Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
BioD:
First I’ve heard about it.
Free the Hillhunt One!
Robbiekeane
You make all types of prejudged assuptions that I made a point of not actually making. Why instead of throwing straw man assumptions about do you not comment on what Frank Field says?
Who as you may well know is a LABOUR MP and the one responsible for making prommissed REPEAT prommissed welfair reforms.
Do you actually know any ordinary married couples with kidds trying to get by or indeed any one parent families doing the same. Because I know many.
I talk to people thats why I feel more them qualified to talk on their behalf. As these people either cant spell properly or dont have the English or the confidence to express themselves.
The truth is that they both inspite of ten years of Labour are finding life more impossible and depressing every single minet of every single day.
The fact that the BBC keeps telling/indicating to them that a Conservative government would be even worse just adds to their understandable sense of despair, and lack of hope for any worthwhile future at all.
For working class poor a few hours down the club or pub a month with a few beers and some roll ups is the highlight of their week. Even this is soon to be made ilegal. This by a party that is supposed to be their friend.
When the POOR think they have only the Labour party and its BBC for a “friend” can you just imagine (which I know by your ignorent comments that you would have to imagine) how the most vulnerable people in sociaty feel right now?
I notice that you dont deny that Gordon Brown is a homosexual. But please forgive me for making the assumpion that ordinary married couples out there who see their lives becoming more hard work and poverty struck every day.
May have a direct interest and right in knowing and understanding what level of empathy they can expect from the next PM of the country to their emidiate predicament.
FREEDOM’S COST
“TODAY AMERICANS HONOR OUR GREATEST TREASURES”
Admiral William J. Fallon is commander, United States Central Command.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05282007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/freedoms_cost_opedcolumnists_william_j__fallon.htm
.
Gary,
I’m fully prepared to believe Frank Field if he’s saying the welfare system is knackered and I’d expect the BBC to fully report his comments and investigate his claims. I’m also inclined to believe that his sacking was a PR glossed fiasco.
I just have an issue with what you seem to imply which is that is done “delliberately to destroy the fabrick of the nation with a pathological hated of normal married people” rather than through incompetence or misdirected policy, together with all the other usual “Stalinist” accusations. I don’t expect the BBC to report or investigate that as it is manifestly complete crap.
I know lots of poor married couples and single parents. Some (of both)are pretty grateful for what Labour has done to help them. Some (of both) aren’t sometimes for legitimate reasons and sometimes because they don’t help themselves and would rather blame the government.
No idea if Brown is a homosexual – I suspect not but don’t really care.
“It takes a bit of a leftfield imagination to believe that he’s actually trying to undermine the social ‘fabrick’ of the country for evil Stalinist homosexual sociopathic purposes (although quite why homosexuals would want a bunch of underpriveleged skinhead psychos running about is beyond me). ”
” You would think that only a rampant
Stalinist homosexual trying delliberately to destroy the fabrick of the nation with a pathological hated of normal married people could devise such a situation, as a matter of policy.”
It all makes perfect sense really. As is shown by the regression to the oral stage of infantile sexuality represented in nose picking, Gordon secretly hates the disgusting object of desire that is his mother (seen in the bogey). He wants hetero couples destroyed and delinquent psycho children gay bashing so he can take revenge on the whole world that has denied him his mother.
All this is meditated on in the poetic and brilliant lyrics of nu-metal rockers ‘Linkin Park’:
“You like to think you’re never wrong
(You live what you’ve learned)
You have to act like you’re someone
(You live what you’ve learned)
You want someone to hurt like you
(You live what you’ve learned)
You want to share what you have been through
(You live what you’ve learned)
(Gordon says)
You love the things I say I’ll do
The way I hurt myself again just to get back at you(Abstaining on section 28)
You take away when I give in
My life
My pride is broken”(Gordon secretly hates himself.)
RobbieKeane,
If your claim is that the BBC reports the news properly why does it constantly omit newsworthy stories to do with Iraq, Israel, America and the problems with Muslims in Europe.
