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.
sorry for swearing but jesus h christ.
newsnight has turned into a labour party political broadcast.
an entire program to do with the yawn… deputy leadership.
this is just getting ridiculous.
if you fancy something else, have a look at this – Michael MacDowell(Irish Progressive Democrat) tearing Gerry Adams, the Labour Party and the Greens to shreds…
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0516/primetime.html
click on the text in the middle of the page – embedded realplayer page will open up.
i really dont understand why that guy lost his seat.
I’m sorry I have no idea what that means.
“Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that common sense would allow for people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
And the anarchist here does not understand how a search engine works.
According to Google’s news search there are 2,529 articles containing the terms ‘woman’, ‘killed’ and ‘Sderot’.
http://www.maskofanarchy.blogspot.com/
Come back when you learn the rudiments of the Google search engine.
what is a ‘non-sequituer’?
Come back when you learn the rudiments of the Google search engine.
I’m actually doing my MSc on it at the moment. Any help gratefully accepted.
Perhaps I could teach you the rudiments of hypertext.
Please DO NOT feed the trolls!
An anarchist doing an MSc on a highly organised indexing and search system of a hierarchical multi-level interlinked information structure?
Does not compute… 😉
A non-sequiteur (type before) is a statement wherein one part of the statement doesn’t follow on from the previous part. Your last statement is quite a good example. On the one hand you are amused at people talking about conspiracy theories, yet on the other you’re essentially promulgating your own.
Of course ‘the establishment’ has a lot of different meanings to different people, but the general assumption is that the establishment works collectively to suppress dissent whether conscious or not. Now what I find amusing is that you still persist in this belief that the ‘conspiracy theoriests’, as you have it, of B-BBC are also the establishment. Your portrayal of capitalism as the estalblishment doesn’t jibe very well with real-world experience. The truth is, we’re living in a socialist authoritarian country. It has some of the trappings of capitalism but they are a skein of lies. The best example people come up with is that the Blair government is quite keen on privitisation.
On the surface this seems so, but it is also keen on heavy regulation, to the point that private capital is just an extensive government money pot that Messrs Brown and Blair dip in to every now and then. The ‘private finance initiatives’ favoured by Brown are not privitisation by stealth but merely a means of keeping his profligate spending off the books. The number of PFI projects that end up being fully fuinded by the government is increasing year on year, and the amount of tax going in to these projects is rising.
Teh tax burden is up, government spending is up, regulation is rising and private capital is starting to flow out of the country to less regulated areas. This is the ‘establishment’, not the capitalists you’ve previously blamed. The BBC is part of it, promoting it. If they were genuienly independent they would be badgering Brown over why he moved his own goal-posts last year. They didn’t. They gave him teh soft touch. The man essentially admitted that his books no longer balanced and that the country is on the verge of insolvency, and they let it slide.
I expect you’ll just dismiss me as part of the establishment now, though you may change your mind once you get out of university. I did.
PS, I’m on good form tonight. Only… a dozen or so typos. Go me.
“The six contenders to be Gordon Brown’s deputy when he takes over as Labour leader from Tony Blair are going head-to-head in a televised debate.
The hopefuls are facing viewers’ questions and interrogation by Jeremy Paxman on a Newsnight special edition.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6699469.stm
It will be a fight to see who is the most “statist”. I bet freedom and liberty will not be mentioned.
Here’s an idea:
We think that the BBC is institutionally biased.
Hillhunt thinks we are making it up/paranoid/full of conspiracy theories/completely bonkers (and sometimes, when I read some of the green-ink-syle spelling- and grammar-free postings here, I think he has a point!)
So let’s compile a list of reasons why we think that the BBC is biased – really simple ones. Hillhunt can then take the chance to say why he thinks we are completely wrong to consider the BBc biased based on these bits of evidence.
For instance:
James Naughtie: “When we win the election..” To me, this shows that he, as an interviewer, has left his impartiality way back down the corridor, and is thinking – and interviewing – as a Labour party flagbearer. He is being biased to the Labour party.
For instance:
Blue Peter, the throat slitting of the goat, with presenter saying “At least it’s done humanely…” The BBC is being biased towards the religion that insists on that method of slaughter, because an animal dying in that way at the hands of many other religions would be greeted with ‘outrage’ by the BBC.
