Times – “Bias at the Beeb – Official“
There are some things you do not need an official report to tell you – that John Prescott thinks he is a babe magnet, that President Mugabe is not entirely in favour of white farmers and that Al-Qaeda takes a pretty dim view of the West. The report commissioned by the BBC into itself concluded with something equally blindingly obvious. It said that the organisation is institutionally biased and especially gullible to the blandishments of politically driven celebrities, such as Bono and Bob Geldof. Almost anyone in Britain could have told the BBC that for free, but maybe it’s better to have it in an official report.
Even taking into account the small but insistent internal voice pointing out that the Times is part of the Great Satan Murdoch’s media empire, there’s not much to disagree with there.
” … what emerges from the report is a picture of an organisation with a liberal, anti-American bias and an almost teenage fascination with fashionable causes … the BBC is a self-perpetuating liberal arts club.”
Telegraph – “BBC report finds bias within corporation”
The BBC has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff, a report commissioned by the corporation has concluded. The report claims that coverage of single-issue political causes, such as climate change and poverty, can be biased – and is particularly critical of Live 8 coverage, which it says amounted to endorsement.
After a year-long investigation the report, published today, maintains that the corporation’s coverage of day-to-day politics is fair and impartial. But it says coverage of Live 8, the 2005 anti-poverty concerts organised by rock star campaigners Bob Geldof and Bono and writer Richard Curtis, failed to properly debate the issues raised. Instead, at a time when the corporation was renegotiating its charter with the government, it allowed itself to effectively become a promotional tool for Live 8, which was strongly supported by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Geldof, Bono and Curtis were attempting to pressure world leaders at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles, which was taking place at the same time, to help reduce poverty in developing countries under the banner ‘Make Poverty History’.
Mr Blair said the campaign was a “mighty achievement”. The huge Live 8 concerts across the world were its culmination and the BBC cleared its schedules to show them, with coverage on BBC One, Two and Three and Radio One and Two. Around the same time it also screened a specially-written episode of Curtis’s popular sitcom The Vicar of Dibley that featured a minute long Make Poverty History video and saw characters urged to support it. And it aired another Curtis drama, The Girl in the Café, in which Bill Nighy falls in love with an anti-poverty campaigner – even giving Gordon Brown an advance copy. The BBC also ran a week long Africa special featuring a series of documentaries by Geldof and a day celebrating the National Health Service, prompting Sky News political editor Adam Boulton to tell a House of Lords select committee it was in danger of peddling government propaganda.
The report concludes BBC staff must be more willing to challenge their own beliefs.
(En passant, the BBCs uncritical coverage of the millionaires Geldof, Bono and Curtis illustrates neatly a feature of modern philanthropy. In Victorian times a rich man with a conscience would put his hands in his own pockets to fund a worthy cause – a tradition which continues in America (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett) to this day. Across the water the favoured option of a charitably inclined multimillionaire is to get poorer people to fund your favourite causes via higher taxation – while in some cases avoiding such taxes yourself.)
Strangely the Observer headlines its report “Vicar of Dibley accused of breaking BBC guidelines“. Can’t imagine why. But they also have BBC insider Richard Tait’s view of the report.
UPDATE 18/06 – Commenter Richy is clairvoyant !
“If overly critical then surely the it’ll be placed in the “england” section or the “entertainment” section.”
“Entertainment” it is !
You can find the report here. Plenty of pdfs to get through. The “impartiality monitoring group” doesn’t look like a diverse cross-section of British political opinion to me – you do wonder what political perspectives the man who “co-founded the Democracy Coalition for Children and Young
People” or Kat Fletcher bring to the party.
More coverage at Times (also under Entertainment), Telegraph, Mail, more Sunday Times. Oh, and apologies for calling a BBC Trustee a BBC ‘insider’. Cultural misunderstanding … via commenter JBH, the Michael Crick anecdote about BBC execs all being Guardian readers. Sounds too good to be true – Mr Crick seems to have a puckish sense of humour. But I’m sure it “illustrates a wider truth”, as Dan Rather and Piers Morgan would say.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt, I’m a bit out of touch ’round here (too much frothing Muslim bashing for me) – but I hope you have acquired the blog owners’ permission to post your allegations here.