Even when it reports stories it distorts them by omitting salient facts, e.g. the points Wolfowitz is making now in his defence are being covered properly for the first time by the BBC (if only, in dismissing them). Paul Reynolds seems to think that even though Wolfowitz acted properly the fact that the story seemed bad was enough for him to go. Yet the story only seemed bad because the MSM hid his defence at the time.
Also, noone at the BBC seemed too bothered about Calpurnia’s good name during the Kofi’s corrupt term at the UN.
Btw, still no mention of this
http://www.foxnews.com/story/ 0,2…,275716,00.html
on BBC front page. Instead, we get the usual fare of negative news stories unpunctuated by balance.
K | 28.05.07 – 1:47 pm |
Paul Reynolds seems to think that even though Wolfowitz acted properly, the fact that the story seemed bad was enough for him to go.
Funny that.
I heard Wolfie on the Today Programme this morning saying that though he acted properly, the fact that the story seemed bad was enough for him to have to go.
the story only seemed bad because the MSM hid his defence at the time.
I dunno about the ‘MSM’ but the BBC certainly didn’t hide it. It reported it prominently at the time.
Robbiekeane
Do you assume that everyone that is not in possession of your rose coloured specticals only believes what they believe because of the Daily Mail?
I suspect you read the worthless rag more then I have ever done. Which would not be hard as I never read it.
I appeal to your better less ignorent nature to imagine again what it feels like being a working class man working over 60 hours a week who cant claim to his wife and family that he is in any material way contributing to the standard of living for his wife and children. And has to then watch while his wife and his childrens mother has to work like a dog full time also.
Then I appeal to you to understand what it is like for a male or female single parent to know that if they get into anytype of permanent hetrosexual or otherwise relationship they will indead have to work harder then ever before just to become £100s of pounds potentially worse off then if they stayed seperated and lonely.
The only alternative is to lie and brake the law with the possibility of fines and imprisonment. In my experience working class people prefure strongly not have to live this way. Perhaps your experience is different?
On Wolfowitz:
Clare Bolderson asks him, “would any of this happened if people had liked you better?”
My question to Clare Bolderson.
“Why do you and the BBC dislike him and why has your entire coverage centered around convincing everybody else that they should dislike him too?”
Listen here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6697311.stm
He denied suggestions that lingering personal antipathy against him had contributed to his decision to leave.
“I think it tells us more about the media than about the bank and I’ll leave it at that.
“People were reacting to a whole string of inaccurate statements and by the time we got to anything approximating accuracy the passions were around the bend.”
I heard Wolfie on the Today Programme this morning saying that though he acted properly, the fact that the story seemed bad was enough for him to have to go.
I don’t think people should forced out of position because the MSM say so. Who do you think you are Mr.Reith?
the story only seemed bad because the MSM hid his defence at the time.
I dunno about the ‘MSM’ but the BBC certainly didn’t hide it. It reported it prominently at the time.
Nope. Watched the news coverage and it did not state that he was following ethics guidelines handed down by the committee.
Any more falsehoods, please feel free to publish here or at news.bbc.co.uk.
btw, still no BBC report on the al-Qaeda dungeon, John Reith, care to explain?
John Reith,
I’m going to make your day. I retract my previous statements that water was not a cause of the Six Day War, however in exchange I expect you to retract your claim that Martin Asser’s presentation was fair and balanced.