Those are my couple of suggestions of bias that I would love to see Hillhunt convincingly refute; let us all suggest a couple more. And let us have no insults, no slanging match, no invitations to fisticuffs or handbags at dawn, none of the depressingly childish stuff that has broken out here over the last couple of weeks (and yes, I know, Hillhunt; I’ve probably ‘slanged’ you too).
But we have a view of the BBC, you think we’re wrong. Let us compile a list that backs up our theory; you, in a grow-up way, knock it down.
Shall we give it a try?
“Gordon Brown has revealed that one of his first acts as prime minister will be to read the final Harry Potter book.”
Can you really take this bloke seriousley?
“This summer, I think (I will read) Thomas Keneally, who’s just brought out a new book which is about war and heroes,” he said.
“I will probably want to dip into JK Rowling, hoping that is something my sons will want to read later.
“And I suspect I will have a look at Al Gore’s book.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6699675.stm
And after that I may read the beano.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6699039.stm
Israelis are so violent that they even beat up wild animals, the swine!
You’d never see a story about Muslims beating up leopards would you!
An obsessive Daily Mail reader says:I finally finished that crappy video.
Bravo!
… but where are the false and libellous accusations of anti-semetism?
i’m soooo disappointed…
Chuffer, I don’t think this will do. Re the Naughtie quote, fair enough. But your second point –
“because an animal dying in that way at the hands of many other religions would be greeted with ‘outrage’ by the BBC”.
won’t quite do. You don’t demonstrate proven bias by hypothesising what the Beeb “would” or would not say in an imaginary situation.
That doesn’t invalidate your central point however – I just think there are many many more impressive examples of pro-islam bias in the Beeb’s output.
“I just think there are many many more impressive examples of pro-islam bias in the Beeb’s output.
gharqad-tree | 30.05.07 – 12:33 am |”
heres one
muslims in europe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/default.stm
in the “features” section.
its been there for going on a year now. so long thats it a permanent fixture on that news page.
immigration is just great says the bbc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6700345.stm
no mention of the unemployment caused by the undercutting of wages.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter…ent/ 6699675.stm
Is this really a news item? What is the significance of it? Is it the BBC showing that “their man” is human? Has there ever been any critical “news items” about Gordon Brown?
The BBcs love of Brown is beginning to irritate me.
“Mr Brady, a staunch defender of grammar schools, said “in conscience” he had to resign to be free to speak his mind.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6701877.stm
A politician with a conscience, as Basil Fawltey would say “We should have him stuffed”
Those of an sceptical turn of mind might wonder at the relative silence on the BBC’s part about their little friend, Chavez’s, crack-down on media dissent in Venezuela.
The best the news rates is a mere ‘other top stories’ slot on the ‘Americas’ page, currently outshone by such stunning items as ‘Why Alaskan Eskimos have a cultural claim to hunt whales’ and ‘A guide to kissing men and women in the Argentine capital’.
Meanwhile, apparently no less a champion of Right-wing craziness than the Clinton News Network has come under the BBC pin-up boy’s basilisk gaze.
Who next, one wonders?
Probably not the BBC.
“Mr Brady, a staunch defender of grammar schools, said “in conscience” he had to resign to be free to speak his mind.”
So there’s nothing left to vote for. Well it’s the end of history isn’t it? We might as well just have ID cards because the government will never use them to interfere with your right to consume and get pissed up every Friday. We may as well abolish Civil liberties and Human rights because the government will never use them to interfere with your right to consume and get pissed up every Friday. All of our leaders must be unelected because the government will never use them to interfere with your right to consume and get pissed up every Friday. We ought to have more distant wars because they wont interfere with your right to consume and get pissed up every Friday. There’s nothing left to discuss.
‘I Remember Nothing’ by Joy Division
We were strangers.
We were strangers, for way too long, for way too long,
We were strangers, for way too long.
Violent, violent,
Were strangers.
Get weak all the time, may just pass the time,
Me in my own world, yeah you there beside,
The gaps are enormous, we stare from each side,
We were strangers for way too long.
Violent, more violent, his hand cracks the chair,
Moves on reaction, then slumps in despair,
Trapped in a cage and surrendered too soon,
Me in my own world, the one that you knew,
For way too long.
We were strangers, for way too long.
We were strangers,
We were strangers, for way too long.
For way too long.
i too am disconcerted by that resignation. why not stay on the “inside” argueing your case?
a better lyric would be Depeche Mode’s “New Dress” from the 1986 “Black Celebration” album..