I suspect you’d be all too happy to be taken to court over this, but I don’t know that Biased-BBC Blog would be…
.
JBH QC:
I take it therefore that you have no answer to the evidence I’ve collated castigating these twelve individuals of colluding to pervert the Downey inquiry.
Er, yes. Your entire case – read it all on GuardianLies – boils down to your assumption that, because two documents appear in different fonts, this means they’ve been fiddled with.
Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian editor, long ago explained this: One of the documents was transferred from the newsroom’s APAX system to his Mac, which, being a Mac, used a different typeface.
Over to Stephen Glover, a conservative commentator well known for his scepticism about the Guardian and the BBC:
The main allegation, in a nutshell, is that the paper falsified documents in order to show that two of its reporters had questioned Mr Hamilton about brown envelopes at a meeting in July 1993….
Is this credible? I don’t believe so. When I wrote this in a previous article for the Daily Telegraph Mr Hunt left a rude message on my answering machine. I expect he will again.
I can’t see it would have been worth the paper’s while to go to such lengths of deception merely to show that it had known about allegations at an earlier stage than it did. I’m also not convinced by his very convoluted theories.
JBH QC: Horse. Flogging. A. Dead.
Hillhunt:
Seriously disingenuous and bigoted.
B-BBCers: Sorry for feeding the troll.
“Ignoring that is as self-serving as anything you allege about the BBC’s own behaviour.”
Quite true, and I don’t ignore it. Due to the powerful influence of the media, I believe in some regulation thereof – mostly limits on market share.
I certainly don’t believe that the best counter to private media empires is to have a state enforced media empire that isn’t accountable in any way at all to the people who are forced to pay for it (not even via the state that enforces it!).
People are imprisoned every year in the UK for watching television without the permission of the state (and not subsidising John Humphrys). Murdoch may be unpleasant, but that is disgusting and outrageous.
.
PJF | 18.06.07 – 12:11 am:
Jonathan Boyd Hunt, I’m a bit out of touch ’round here (too much frothing Muslim bashing for me) – but I hope you have acquired the blog owners’ permission to post your allegations here.
I suspect you’d be all too happy to be taken to court over this, but I don’t know that Biased-BBC Blog would be…
I’m acutely mindful of the blog owners’ sensitivity to the prospect of contributors posting libellous allegations. However in my case I hope that they are emboldened by the fact that a commercial publisher published my allegations in far more specific detail and yet was not sued for libel despite the Guardian having issued threats beforehand.
BBC bias.What BBC bias?
Who would you like to see on the Queen’s honours list?
People across the UK who have made a difference to society have been recognised in this year’s Queen’s Birthday honours list.
Cricket legend Ian Botham has received a Knighthood. The 51-year-old former all-rounder finished his career as England’s leading Test wicket-taker with 383 victims and over 5,000 Test runs.
Footballer Ryan Giggs has been awarded an OBE. Giggs, 33, is Manchester United’s most decorated player with 23 winners’ medals and 64 caps from International Football.
Iran accused Britain on Sunday of insulting Islam by awarding a knighthood to Salman Rushdie, whose book The Satanic Verses offended Muslims worldwide and led to Iran issuing a fatwa.
Who do you think deserves a mention in the honours list? Who would you like to see given a Knighthood? Is Rushdie’s award an insult to Islam?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=6624&&&edition=1&ttl=20070618003451
Err BBC who gives a hoot about what gives an insult to your faith of choice.Everything and everything is an insult to Islam be it Miss world, Mecca Bingo,Nike shoes to Burgerking Icecream.I myself am an insult to Muslims (Yup no foreskin but i don’t stick my arse in the air 5 times a day)yet do I derserve to die for following my own path?
