrased,” he said.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21756770-2,00.html?from=public_rss
oh and that offensive question?
15. Australia’s values are based on the …
a. Teachings of the Koran
b. The Judaeo-Christian tradition
c. Catholicism
d. Secularism
Maybe there lies the reason for the BBC to label it controversial. The Diggers didn’t have ‘a’ as the answer.
The BBC and half a story.
Radio 4 this morning, Cutty Sark on fire, no BBC reporters available, interviews Chairman of Cutty Sark Trust getting on train. Then ask listerners who live nearby to phone in their reports or send pics by email. This is in LONDON nor Gateshead or Llanelli, or Oban a £3BN news organisation cannot geta reporter to SE London.
Silly me forgot to source my questions link;
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21751638-662,00.html
Biodegradable, Bryan et al
Last night’s 10 O’clock News on BBC 1 ….i.e. the UK’s main news programme with the highest audience of the lot….
featured a report from Sderot by Katya Adler which showed dramatic footage of a Kassam exploding in the town followed by
sequences showing a local family taking cover as another rocket landed not far away. This was close enough to make the cameraman scurry for the cover of a nearby wall too.
This was followed by film of a family packing their belongings and an interview with the same family about why they had decided to leave town.
So can we have no more crap about the BBC ‘failing’ or ‘refusing’ to report events in Sderot?
Querstionnaire time again…
Key text is once again from BioD: “Remember when Frank Gardner was shot in Saudi Arabia, and he betrayed his own understanding of Islam.”
To keep pressure up on al-Beebo, here’s this morning’s poll:
Q. Just how ignorant should a BBC correspondent in Saudia Arabia be?
a) Gormless: “Tell me, Sheikh, just what upsets you so about Israel?”
b) Mildly ignorant: “Pack the bikini, love, the beaches are to die for.”
c) Pretty ignorant: “Then after we’ve got the drinks licence, we’ll bring in the lap-dancers.”
d) Absolutely clueless: “This Mo Hammed. Remind me. Who is she?”
So can we have no more crap about the BBC ‘failing’ or ‘refusing’ to report events in Sderot?
We’ll have endless crap about it – until such time as BBC hacks stop cuddling up to Gazan terrorists, only reporting on places like Sderot when they are positively forced to do so by their bias becoming a little too apparent.
The Johnston episode has made it abundantly clear how comfy and at home the BBC feels in places like Gaza.
It would also help if the BBC stopped the trend of equating Palestinian terror from Gaza with the Israeli defence against it:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/7399363947323754777/#349252
I’m surprised at you John Reith. You usually come up with something a little stronger than this feeble attempt to represent the BBC as “impartial”.
I was listening to Radio 4 this morning and I am certain that I heard Carolyn Quinn choke when she (almost) put the word ‘nuclear’ before ‘power stations’ when discussing proposals to reform planning laws. Did anyone else hear this?
Bryan:
Let that be the last we hear from John Reith on this.
The cheek of it! Pointing to the coverage we’ve all been demanding and then expecting us to accept that they’re trying their best!
Feeble isn’t the half of it, Bryan. Craven, I call it.
Notice that he’s spinelessly ignored your telling intervention on Saturday about al-Beebo’s new man in Gaza:
“A few days ago on the World Service we had guy called Ali something-or-other reporting from Gaza in impeccable English in a voice which had no hint of a Palestinian accent.”
Come on, John Reith, what have you got to say about employing such slimy colonials with their devious grasp of English diction?
Could Ali perhaps have been Alastair?
If so, he probably lost his impenetrable Perthshire accent on the playing fields of Fettes.
This isn’t a question of bias, but not only does Quinn preface pretty well every sentence with a “tch” sound, she’s got Humphrys doing it too. Extremely irritating, right up there with Peston’s delivery.
So can we have no more crap about the BBC ‘failing’ or ‘refusing’ to report events in Sderot?
John Reith | 21.05.07 – 9:51 am
Not as long as the BBC reports “more than 50 rockets” while the Israeli police say “125 Qassams” fell in the same period.
Katya Adler last night does not make up for a whole week in which the BBC completely ignored Israeli casualties while meticulously counting every single alleged “palestinian” one.
4/10 – must try harder.
Rueful Red:
“not only does Quinn preface pretty well every sentence with a ‘tch’ sound, she’s got Humphrys doing it too. Extremely irritating.”
You’re so right. And you know why, don’t you?
That’s right: TCH STANDS FOR TOTAL COMMUNIST HEGEMONY!
Bit busy with Coiffure Watch for now, but is there anyone out there willing to count the “tch”s?
Even we would like to disown the troll!
Bye bye ill*unt.