“You can’t change the world
But you can change the facts
And when you change the facts
You change points of view
If you change points of view
You may change a vote
And when you change a vote
You may change the world”
(Part 1)
I was looking at the BBC Newsnight poll on the Deputy leadership – http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm?dynamic_vote=ON#vote_nn_deputy_29_05_07 – and refreshing the page every so often, and then suddenly noticed the deletion of numbers of votes, mainly (if not all) for Peter Hain and Hilary Benn. Now, I have no real axe to grind – in other words, I’m not a Hain or Benn supporter – but what happened was terrible. Where did their votes go? Was it a technical glitch? Or were their votes deleted by a BBC member of staff?
Forgive me for not wanting to write out the full story in detail, but here’s what I wrote on Jon Cruddas’ page. I hope you can all make sense of it:
“Jon, firstly I should point out that you have my support. I hope you win the race.
But I just wanted to briefly mention the online vote on the BBC’s Newsnight poll, which you are currently storming!
The current vote, as of 1:40am, looks like this:
VOTE RESULTS
Who won the Newsnight debate?
Hilary Benn
4.58%
Hazel Blears
10.68%
Jon Cruddas
43.22%
Peter Hain
2.37%
Harriet Harman
18.31%
Alan Johnson
16.27%
590 Votes Cast
About an hour ago it looked this:
Who won the Newsnight debate?
Hilary Benn
3.02%
Hazel Blears
9.72%
Jon Cruddas
44.92%
Peter Hain
0.86%
Harriet Harman
19.65%
Alan Johnson
15.98%
463 Votes Cast
(Part 2)
Do you notice something? Benn and Hain’s votes have gone up, whereas everyone (well, with the exception of Johnson) have seen their votes lower. To many, this may seem like simply the nature of polls, but that’s not quite correct and I have emailed Benn and Hain about what happened and felt it necessary to tell you aswell.
Up until about 12:10am, Benn had about 17% of the vote, Hain had roughly 6%, you were floating between 38 and 39% and Blears was on about 7.5%. I can’t remember Harman’s and Johnson’s but they were at similar levels to what they currenly are, give or take one or two percent.
Suddenly (alright, it wasn’t that dramatic…), around this time, Hain’s and Benn’s votes reverted back to 0%. Someone at the BBC has either tampered with the vote or there is some sort of technical glitch. And ever since they have been clawing their way back up, and you, Harman and Blears have seen your votes lower a little.
Obviously I can’t prove this conclusively as I didn’t print-screen the poll prior-alteration, as of course, I didn’t see the deletion of dozens of votes coming, but I believe this can be proved to some degree by waiting for the outcome, which should give Hain a extra few percent and Benn an extra 10 or so percent as they see their votes return to their previous levels (providing voting patterns stay the same), and perhaps yours will lower by a few percent, but you should still storm it from the looks of things.
(Part 3)
This may seem like the ramblings of an anorak to some, and incredibly trivial to others, but we all know the importance people place on polls and Paxman did say he’d read out the results tomorrow and I’d imagine the broadsheets will pour over them, so I thought I ought to put this out on a public forum. As I say, I have also emailed Mr. Hain and Mr. Benn about this.
I hope people watch the poll carefully for any more sudden alterations on behalf of the BBC…
Anyway, good luck, sir! I hope you win.
Darren.”
—————
I don’t know much about this website, or whether it’s a place for a Conservative-thinkers to rant about the supposedly “liberal lefty” BBC (There’s been bias the other way around before – Miner’s Strike, anyone? The editing of footage and alteration in sequence in events? Hiring Mi5 to do background checks on employees to make sure none are part of far-left parties?) but either way, I thought I’d bring this to your attention.
“There’s nothing left to discuss.”
ha. made me laugh.
reminds me of the numerous drones with the IQ of an amoeba phoning into the Jeremy Vine show on the radio and putting across the “well i have nothing to hide guv” argument…
darren -> who in gods name actually cares about the DEPUTY leadership of the labour party.
if one can assume that Gordon Brown’s control freakery will continue when he reaches no.10, then i am afraid that the deputy PM will be relegated to something akin to a pet yorkshire terrier. small, and unimportant, but able to bark…with little consequence.
i am absolutely staggered that newsnight gave so much time – an entire episode – to something that is of so little consequence to people’s lives in this country.
Haha…you are quite correct.