What a stupid question and i wonder why the clones at the BBC had to ask it.
Yet again the BBC blowing the flute of its Islamic Mullahs
pjf:
People are imprisoned every year in the UK for watching television without the permission of the state (and not subsidising John Humphrys). Murdoch may be unpleasant, but that is disgusting and outrageous.
This is an important point but…
The sums of money per household are trivial compared to all other licensing costs and taxation (and to the enormous sums fleeced by Sky, much of which goes to keep a few dozen footballers in lives of Babylonian luxury).
Most of us don’t get to choose whether we want subsidies for the arts, farming or FCO extravagance. But if we don’t pay our taxes, we end up in jail (or bankruptcy). How popular, exactly, is the spending of billions or public money (and the sacrificing of young British lives) in Iraq (apart from in these threads)? And could those of us who disagree with the war claim a discount on our PAYE?
The licence fee keeps this country’s major cultural asset at arms length from Government and from the commercial pressures which so disfigure Murdoch’s output and which have driven ITV and Channel 4 to squandering so much of their public-service broadcasting.
.
Ref the case of the ‘Captured’ BBC reporter. Am I the only one thinking along the lines that Hamas’s preemptive attack on Fatah. (How comes the BBC only reports on the IDF of having a vastly superior armed army and not ‘Hamas’.) Was planned a long-time ago. (Well it wasn’t an ad-hoc get together of armed militants was it? Or was there a wedding in the area?) Now Hamas knowing it would come under the spotlight of every country in the world needs somebody to present their case of ‘genocide’ in a softer light. (You know like ‘Changing rooms’) So how about sorting out the release of a ‘captured’ BBC reporter in which to show the world its nicer side. And who better to promote that nicer side than the friends of the terrorist world THE BBC
Hey it’s only what I’m thinking. But something tells me, the kidnapping of Johnson was nothing more than a publicity stunt .A stunt the BBC is more than happy to promote as NEWS. Something Smells along the corridors of the BBC and it isn’t empty Champagne Bottles celebrating the Hamas win.
The troll wrote.;
“The sums of money per household are trivial compared to all other licensing costs and taxation
Yer having a Giraffe.
“The sums of money per household are trivial compared to all other licensing costs and taxation (and to the enormous sums fleeced by Sky, much of which goes to keep a few dozen footballers in lives of Babylonian luxury).”
What a stupid argument – the licence fee may be trivial to you but not to other people. Even if the licence fee was 1p a year is it justified to put people in goal for not paying it.
As for Sky – I could not give a monkies how much they get – it paid for the service they provide – if you do not want the service you don’t buy it. Simple.
The enormous sums of money fleeced by government is more a moot point. If, like Sky, you only paid for the services you recieved then that would be fair.
hillhunt, the point about taxes and obeying the law is a fair one (and I now no longer have a TV, instead of watching one illegally previously); the real issue is whether a media organisation should come under those arrangements.
You believe the BBC is “this country’s major cultural asset” (we’re finished); I believe it’s just an oversized telly station (drivel), and an outlet for left/liberal propaganda (dangerous drivel).
Since you’re clearly wrong, I think you should now be taxed every time you go to the pub so that I can get my minority, high quality Belgian beer free at source.
Ta.
.
Went for dinner a couple of weeks ago where discussion centred on news sources. At the table were sat four PhD holders and one professor. The BBC was generally disparaged and none of us used it as a serious source of news. We’re all British but now based overseas (so don’t have access to Newsnight and some of the other politics shows).
Nonetheless, I was left wondering about who the BBC provides news for. I personally find it the least informative. Furthermore, I remember reading once that MPs were increasingly reluctant to use the BBC as a source of news (couldn’t find the link).
I wonder if there may be a trend where ABC1s in general avoid the BBC.
In the interests of sanity and readability, will people try and ignore the troll “hillhunt”. Don’t inflate his ego by bothering to reply to his facile “comments”. He drags down every thread where people engage him in “debate”. His comments are a waste of time and space , please treat them accordingly.