As you will remember my chief complaint was that Asser presented the issue as one of Israel stealing water from the Arabs and going to war to enable it to continue doing so,
Please see here, and pay particular attention to the context:
1. Context and Proximate Causes of the War
e. Water:
The onetime Commander of the UN Observer Forces in the area, General Odd Bull, notes that the roots of the 1967 conflict started much earlier in 1964 (see Odd Bull, War and peace in the Middle East: The Experiences and Views of a UN Observer, Leo Cooper; London, 1976, pp. 72-78 ) On May 28, Israel started to pump water from the River Jordan to irrigate the Negev- the desert southern part of Israel. The quantity to be taken was within that allocated to Israel in Eric Johnson’s 1955 plan for sharing the combined water of the Jordan River and its tributaries between Israel and its neighbours. [5]
The Arab governments at a meeting on September 7, 1964, objected to the development of the Negev in this manner and resolved to counter Israel’s action by drawing off water from two of the three tributaries to the Jordan (Hasbani in Lebanon and Baniyas in Syria), diverting them eastward and then southwards into the River Yarmuk within Jordanian territory. Israel reacted and notified the Armistice Commission and the UN Security Council that it would view the implementation of such plans as aggression and a breach of the Armistice Agreements. (Israeli Notes to the Security Council following th don’t do anything second Arab summit conference, S/5980, 18 September, and S/6020, 19-October 1964 [6] When the Syrian government, inside its own borders, actually attempted to divert the Banyas, Israel responded by three army and air-force attacks on the site of the diversion. [7]
In passing, it is worth pointing out that Odd Bull’s observation that the conflict started in 1964 is misleading. In fact it started much earlier when Britain agreed to transfer its control over the headwaters of the Jordan to France of the under Franco-British [Boundary] Convention signed on December 23, 1920.
So yes, water was a cause, but no, Israel was not the agressor.
See here also regarding Asser’s asinine following of the BBC line that Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and elsewhere are illegal.
http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-16.htm
Thanks, Biodegradeable.
Not that any regulars need evidence of John Reith’s sly dissimulations.
K | 28.05.07 – 2:19 pm
did not state that he was following ethics guidelines handed down by the committee
“Two years ago, when I came to the bank, I raised the issue of a potential conflict of interest, and I asked to be recused from the matter.
I took the issue to the ethics committee of the board, and after extensive discussions with the chairman, the committee’s advice was to promote and relocate Ms Shaha Riza.
I made a good-faith effort to implement my understanding of that advice, and I did so in order to take responsibility for settling an issue that I believe had the potential to harm this institution.
In hindsight, I wish I had trusted my original instincts and kept myself out of the negotiations.
I made a mistake for which I am sorry.
But let me also ask for some understanding. Not only was this a painful personal dilemma, but I had to deal with it when I was new to this institution, and I was trying to navigate in uncharted waters.
The situation was unprecedented and exceptional.
This was an involuntary reassignment, and I believed there was a legal risk to the institution if it was not solved by mutual agreement.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6551901.stm
World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz has said he would not resign in the face of “bogus” charges against him.
In a statement to a panel of World Bank directors, the embattled chief said he was the victim of a “smear campaign”…….
Mr Wolfowitz said the World Bank’s ethics committee had access to his decision to relocate his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, to the US State Department in 2005 “if they wanted it”.
Mr Wolfowitz has previously said that Ms Riza’s salary increase to almost $200,000 (£100,000) “was well within the parameters” of the World Bank’s salary and benefits structure.
“I acted transparently, sought and received guidance from the bank’s ethics committee and conducted myself in good faith in accordance with that guidance,” Mr Wolfowitz told the panel.
“I will not resign in the face of a plainly bogus charge of conflict of interest,” he added.
“The goal of this smear campaign, I believe, is to create a self-fulfilling prophecy that I am an ineffective leader and must step down for that reason alone.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6607913.stm
The ‘falsehoods’ are all yours, K.
K | 28.05.07 – 1:47 pm
the points Wolfowitz is making now in his defence are being covered properly for the first time by the BBC
As you’ll see from my last post, these points were reported by the BBC as early as 13th April (the day after Wolfowitz first made them public).
And even after Wolfie had quit, the BBC was still re-iterating his defence:
When appointed to his post in 2005, he notified the bank of a potential conflict of interest because of his relationship with Ms Riza.
He asked to be allowed to recuse himself, or step aside, from any decisions regarding her future.
The bank’s ethics committee acknowledged a conflict of interest but did not allow Mr Wolfowitz to recuse himself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6667975.stm
BBC:Obstacles to Piece -‘Israel’
In an increadibly pro-radical palestinian series of articles the BBC looks at the reasons “peace” cant be achieved in the Middle East … note that there is NOT ONE WORD about the concessions that the Palestinians need to make … NOR ONE WORD about how radical islam is making peace impossible ..