I’m still trying to figure out what precisely a deputy leader does and if he’s allowed to express his opinion or has to be subservient to the prime minister. If Cruddas wins, he has some rather different views to Brown so god knows what’ll happen there.
But still, I thought I should notify you all, as the poll was tampered with.
i’m being a bit harsh. thanks for your contribution Darren. its worth noting.
speaking of lyrics (mentioned above)..
it seems as if depeche mode predicted Tony Blair way back in 1988
“what am I trying to do
What am I trying to say
I’m not trying to tell you anything
You didn’t know
When you woke up today”
“Nothing” – Music for the Masses album
O/T? Humour?
So there’s nothing left to vote for
Ultraviolets | 30.05.07 – 1:21 am |
my dear boy, there never was anything ‘left’ to vote for!
.
A brave American soldier defending democracy
See Picture of the Week
at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
.
#3 IN A SERIES OF ADMISSIONS OF THE BBC’S INSTITUTIONAL BIAS FROM BBC STAFF AND ITS LEFTWING ALLIES:
COPY AND PASTE INTO NEW DOC AND KEEP HANDY FOR REFERENCE IN FUTURE EXCHANGES WITH BBC BIGOTS
An almost funereal atmosphere descended over BBC News coverage of President Bush’s election win last week. Anchorman Hugh Thomas in America looked strained and tired, as if reporting the death of a senior royal; world affairs editor John Simpson also spoke in hushed tones about candidate Kerry’s defeat; and a correspondent in Boston began his piece with the words ‘I had been hoping to bring you news of John Kerry’s election as president…’ just after the Ohio result was called. And this followed weeks of election trailers which painted Bush as a right-wing religious maniac who had invented the threat from al-Qaeda to distract the American people from the real issues, whatever they might be. Bias from good old Leftie Beeb or just a wrong call?’
From the BBC-supporting, Guardian-owned, leftwing Sunday newspaper The Observer (7 November 2004)
G8 summit reported on by BBC. But there is a picture used in this piece with an unidentified woman…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6703105.stm
No mention of her in the text – so why was this smiley-faced lady’s picture used?
“…and a correspondent in Boston began his piece with the words ‘I had been hoping to bring you news of John Kerry’s election as president…’ just after the Ohio result was called. And this followed weeks of election trailers which painted Bush as a right-wing religious maniac who had invented the threat from al-Qaeda to distract the American people from the real issues, whatever they might be. Bias from good old Leftie Beeb or just a wrong call?’
Jonathan Boyd Hunt | Homepage | 30.05.07 – 8:03 am | # ”
_________________
“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.
garypowell | 28.05.07 – 3:01 pm | # ”
🙂
Darren
thanks for pointing out the mysterious disappearing vote for Benn and Hain – this is a site for everyone (whatever their politics) to point out BBC bias and it’s important to expose this stuff. In this case tho’ I can’t quite see why the BBC would do this intentionally – is it more a case of cock-up than conspiracy do you think?
Jonathan Boyd Hunt | Homepage | 30.05.07 – 8:03 am
Anchorman Hugh Thomas in America looked strained and tired, as if reporting the death of a senior royal
Who was this Hugh Thomas?
Has anyone ever seen him on any BBC News programme?
Not the comedian surely?
Perhaps the Observer meant Huw Edwards.
(Edwards, Thomas, ap Rhys, Jones….whatever)
But then • if this reporter can’t even get a simple fact like the name of the BBC’s main news presenter right • can we really trust the rest of his/her account?
GCooper | 29.05.07 – 9:35 pm
Tony Blair hailed completely transformed relations with oil-rich Libya after talks with Libyan leader
Glad you spotted that.
But saying that’s why a BBC World presenter was perhaps excessively civil to the Libyan leader….and concluding that it’s ‘all about oil’ may be connecting dots best left unconnected.
Is Browne still with BP? Thought he’d quit.
…….still it is quite funny to see the sudden somersault.
One day the BBC is being castigated for cuddling-up to Gaddafi because of its left-wing……’Marxist’… bias……
…..and now it’s being alleged the BBC is in league with international capitalism and the oil moguls.
Beyond Petroleum is what I say.
John Reith | 30.05.07 – 9:17 am:
That was a bit of a lame offering, coming from you. But at least you tried. We’ll see how you fare with tomorrow morning’s posting (which will be “#4 IN A SERIES OF ADMISSIONS OF THE BBC’S INSTITUTIONAL BIAS FROM BBC STAFF AND ITS LEFTWING ALLIES”).