I follow the BBC – and this website – from across the pond. I am not completely up on all of this, but as I recall, the BBC is expanding a tremendous sum of taxpayer money to keep a particular report confidential. Could anyone tell me which report that is and what it covers. Just curious in light of this report, what could possibly be damaging in the one the Beeb is challenging in court? Thanks.
Scott:
The report to which you refer is the Balen Report.Here’s an article about the issue.
Scott,
The one the BBC wont let us see is the Balen report into BBC bias.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt,
Snap!
Scott:
The Balen Report covers BBC Mid East coverage. That effectively means BBC Israel Palestinian Conflict coverage.
It’s difficult to know what could be damaging before reading it. However to many in this blog the effort and money expended to hide it is a red flag.
What ‘might’ it say?
• The BBC slants its reports to support the Palestinian version of events.
• The BBC is obsessed with this one area and ignores developments in Israel and the rest of the Mid East not related to the conflict.
• The BBC slants its reports to support Islamic viewpoints (i.e. one of the parties) while attacking or ignoring Christian viewpoints (still the major religion in Britain) and marginalizing Judaism (Hinduism, Buddhism, Drusism et al).
• Conversely the BBC hides and obscures Islam as a factor in serious crime, warfare across the globe and terrorism.
• The BBC routinely manipulates language, layout, pictures, positioning, etc. to present an unbalanced viewpoint. For example, Israel routinely ‘kills’ Palestinians while bombs ‘explode’ without any apparent human intervention.
• The BBC presents controversial and incorrect information as incontrovertible fact. For example, everyone accepts that ‘Israeli occupation is illegal’ or ‘the barrier being built by Israel surrounds all of the West Bank’ or that ‘Israel deliberately targets ambulances’.
• It is sometimes difficult to know that anti Israel reports are delivered by interested parties and not BBC employees.
• BBC employees are openly biased to the Palestinian version of events.
• The BBC presents controversial reports on its website and then quietly changes them after the complaint without acknowledging them – stealth editing.
• The BBC manipulates Have Your Say (HYS) features to support the Palestinian version of events. For example, anti Israel comments recommended by few people are highlighted. Comments, which breach BBC guidelines for incitement, pass the moderation process while other comments are held back.
• The BBC did not make it clear in Lebanon when reports were delivered under Hezbollah supervision.
• The BBC routinely slants the composition of discussion panels and audiences to support anti Israel views.
In short the Balen report ‘might’ say that the BBC is a propagandist for Islam and Palestinian nationalism and is well aware of this.
Of course the Balen report could be a whitewash and the BBC spends taxpayers’ money to hide it from the taxpayers because that is what people who don’t have to worry about money do.
Bryan:
What’s your take on this new BBC-comissioned report, which acknowledges the BBC’s institutionalised bias and groupthink, but which, most importantly, does not find that this bias has infected its news and current affairs output.
To me it smacks of the type of argument construction one adopts in order to have the principal contention accepted:
“Members of the jury, Mr. Person has admitted that he is not perfect. He has admitted setting fire to St Mary’s hospital; throwing petrol bombs at Mr. Softee ice cream vendors; and dropping TV sets out of high-rise flats; but this is quite different to poisoning the population of Rochdale by introducing deadly toxins in the local reservour, of which he is totally innocent.”
What you say?
Personally, I’m wondering where and how the BBC will report this.
If overly critical then surely the it’ll be placed in the “england” section or the “entertainment” section.
“The sums of money per household are trivial compared to all other licensing costs and taxation…” points out hillhunt.
Ah, so that’s OK then. The BBc can be as rubbish as it likes because is costs us less than some other things. Why didn’t we all think of that line of reasoning before?
Hillhunt: wearing out the bottom of his barrel.