Martin Assers logic states that until Isreal is a land with a muslim majority and a Jewish dhimmi minority (or a Jewless land) than their will be conflict.
Sometimes the extent of BBC bias is useful in elucidating why Israeli’s no longer trust Britain as an “ally”
BBC bias at its best
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6659239.stm
K | 28.05.07 – 2:19 pm
still no BBC report on the al-Qaeda dungeon, John Reith, care to explain?
Sunday, 27 May 2007, 17:29 GMT 18:29 UK
Troops ‘liberate Iraqi captives’
US and Iraqi troops have overrun an al-Qaeda camp near Baghdad and freed about 40 Iraqi civilians, the US military says.
Some had been tortured and suffered broken bones, US spokesman Lt Col Michael Donnelly told AFP news agency.
Some of the detainees had been there several months, Col Donnelly added.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6696899.stm
Posted some 20 hours ago. It’s persistent ‘non-existence’ just another of your falsehoods.
Today’s edition of Obstacles to peace: It’s all the fault of the Jews!
Where is the Palestinian peace camp?
As usual, too much to fisk and too little time, but here’s a few:
“The intifada aimed to change the status quo,” he says.
“It was Palestinians recognising that they could not undo Israel but that they were willing to negotiate with [it].”
“negotiate” in “Palestinian” parlance = obfuscate, disinform, lie and deceive while attacking Israel.
It was only in 1987 that Palestinians began “knocking on Israeli doors”, says Mr Abdel Hadi.
“After two or three years we begin convincing Israelis that there could be peace between the two peoples.”
Really? I must have blinked and missed that.
The signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 was intended to lead to the formation of a Palestinian state.
But trust dwindled between the two sides, particularly following the assassination – by a right-wing Jew – of the Israeli prime minister who signed the agreement, Yitzhak Rabin.
I seem to remember that after signing the Oslo Accords Yasser Arafat (who, by the way, is still dead) made his famous speech to the “Palestinians” calling for “Jihad, jihad, jihad, jihad, jihad…”
But of course “trust dwindled” because a Jew killed Rabin. Forget about the suicide bomb attacks that followed in that period.
Amid the violence, organisations have sprung up in the West Bank and Gaza whose aim is to build peace and reconciliation between the two sides.
But the aims of the organisations have often been unclear, says Dr Noah Salameh, director of the Centre for Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation.
Perhaps the BBC could clarify?
Thought not…
Meanwhile, a series of non-violent demonstrations have cropped up to protest against the building of the West Bank barrier.
He must mean those “non-violent demonstrations” that take place every Friday (after prayers) involving the ISM and various international useful idiots throwing stones, that usually end up with various arrests and often several IDF and Border Patrol wounded.
These protests, however, are small “because we can’t gather like the Israelis do in Tel Aviv,” says Dr Salameh. “We would get shot if we tried.”
They don’t seem to have any problem organising massive funeral processions for their “martyrs”, including shots fired in the air and all. I don’t see any evidence of Israelis trying to shoot any of those attending, although the temptation of such a “target rich environment” must be extremely hard to resist for those blood thirsty Zionist murderers.
Across the West Bank and Gaza these days it is difficult to find many Palestinians that will talk of peace.
That sort of answers the original question: Where is the Palestinian peace camp?
Some Palestinians, however, do try and work on small peace projects with Israelis.
But they run the risk of being labelled collaborators by some sections of Palestinian society.
And what happens to those “labelled” in such a way?
Why, they’re publicly executed on the street, that’s what.
Bottom line: Just remember, it’s all the fault of the Jews.
Excusing Arab terrorism, blaming the Jews for everything that’s wrong in the world, it’s what we do, with your tax £!
Made the big mistake again of watching 10 mins of BBC news.
So what is the BBC reporting on now.