Biodegradable | 21.05.07 – 11:42 am
Arutz Sheva gives these figures for Kassam attacks (and not all were on Sderot):
Since last Tuesday (May 15), over 125 Kassam rockets have been launched at the western Negev – 40 over the weekend.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122508
Israel’s weekend is Friday and Saturday.
125-40 = 85
So Tuesday – Thursday was 85 or more.
Katya Adler on Friday quoted a claim of ‘more than 100’. Hardly downplaying it then.
I’d just like to say, even though your site is crackpot reactionary bollocks, “Biased BBC dot blogspot” alliterates beautifully.
Pejsek:
“crackpot reactionary bollocks”?
How dare you?
Here are some of our recent campaigns:
1. Andrew’s telling intervention on “excitable young folk with impenetrable regional accents”
2. Ditto’s campaign against the dumbing down of BBC News. He showed that it was infected with “spouting forth in some hateful modern argot about some soap star’s new hairstyle.”
3. Just about everyone’s proper concern that “Dr” Jerry Falwell’s passing should be mourned properly, especially his discovery that Tinkywinky was a gay plot against Our Kids. (Thanks, Anonymous)
4. Ultraviolets’s credo that “libel, spin” and unfounded allegations of “anit-semitism” would best focus the BBC on its duty to be fair, balanced and responsible.
5. Biodegradable’s excellent campaign against too much knowledge in BBC foreign correspondents, especially those who have the temerity to survive assassination attempts by al Qaeda.
6. Bryan’s sharp observation about the deviousness of using foreign-sounding chaps – Ali, no less – who speak “impeccable English in a voice which had no hint of a Palestinian accent.”
Crackpot reactionaries? You couldn’t make us up…
Arutz Sheva gives these figures for Kassam attacks (and not all were on Sderot):
John Reith | 21.05.07 – 12:10 pm
So that’s alright then, why bother reporting them at all eh? After all they’re only “crudely made” and rarely cause casualties!
As to your definition of when the week starts and ends I refer you (again) to the pages I talked about in my original post. I’ve added bold emphasis to make it easier for you to grok.
Both where published on the same day:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6673611.stm
Sunday, 20 May 2007, 16:59 GMT 17:59 UK
Gaza militants have fired more than 50 rockets into Israel over the past week, wounding seven civilians and forcing hundreds to flee. Warning sirens have been wailing several times a day in the town of Sderot.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3402177,00.html
Police say 125 Qassam rockets landed in Sderot since Tuesday
Published: 05.20.07, 08:54
Isaac Hunt,
You certainly are.
Please stop shaming us ill*unt!
I think you all do an excellent job of shaming yourselves.
In the name of Allah, the most merciful and compassionate (PBUH): I hereby declare a fatwah on the kufar known as “Hillhunt”, son of an ape and a pig, directing all brothers to to strike his neck for the sin of bringing the peaceful name of Islam and allah (PBUH) into disrepute.
His claims to have three friends among our brothers is nothing but a Zionist lie. We among the nation of Islam have no friends among the unbelievers, idol worshippers and enemies of Allah.
There is but one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet. Cursed are those who take his name in vain.
Allah Akhbah – until Jerusalem!
Has anybody else noticed how the BBC is more than happy to promote the image that people who fight terrorists have a penchant for killing civilians yet remain somewhat silent when their ideological masters kill anybody who doesn’t subscribe to the faith.
Lebanon clashes ‘kill civilians’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6676291.stm
Shelling traps Somalis in capital
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6583095.stm
Air raid ‘kills Afghan civilians
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6637957.stm
US attack ‘kills Iraqi children’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6637307.stm
Strange how the terrorists never seem to cause mass civilian casualties according to the BBC. Instead the BBC promotes the vision they are magnanimous.
This BBC article uses so many single and double quotes, even of single words, that I find it tricky to decide what are Cameron’s actual words and what are the reporter’s summaries of them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6676447.stm
Either way it will be interesting to see who wins the battle of wills Cameron and Willetts or the 1922 committee and the backbenchers.
This division is no small deal to the conservatives and blood may well soon be upon the carpet.
Normally I would have expected to see blanket coverage of this given the usual BBC position, but that might undermine Cameron, the apple of their eye, so maybe it will continue as minor headlines.
BaggieJonathan:
This BBC article uses so many single and double quotes, even of single words, that I find it tricky to decide what are Cameron’s actual words and what are the reporter’s summaries of them.
Typical is this phrases which uses “quotes” but does not attribute them to anybody in particular, not are the two “quoted” words put into context.
At a meeting of the influential 1922 committee of backbench Tory MPs last week, Mr Cameron’s policy was denounced as “ridiculous” and “absurd”.
Who exactly “denounced” and what was the full sentence or sentences in which those words were used?
should be:
Typical is this phrase which uses “quotes” but does not attribute them to anybody in particular, nor are the two “quoted” words put into context.