I’m a bit concerned about the main strand of the article suggesting the Beeb is wildly overconcerned with TRENDY causes. To my mind trendy causes tend to be causes which are actually important and demanding of attention (AIDS, the environment, even executive pay), but suddenly get blown out of all proportion on the back of a bit of media/celeb interest and end up squeezing out more important issues
This is certainly a fault of the Beeb but the wider uberliberalism is far more of a problem as it frequently loses all touch with reality, provokes the anti-liberal faction into equally extremist areas and thereby generally stifles intelligent and informed debate nationally.
The Sunday Times gave us the usual criticism that the Beeb is staffed with Guardian readers with no balancing ‘right wing’, but surely a publicly funded impartial broadcaster with a remit to provide quality shouldn’t be staffing itself to provide Guardian v Mail or Toynbee v Mel Phillips idiocy, it should be Economist v FT v WSJ otherwise what’s the point??
“But something tells me, the kidnapping of Johnson was nothing more than a publicity stunt .A stunt the BBC is more than happy to promote as NEWS.”
Well given they’re now threatening to knock him off that particularly sad conspiracy theory seems to be approaching its own demise…
The BBC has an entrenched right-wing bias, apparently.
Cockney wrote;
“Well given they’re now threatening to knock him off that particularly sad conspiracy theory seems to be approaching its own demise…”
Really? And I suppose the fact that Hamas not only know who has him, that they are in control of Gaza and that Gaza is a tiny strip of land approx 25 miles long by 4 miles wide.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Gz-map2.png
Tells me that it is very hard to keep a hostage without the neighbours knowing something is up. Which may explain just how Hamas knew he was alive before his red suited video turned up. A video i should add which looked like it was made by Pallywood.
But then I did say it was my own thoughts and if you wish to lump me in with the conspiracy nuts, then do you in the same breath berate the people who say that 9/11 was an inside job, that the London Tube bombings were MI5 led, that Kelly was murdered and that the attack on the USS liberty (1967) was an attempt by American intelligence in which to blame Egypt for the 6 day war. The funny thing is, all of the latter are given credence by the BBC and the rest of the Ethical Latte Mob. So tell me Rhyming slang boy “Are those cornerstones of Liberal folk law also worthy of rebuttal. Or is it somehow different for those who presume they know best?”
BBC Bias, what BBC bias?
Grenade attack on Somalia cinema
A grenade thrown at a cinema in the central Somali town of Baidoa has killed five people and injured nine. Eyewitnesses say the video hall, known to have shown films that have had naked scenes, was packed with people.
…………….
Correspondents say the motive for the attack in Baidoa on Thursday night is not yet known. But residents in the area had complained to the cinema owner because some of the films being screened had scenes of nudity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6755669.stm
It appears that the BBCs correspondent in Somalia is so love struck over the goat next door. (Bahhh-locks) that he is unable to recount this little story from 11 months ago;
Somali World Cup viewers killed
Two people are reported dead after Islamist gunmen in central Somalia opened fire in a cinema where people were watching a banned World Cup match.
……………
The introduction of Islamic law, or Sharia, has included in some areas a ban on cinemas and on broadcasts of World Cup games because they have carried advertisements for alcohol.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/5150118.stm
Motive not yet known, what next from the BBC?
pounce:
do you in the same breath berate the people who say that 9/11 was an inside job, that the London Tube bombings were MI5 led, that Kelly was murdered and that the attack on the USS liberty (1967) was an attempt by American intelligence in which to blame Egypt for the 6 day war. The funny thing is, all of the latter are given credence by the BBC and the rest of the Ethical Latte Mob.
Really? When?
.
BBC bias, what BBC bias?
Can the war in Afghanistan be won?
The BBC begins a week of in-depth coverage of Afghanistan by asking its World Affairs editor, John Simpson, to consider if the Afghan government and the West can win the war against the Taleban.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6756125.stm
I see the author of the BBC misguided criminals article (Instead of terrorists) is up to his old tricks of defending his illogical masters. (Allah be praised) so what has the BBC got to say today about the situation in Afghanistan;
“The Taleban have new confidence and new tactics, and their campaign against the government and its Nato backers has been increasingly successful since the beginning of this year.”