Bombs and murder going off during Phillapine elections….NO
Gordon Browns lack of any normal or moral sanity or human empathy…..No
Various muslim extreamists trying to murder innocent Israeli citizens…NO
Various Labour Party MPs back stabbing and infighting…….NO
Virtual revolution in Lebanon and Turkey….NO
Chavez doing the normal expected authoratarian socialist thing to his countrys media……NO
Ah yes we have the scandle of the Swiss government with the full backing of its people not allowing the very tiny Muslim population of Switzerland to build new mosques.
I mean when did the BBC last report on Switzerland doing anything?
This is such an insignificant story to anyone except a fascist media organisation trying to create discord and strife in the universe, that it beggers belief.
Could someone tell me if there is an election coming soon in this rich peacefull and tiny country? Because I think the BBC are trying to play a direct role in other peoples party politics again. Just like they have here since the last world war.
Just for some new arrivals which may have not quite got the message yet. The BBC is not just a pain in the Conservative partys arse, that costs too much money and stiffles proper free political debate and any real competitive competition to its empire building.
It is the BIGGEST avoidable danger to the peace and freedom of the whole WORLD there currently is.
These dangerous subversive cretins scare me more them 50 Bin-Lardens in a nuclear power station.
KILL THE BBC BEFORE IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KILLING YOU
“KILL THE BBC BEFORE IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KILLING YOU”
mate, you’re an embarrassment.
GaryPowell:
These dangerous subversive cretins scare me more them 50 Bin-Lardens in a nuclear power station.
KILL THE BBC BEFORE IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KILLING YOU
Biased BBC: The Austin Allegro of Media Monitoring
bijan daneshmand | 28.05.07 – 2:50 pm
I challenge anybody to find anything in the “Obstacles to Peace” series that even hints at any “Palestinian” blame.
“It’s all the fault of the Jews!”
FEATURES AND ANALYSIS
Moveable frontiers
Israel’s borders are unresolved 60 years after the state’s creation.
*Obstacles to peace: Refugees
*Obstacles to peace: Water
*Obstacles to peace: Jerusalem
*History of failed peace talks
*Profile: Palestinian peace camp
*Profile: Israeli peace activism
Sorry JR, but I watch the news(you know, like on TV)and check the main BBC page for news. So considering the bulk (all but 1) of your links are buried in business and regional sections I think it’s fair to point out that the al-Qaeda dungeon story was invisible unlike say the far more newsworthy and unusual car bomb.
No, you’re right the BBC were champions of the truth in the Wolfowitz case. So why are most of your links obscure and none at the time of his resignation mid-May?
And how come oil-for-food Kofi wasn’t required to make the same gesture?
Face it, JR, none of you at the BBC can stand anyone to do with the Iraq War except those plucky insurgents butchering innocent civilians. And that’s alright so long as you accept that first, you aren’t anti-War, you’re pro-War and for the other side and that second you gave up the pretence of journalistic ethics long ago.
Face it, JR, none of you at the BBC can stand anyone to do with the Iraq War except those plucky insurgents butchering innocent civilians.
The Austin Allegro of Media Monitoring?
Make that the early version with the square steering wheel…
John Reith
Still voting Conservative are we?
Because if you are you are a very rare animal at the BBC indeed, and you must well know it to be so.
Either that or a malicious TV poll tax payed lier. Which one is it?
You could not possibly understand what reading your thought police nit picking and often rude excuses for the completly unexcuseable, does to my blood pressure knowing that in some small way I am actually directly contributing to the payment of your morgage.
YOU WORK FOR US REMEMBER not us for you.
I still wonder how you sleep at nights knowing there is people sleeping in prison this very night, just because they could not or would not pay for your organisations to carry on corrupting free political discourse.
Why do you really have a problem with the BBC being privatised? What are you so scared of? Do you think the great unwashed out here will suddenly start eating their babies or something?
Do we not have a history of libertarian left wing publications in Britain standing on their own two feet, even though a little rockely?
Because I can tell you for sure they would all make more cash if the BBC did not exsists in its current form or indeed any form.
We have the internet now and that costs next to nothing whatsoever. I am unaware of anyone being sent to prison for not paying their cable TV, telephone or broadband bills.
You represent an organisation that should have been put out of its missery 40 years ago. However anyone with half a brain knows why it was not, and still will not be.