😉
BaggieJonathan | 21.05.07 – 1:59 pm
This BBC article uses so many single and double quotes, even of single words, that I find it tricky to decide what are Cameron’s actual words and what are the reporter’s summaries of them.
I simply don’t believe you are that thick.
You must be feigning stupidity for some form of (imagined) rhetorical effect.
Just in case you are as dim as you make out – here’s a helpful hint:
Ignore the headline, then read the article again treating any words which are both within double quotation marks
and are attributed to David Cameron as dirct quotations from DC.
Treat the two words within quotation marks that are attributed to un-named members of the Conservative 1922 Committee as being direct quotations from un-named Tory backbenchers.
(If you want to know why they are un-named……..read something about the operations of the parliamentary lobby.)
Now go back to the headline and see if you can work out why the word fantasy is in single quotation marks.
A small child could work this out.
John Reith;
So, is it “more than 50” or “125 Qassams” in the same period?
Can power-sharing continue in Gaza?
How can peace be restored to Gaza?
Added: Monday, 21 May, 2007, 12:03 GMT 13:03 UK
Sadly the latest violence shows that we’re not ready to take the reins and lead our country yet. I like many others, born and bred in Gaza, hope that the Israelis return, before they left we had jobs, education ,health, and could walk the street safley, today our leadership uses thugs , with ak-47’s , spreading terror and indiscrimante violence. Hopefully a new genration will arise a new leadership who will be able to lead us to peace and idependence deserve
ali hassan, gaza, palestine
I wonder how long before that comment disappears.
Reith,
“Headlining”
Obviously my higher university education and decades of work in a professional capacity have put me at a disadvantage.
“Feigning”
Small children and presumably the less literate of the tabloid readers have no problem reading this article.
“Within double”
Are you for real?
“Believe”
I challenge you to get a “small child” to read this and “work it out”.
Perhaps those last comments by you were just for rhetorical effect!
“Some form”
In case you hadn’t realised, perhaps you were being deliberately thick, all the quotes I put in above were from your last post.
“Dirct quotations from DC”
Its impossible to tell whether they were being taken out of context or not, which is what you get when you quote single or two words only at a time, even the last one which rises to four is open to a lot of interpretation.
“Coiffure watch” update:
“Farming Today” is promising ‘something’ on beehives “later” this week. Usually ‘fast asleep’ at that time, but I suspect the “adrenaline” will keep “me” awake.
Biodegradable | 21.05.07 – 2:34 pm
So, is it “more than 50” or “125 Qassams” in the same period?
My hunch – 125.
But for BBC purposes, it ain’t a ‘fact’ until either the Jerusalem bureau stands it up or two reputable news agencies, to which the BBC subscribes, agree upon the same figure. Reuters and AP would do.
Y-Net News and Arutz Sheva don’t hack it.
’til then more than 50 is at least accurate, if conservative.
No it’s not accurate. If it’s a conservative estimate then it’s not accurate by definition. The word you’re looking for is precise.
If anybody wants to know what the BBC will never report about the Cuban Health Sevice as well as the attrocieties committed in this Socialist paradise http://www.therealcuba.com The pictures alone speak for themselves.
BaggieJonathan | 21.05.07 – 2:40 pm
In case you hadn’t realised…… all the quotes I put in above were from your last post.
No they weren’t.
I didn’t use “headlining”.
I did talk about the headline.
But if you were having a go at a conceptual attribution along ’fantasy’ lines, it should have been ’headlining’.
Close, but no cigar.
It’s impossible to tell whether they were being taken out of context or not
Isn’t it in the very nature of a quotation that it is something selected and abstracted from its original context?
archonix:
The word you’re looking for is pedant.
Beeboids cannot compute…
Beeboids cannot compute…
Beeboids cannot compute…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6676291.stm
Aaaahhhhh…..that’s better
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6676451.stm
archonix 21.05.07 – 3:24 pm
A fair point.
But I think the word I was groping for was ‘true’ rather than ‘precise’.
Reith,
A fair point but it empasises what I was saying – the weakness of single word quotation.
“Isn’t it in the very nature of a quotation that it is something selected and abstracted from its original context?”
I am amazed you should use this argument.
Take the example of the sidebar andrew marr quote from the daily mail on 21/10/06.
The BBC is not impartial. It’s abnormal and gay. It has a party-political bias. It is liberal bias.
Would that be acceptable to you?
It would certainly not be to me.
BaggieJonathan | 21.05.07 – 4:09 pm
It’s not that you take something out of its context that matters – all quotation involves that – it’s what you do with it afterwards.
Your example demonstrates this well enough.
Reith,
Yes, that’s something we can agree on.
However single words should never be quotes, it is quite literally senseless to do so.
If a report is going to use a single word or more than one example of it, it is quite correct to paraphrase or use reported speech, it is bogus to use it as a quote.