Really, And I suppose the thousands of terrorists (Not Misguided criminals BBC, but terrorists) who have died as NATO have taken the fight to the hills hasn’t made an impact of those the BBC staff drool about as they raise their backsides for their Islamic masters. As a consequence of that kicking the Taliban (Sorry misguided criminals) have to resort to high profile attacks on soft targets. So Girls get shot, Teachers get beheaded and markets gets blown up. That doesn’t count as a terrorist major offensive BBC, it is the act of trying to gain as much publicity as possible in which to win the hearts of minds of the electorate in the west.(which at a stroke tells you the Taliban can’t win by arms alone) An act the BBC is more than happy to promote.
“With Nato troops mostly tied up in the southern part of the country, the Afghan police and army are finding it harder to operate elsewhere.
Really, tied up in the south of the country BBC? Here is the NATO map of Afghanistan with troop deployments;
Click to access placemat_isaf.pdf
What the BBC fails to remind the reader yet again is that the violence in the country is found mainly on the border with Pakistan. (Something about the Pushto clan springs to mind) The initial deployment of NATO troops secured the north and Western parts and more stable of Afghanistan first. Once that had transpired NATO pushed into the South in which to take on the Taliban in their own backyard. (Which is depicted in the second picture from the NATO site.) Yet the BBC insists all the troops are in the south leaving the rest of the country ripe for attack.
The BBC and how it promotes the Walter Cronkite effect for the worlds terrorists.
The (lack of) impartiality report is now available:
Press Release:
BBC publishes report on safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century
Report:
From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel
Appendices include a transcript of the infamous, allegedly “streamed live on the web” impartiality seminar.
BBC bias, what BBC bias?
Can the war in Afghanistan be won?
The BBC begins a week of in-depth coverage of Afghanistan by asking its World Affairs editor, John Simpson, to consider if the Afghan government and the West can win the war against the Taleban.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6756125.stm
I see the author of the BBC misguided criminals article (Instead of terrorists) is up to his old tricks of defending his illogical masters. (Allah be praised) so what has the BBC got to say today about the situation in Afghanistan;
“The Taleban have new confidence and new tactics, and their campaign against the government and its Nato backers has been increasingly successful since the beginning of this year.”
Really, And I suppose the thousands of terrorists (Not Misguided criminals BBC, but terrorists) who have died as NATO have taken the fight to the hills hasn’t made an impact of those the BBC staff drool about as they raise their backsides for their Islamic masters. As a consequence of that kicking the Taliban (Sorry misguided criminals) have to resort to high profile attacks on soft targets. So Girls get shot, Teachers get beheaded and markets gets blown up. That doesn’t count as a terrorist major offensive BBC, it is the act of trying to gain as much publicity as possible in which to win the hearts of minds of the electorate in the west.(which at a stroke tells you the Taliban can’t win by arms alone) An act the BBC is more than happy to promote.
“With Nato troops mostly tied up in the southern part of the country, the Afghan police and army are finding it harder to operate elsewhere.
Really, tied up in the south of the country BBC? Here is the NATO map of Afghanistan with troop deployments;
Click to access placemat_isaf.pdf
What the BBC fails to remind the reader yet again is that the violence in the country is found mainly on the border with Pakistan. (Something about the Pushto clan springs to mind) The initial deployment of NATO troops secured the north and Western parts and more stable of Afghanistan first. Once that had transpired NATO pushed into the South in which to take on the Taliban in their own backyard. (Which is depicted in the second picture from the NATO site.) Yet the BBC insists all the troops are in the south leaving the rest of the country ripe for attack.
The BBC and how it promotes the Walter Cronkite effect for the worlds terrorists.
The BBC has a lengthy and comprehensive article which discusses the various aspects of the official bias report here (under ‘entertainment’, natch):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6763205.stm
John Whittingdale, Tory chairman of the culture, media and sport select committee, added:
“The bias is not necessarily party political – it is the BBC view of the world, and the BBC has…..