The only purpose the BBC has left at all is to promote authoritarian STATE socialism because no independent publication would in its right mind promote such a iliberal thing and sell enough copy.
No wonder the Labour party love and tottally relie for their exsistance on your exsistence. Which is why as you quite well know, the BBC still exsists at all.
Sorry if the truth hurts but the truth is the truth however many times you sadly attempt and fail to twist and spin it.
K | 28.05.07 – 3:44 pm
the bulk (all but 1) of your links are buried in business and regional sections
The concept of stories being ‘buried’ in sections is something dreamed-up by ignoramuses at B-BBC who do not understand how the BBC News website works.
The label a story is given….e.g. England, UK, Business, South Asia etc has no bearing on a story’s importance or prominence. Nor does it affect whether the story is the lead on the front page. It’s simply a general indicator of where it’s to do with.
The reason why you couldn’t find yesterday’s news on today’s front page is pretty obvious.
I think every single one of the Wolfowitz pieces I cited were on main-page indexes. Some were lead items.
The current lead story on the news front page is, for example, labeled ‘Middle East”.
Other front-page stories currently running are labeled ‘UK’, ‘Health’, ‘South Asia’, ‘England’ and ‘Asia Pacific’. None is ‘buried’.
So why are most of your links obscure and none at the time of his resignation mid-May?
They are not obscure. And one of them was at the time of his resignation in mid-May. 18th May – in fact. And it was the main story announcing his resignation.
Are you blind?
I think it’s fair to point out that the al-Qaeda dungeon story was invisible
Clearly so. To you. Perfectly visible to everyone else.
how come oil-for-food Kofi wasn’t required to make the same gesture?
Beats me. Ask the Volcker commission.
none of you at the BBC can stand anyone to do with the Iraq War except those plucky insurgents butchering innocent civilians.
Insulting nonsense with no foundation in truth.
But then, since so much of the BBC’s coverage is ‘invisible’ to you, perhaps you only see what you want to see.
K
In case you are still having problems about the way story labels work try this:
1. Go now to the BBC News Front Page.
2. Select International Version
3. There you will find a story about Wolfowitz in the ‘other top stories’ column.
4. Look in the left hand column – you will see that the word ‘business’ is
greyed out and there’s a little red cursor line next to it.
That means that this story is labeled business. When the story is archived, the word Business will appear at the top.
This may lead dimwits like you to think that it was always stuck…buried…if you will…in some business section.
But that ain’t so – ‘cos it’s on the front page.
Geddit?
The Swiss and the minarets
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6676271.stm
Ricky
To say I dont give a flying fig at my age how embarrassing I am to you me or anyone else is an understatement.
You can carry on being “British” about the very real life and death situations in the world untill your bus blows up if you wish, its a free country still if only just.
However if you have something even slightly profound thoughtfull thought provoking or relevent to state please let us all know because otherwise you are in danger of simply being an ignorant troll.
No, you’re right JR. No bias at the BBC. So why do you picket this site?
And why are there repeated articles from the Times, Telegraph, Fox, Wall St. Journal, Daily Mail, Sun alleging and giving examples of such bias.
And why did Robin Aitken write a book about it and why did the BBC refuse to mention it? Ask Mark Steyn, who used to work for you or Melanie Philips who occasionally does.
Look, I know you’re in a state of denial about BBC bias but you just have to accept that an awful lot of people disagree with you. And seeing as you’re part of the institution you can hardly claim to be objective.
Are you really so blind that you can’t see what so many people beyond this site are telling you?
I mean, check the D(HYS) for people pointing out the same double-standards I mentioned. Your institution is even suppressing a report on its Middle East bias at great cost to the tax payer. The Balen report, I think.
To begin from the premise that the BBC is completely impartial on such issues as America, Israel, Iraq, etc. either dishonest or ignorant. I’ll leave it to readers to decide which description fits you best.
And on Al-Qaeda dungeon, still no mention of it on your front page and the story is 24hrs old but you still have the far less newsworthy car bomb story.
But please go on. We can always do with more rope.