I would not quote any single word from your last post.
If I really wanted to I could say something like Reith said that the example demonstrated the point well, there is no need or indeed point to put example or well in quotes.
If I said “Your example demonstrates this well enough.” that needs to be indicated that it is a quote from you.
John Reith:
Biodegradable | 21.05.07 – 2:34 pm
So, is it “more than 50” or “125 Qassams” in the same period?
My hunch – 125.
Bravo!
That’s what Ynetnews reported, “more than 50” is what yer BBC claimed.
But for BBC purposes, it ain’t a ‘fact’ until either the Jerusalem bureau stands it up or two reputable news agencies, to which the BBC subscribes, agree upon the same figure. Reuters and AP would do.
Y-Net News and Arutz Sheva don’t hack it.
“News agencies”???
Ynetnews quotes the Israeli police!
Are you saying that the BBC refuses to believe either or both of them until what the BBC calls “reputable news agencies” agree on their own version?
Where do those “reputable news agencies” get their confirmation from? The ones actually firing the rockets?
Does the BBC listen to Israeli police reports or only “Palestinian witnesses”?
’til then more than 50 is at least accurate, if conservative.
John Reith | 21.05.07 – 3:15 pm
On yer bike mate!
You gave the game away when you stated (my emphasis):
Arutz Sheva gives these figures for Kassam attacks (and not all were on Sderot):
John Reith | 21.05.07 – 12:10 pm
You proved my point that the BBC will only report Israeli casualties and attacks on Israel when it has no alternative, ie: when there are dead Jews.
Otherwise it’s cry your eyes out for the long suffering “Palestinian” victims of Israeli aggresion, while not even bothering to report rockets that, while fired with the intent of killing innocents, to the chagrin of the BBC and Hamas don’t quite make the grade.
But for BBC purposes, it ain’t a ‘fact’ until either the Jerusalem bureau stands it up or two reputable news agencies, to which the BBC subscribes, agree upon the same figure. Reuters and AP would do.
Y-Net News and Arutz Sheva don’t hack it.
’til then more than 50 is at least accurate, if conservative.
John Reith | 21.05.07 – 3:15 pm
So, the BBC doesn’t believe the Israeli government either?
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Kassam+rockets+strike+Sderot+-+Photos+-+May+2007.htm
Kassam rockets strike Sderot – May 2007
20 May 2007
Sderot has come under attack since Tuesday night (May 15), with a barrage of over 100 Kassam rockets landing in the town and surrounding area. Two women were seriously wounded by direct hits on their homes, and many were treated for injuries and shock. Other rockets hit a high school near Sapir College and a synagogue (May 17). Hamas has openly claimed responsibility for the ongoing attack.
Download video footage from Sderot
NB: “landing in the town and surrounding area“
Also, Al-Beeb did not report the synagogue being hit.
I wonder if they’d report a mosque being hit by an Israeli strike?
Nu?
Carter says comments were ‘careless’
Somehow
Carter was quoted Saturday as saying “I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.”
doesn’t mean the worst in history, it means
He said he wasn’t comparing the Bush administration with all those through American history. But in comparison to Nixon’s, the Bush administration’s foreign policy “was much worse,” Carter said
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18759682/
via LGF
Can power-sharing continue in Gaza?
How can peace be restored to Gaza?
Added: Monday, 21 May, 2007, 12:06 GMT 13:06 UK
“Why don’t we hear any Israeli dying despite hundreds of missiles fired by palestinians and yet so many Palestinians die from Israeli targeted killing?”
Umbrine Fatima, Toronto, Canada
Fatima,
We are so sorry…
Eitan Zmora, Jerusalem, Israel
Recommended by 12 people
will:
Excellent.
Jimmy Carter takes responsibility for his own remarks.
Which were made to the BBC…. Oh, hang on – lower down the MSNBC piece it says: “Carter made the comments to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper’s Saturday editions.”
I’m a bit worried now. How do we make an elder statesman’s clarification of remarks made to an Arkansas newspaper look like the fault of BBC bias?
I think we know just the man. Let’s whistle up the talents of Ultraviolets, who spoke so eloquently of the need for “libel, spin” and unfounded allegations of anti-Semitism to harry the BBC. Surely he can do something with this?
U/v: The ball’s in your court. Go with it…
BaggieJonathan | 21.05.07 – 5:01 pm
single words should never be quotes
Who says so?
Compare and contrast the following, taking into account the likely interpretations on the part of the reader:
The Archbishop of Canterbury said the report was bollocks. (Reported speech.)
the Archbishop oc Canterbury said the report was “bollocks”.
Most people would take the reported speech to be a paraphrase and would assume the Archbish had really said something like “nonsense”.
Here endeth the lesson.
Time for a new open thread?