By the way, did you take a peek at Ultraviolet’s stunning audio-visual masterpiece, celebrating the BBC’s world-famous reputation for impartial reporting?
archduke
“i too am disconcerted by that resignation. why not stay on the “inside” argueing your case?”
Perhaps you hadn’t noticed but Cameron has asserted that the debate (if there was one) in the Tory party about grammar schools is over: anybody seeking to discuss it is now (officially) “delusional”. In other words there is no forum within the Conservative party for this to be legitimately discussed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6703105.stm
No mention of her in the text – so why was this smiley-faced lady’s picture used?
Anonymous | 30.05.07 – 8:14 am
She looks like Barbara Pelosi – the caption says “Mr Gabriel (R) says time is running out for a deal on climate change”
I’m left wondering whether the “(R)” refers to him being on the right in the photo or if it means he’s a Republican (Pelosi is a Democrat).
In any case he’s out of focus and in the background. Is this the best the BBC can do for 3.5bn/year?
I notice that the “Has Climate Change Affected You?” HYS has been removed from the HYS page for the first time in Months. Wouldn’t have anything to do with the fabulous weather we’re having would it?
GCooper:
Those of an sceptical turn of mind might wonder at the relative silence on the BBC’s part about their little friend, Chavez’s, crack-down on media dissent in Venezuela.
The best the news rates is a mere ‘other top stories’ slot on the ‘Americas’ page, currently outshone by such stunning items as ‘Why Alaskan Eskimos have a cultural claim to hunt whales’ and ‘A guide to kissing men and women in the Argentine capital’.
Meanwhile, apparently no less a champion of Right-wing craziness than the Clinton News Network has come under the BBC pin-up boy’s basilisk gaze.
Who next, one wonders?
Probably not the BBC.
GCooper | 30.05.07 – 1:02 am | #
Perhaps you missed this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6694245.stm
Originally it claimed that ‘the country is under threat from those opposed to his militant rule.’
This has now been changed and the reference to militancy removed. If you don’t believe me, click here:
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic?id=7a700h9YxpfT1q6ONrq6ZrxaGrla1j1g*xK5v4xQp5Fd3Ig=&size=l
Surely not an example of right-wing bias at the BBC being stealthily edited?
John Reith writes:
“But saying that’s why a BBC World presenter was perhaps excessively civil to the Libyan leader….and concluding that it’s ‘all about oil’ may be connecting dots best left unconnected.”
If you seriously expect anyone who has even half a clue how these things work, to believe the cuddly interview with the BBC’s new chum, Gadffi, wasn’t part of the government’s Libyan love-in, you’re nuts.
But ‘perhaps excessive’? Golly, Reith! Damascus may only be a little further down the road, after all!
korova writes:
“Perhaps you missed this:”
What makes you think I missed anything?
I was commenting on the news priorities of the BBC’s website last night. At which time, the long-predicted descent of another BBC pin-up into totalitarianism was being downplayed.
More CJD nonsense from Korova’s Corporate sponsored web-page Cooper (brought to you in partnership with BBC and Amnesty International-Pulling the wool over ever body’s eyes)….
“So at long last, David Hicks has returned to Australia. Although this is clearly fantastic news, it doesn’t mean that his fight is over. As long as Hicks is incarcerated in Australia, he remains a potent reminder of Howard’s blatant support for the principles of Guantanamo Bay. The very same principles that he abhors in Zimbabwe, a country who’s dictator he willingly props up. Howard has shown his true colours.”
I’m sorry-wasn’t it ‘do-gooders’ like yourself that have been propping up the “father of Africa” because of those nasty white South Africans?
I mean the “anti-apartheid” movement was quite good in raising money for the “front line states” Mugarbe must have got a good return for all that money and those knock-down priced AK-47 from the former Soviet Union!
Next you will be saying-“I know lets send our boys to Darfur to they can die in the Sahara as parroted by George Clooney……”
http://www.maskofanarchy.blogspot.com/
Of course we are all “right wing shit heads” from somebody who supports terrorism….
PHUQING HELL KORVORA AND HILLHUNT-DO YOU SHARE THE SAME CRAYON SET?
KOROVA-SUPPPORTER OF TERRORISM
Cooper-The only reason for Al Beeb “love in” with Gadaffi is because the “great leader” is termanally ill.
No doubt he will be invited to our wonderful country for NHS treatment….
Bless