The concept of stories being ‘buried’ in sections is something dreamed-up by ignoramuses at B-BBC who do not understand how the BBC News website works.
The label a story is given….e.g. England, UK, Business, South Asia etc has no bearing on a story’s importance or prominence. Nor does it affect whether the story is the lead on the front page. It’s simply a general indicator of where it’s to do with.
John Reith | 28.05.07 – 4:14 pm
Right, file this one under Entertainment?
I’m so glad the BBC’s employees found it so “entertaining”.
K | 28.05.07 – 4:34 pm
you just have to accept that an awful lot of people disagree with you.
That’s certainly rich coming from an apologist for a blog that on a good week gets 1600 unique users visiting it, while 233 million people across the world chose the BBC as a regular news source.
Not to mention the numerous surveys over the years that show the BBC as ‘most trusted’.
And on Al-Qaeda dungeon, still no mention of it on your front page and the story is 24hrs old
Oh dear. You still don’t get it do you?
But then, earlier on you were asking why there was no mention on the front page of 28 May of charges brought in March in connection with an incident alleged to have taken place in January.
I fear you are still scouring the front pages for any news of the Titanic.
Biodegradable | 28.05.07 – 4:44 pm
Yes it was daft to label that one Entertainment.
But before you run away with the idea that it was bias – note they did it to this one too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6253585.stm
If the Beeb’s website getting that sort of audience worldwide, why am I expected to pay for it on pain of going to prison? Can’t some of the geniuses at the Beeb earn their own (fat) livings from this worldwide audience, rather than extort it from us Brits?
JR, I’m sorry you feel so angry.
If this is such a small blog, why are you so bothered?
But maybe if you could persuade your colleagues to release the report maybe you’d begin to see that the BBC really is biased.
But then you know that anyway, don’t you.
And still no mention of Al-Qaeda dungeon on front page. Now why is that?
John Reith has posted 4 times in the last hour. Is apologising for an evil organisation finally sending him bat poo poo?
Abu-Beeb is not without a sense of humour is it?
JR,
Bio’s link was evidence of bias. Even if burying it in Entertainment wasn’t, the substance of the story was bias.
JR, when there are such stories of bias published by the BBC how can you deny such bias exists.
Don’t you believe your own news?
[quote]However if you have something even slightly profound thoughtfull thought provoking or relevent to state please let us all know because otherwise you are in danger of simply being an ignorant troll.[/quote]
Hardly dear boy. Been a regular reader here since at least 4 years ago.
Many fresh faces may stop by this blog but with comments like those you were making above, no-one but the most extreme would return. A sort of capitalized green ink which is hardly likely to enhance “the cause”.
The problem is that most people worldwide make the assumption that because the BBC is a publicly funded body, whose constitution states its ‘neutrality’, that that is indeed the case. Unless they know to the contrary, they ASSUME that the BBC is neutral and unbiased.That’s why they trust it.It’s constitution says it can be trusted.
Fortunately, many viewers/listeners are actually much better informed than they used to be (internet/other MSM)and they can now judge if the BBC’s neutrality is fact or not.Rather than taking everything on face value, people now can compare news items with each other, and make up their own mind.
However much its defendants find instances of neutrality, there are many many instances of bias,which
cannot be defended.Why did the BBC spend £200,000 of OUR money to prevent publication of an inquiry into bias?
Can JR prove to us that the report shows BBC neutral reporting?Unlikely!
The facts are there for all to see if they are not blinded by bias.
‘It’s not a conspiracy.It’s visceral. They think they are on the middle ground’
There you have it. They can’t see the bias because they’re part of the problem.They believe their opinion is the correct one,and they believe they’re unbiased, so that’s the view they put forward- an ‘unbiased’ one. It becomes a circular argument.
The reason people will keep coming to this blog is that they will read an article on a bbc site or hear a radio 4 program or see a news feature that is so laden with prejudice against America or Israel; for Europe or Islam (like the two can coexist) or an unproven hypothesis of man-made global warming (as opposed to the early seventies unproven hypothesis of global cooling). In my case, it was the Question Time following 7/7 where the audience was stuffed with jihadist-supporters thanks to a BBC producer called Sue English(I think).Then they will wonder to themselves, is this me or is this bias. And a short Google search will bring them here to learn of corruption in the UN, BBC staff support for Palestinian terrorists, favoritism for certain left-wing lobby groups and riots in European cities which seldom get reported.
After which point, further BBC bias is self-defeating because it convinces the viewer that he/she was right all along.
Anonymous:
When Your Doctor is a Muslim: “Medical Terrorism Comes to America”
Muslim Doctor Refused to Treat Jews
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ a…your_docto.html
Another ground-breaking contribution to UK-Muslim understanding, and many thanks to B-BBC for bringing it to us.
Debbie Schlussel’s web page makes the terrifying – but groundless – allegation that a British doctor, trained in Egypt and practising in Chicago, failed to treat an elderly Jewish man, Joseph Applebaum, because of his religion.
Groundless? Mr Applebaum’s son is trying to sue the hospital over the death of his father in 2003. All of his legal filings are printed on his own website.
http://www.whokilledja.com/index.html
Although he has a lot to say about the quality of his poor father’s treatment, he makes no claim at all that his father’s religion played any part in his death…
Oh, yes. The filings name not one, but 15, doctors who are accused of failing Mr Applebaum. Only one has a Muslim name.
Another quality contribution to the ” contemporary resource of identifiable examples of the BBC’s biased reporting” (c) JBH QC.
It was clearly the BBC’s institutional bias which prevented it giving front-page treatement to this, er, major story.
BTW I can find no mention of the Israeli man in Sderot killed by a Qassam on Sunday on the BBC website.
Can anyone find it?
I expect JR will say, as he has said before, that we can’t expect the BBC to report every death individually.
He just doesn’t get it.
Boo Hoo!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6690000/newsid_6697500?redirect=6697583.stm&news=1&nbram=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1&nbwm=1
HillHunt,
Please understand that to rebut one instance of bias does not rebut the general charge of bias.
Are you seriously contending that there is no continuous stream of bias against the US, Israel and Iraq?
Only yesterday morning, the news presenters were going through the papers with Andrew Pierce and all had a good sneer about those gun-toting red-neck Americans. No bias there then.
Edna:
BTW I can find no mention of the Israeli man in Sderot killed by a Qassam on Sunday on the BBC website.
Can anyone find it?
Here it is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6696447.stm
There was an earlier version, but life’s too short …
As an extra service to B-BBC’s high quality corps of media monitors, try this site:
http://www.specsavers.co.uk/cgi-bin/strudwick.sh/s?langid=1&pfmt=1&siteid=39&pname=home.html
HillHunt,
Cute spec-savers jibe.
Can I congratulate you on a level of superciliousness that only BBC public “servants” can ascend to?
K:
Are you seriously contending that there is no continuous stream of bias against the US, Israel and Iraq?
Yes I am.
For a useful summary of B-BBC’s overall quality, might I modestly suggest my own digest of the weekend’s rantings printed above?
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1195663365858000750/?a=32694#350479
JR
Thanks for the detailed instructions on how to open links on your news site.
It’s well worth three billion odd quid of our taxes to have people like you tell us how to suck eggs.
I followed your advice to see if I could find out how the citizens of Caracas are faring today – now that Hugo Chavez has closed down their only independent national broadcaster and sent the troops, tanks & watercannon into the streets.
Here it is – tucked away on the “Americas” page just as you promised:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6696699.stm
Headline – “Rallies as Venezuelan TV closes” – nothing much to see there then, just a bit of flag waving.
Thank God it wasn’t “Chavez’s tanks crush free speech demonstrators” – I might have been quite worried.
Reassuring also to read in Hugo’s profile on the same page that “a majority think he speaks for the poor”.
By the way I’ve been clicking away like mad trying to find the item where Nigel Wrench got suspended from the PM prog pending his rape trial.
Any tips on how to find it?
Why are you so convinced in the light of suppressed reports on bias and countless media allegations to the same effect that no bias exists?