…always found it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world.”
hillhunt and the bbc,great minds think alike (sic)
The BBC has a lengthy and comprehensive article which discusses the various aspects of the official bias report…
Great comment 🙂
The licence fee keeps this country’s major cultural asset at arms length from Government and from the commercial pressures which so disfigure Murdoch’s output and which have driven ITV and Channel 4 to squandering so much of their public-service broadcasting.
hillhunt | 18.06.07 – 12:55 am
Fanboy is a term used to describe an individual (usually male, though the feminine version fangirl may be used for females) who is utterly devoted to a single fannish subject, or to a single point of view within that subject, often to the point where it is considered an obsession.
they left out fawning sycophant…
Jonathan Boyd Hunt | Homepage | 18.06.07 – 7:34 am,
It’s the old pickpocket artists’ trick: while one distracts you by jostling you, the other lifts your wallet. This “report” makes a huge deal out of relatively harmless BBC bias while the serious stuff is brushed under the carpet.
And I would trust Mark Byford and Helen Boaden to be impartial (or even know what impartiality is) as far as I could throw them.
Byford was immensely proud of the BBC’s fawning over the Taleban and Boaden defended Barbara Plett over her tears for Arafat.
BBC web page coverage of the Falklands commemoration
’Other guests at Horse Guards Parade included Prime Minister Tony Blair, Prince Charles, Defence Secretary Des Browne and Baroness Thatcher, who was prime minister at the time of the conflict’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6760597.stm
Have they missed anything out? Oh yes this bit:
’But it was Baroness Thatcher who commanded the only ovation during the arrival of the VIPs. She chatted for some time with a smiling Prime Minister, who had been greeted rather less rapturously. It illustrated the capricious nature of power: ‘her’ war had gone well. ‘His’ wars, less so.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UM4WUJEU4SI0RQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/06/18/nfalks118.xml
Former paratroopers cheered Baroness Thatcher.
The BBC still can’t get over it can they. Still when you have slug friends like this you’ll always be biased. Just like the BBC’s own report says.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,2102797,00.html
pounce
Ref the case of the ‘Captured’ BBC reporter. Am I the only one thinking along the lines that Hamas’s preemptive attack on Fatah. (How comes the BBC only reports on the IDF of having a vastly superior armed army and not ‘Hamas’.) Was planned a long-time ago.
you arent the only one … i’ve been trying to make it known that the violence daily served to us by the BBC and others is not random its highly choreographed. Hamas and inceasingly all Jihadi groups are trying to alter the facts on their respective battlefields through TV propaganda …. the prime example was Hezbollah’s highly sophisticated propaganda drive in the Lebanon 2006 War
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/corruption-of-media.html
… Hezbollah isnt the only terrorist organisation that Reuters, AP & MSM collaborate with …. Hamas & MSM also work hand in hand.
http://www.snappedshot.com/archives/941-A-Kinder,-Gentler-Jihad-Bumped.html
Hey it’s only what I’m thinking. But something tells me, the kidnapping of Johnson was nothing more than a publicity stunt .
also its important to consider the “kidnapping” in the context of all the recently reported incidents involving reporters in Gaza, … just a few recent examples
(1) increased kidnappings … FOX team
(2) threats to women journalists
(3) Attack on Erez Checkpoint by a Jeep Camoflaged as a Reuters TV Vehicle
there is a pattern to this and the activity is not just down to a Gangster Clan (Dagmooush) as the MSM are trying to portray …
THeir is an active movement to promote Hamas to us by raising the spectre of a fledgling Islamic Jihadi movements in Gaza, … two of the organisations promoting this view are
PROSPECTS FOR PEACE
http://www.prospectsforpeace.com/2007/05/losing_palestine_to_alqaeda.html
FORWARD THINKING
http://www.forwardthinking.org/aboutus-team.html
These organisations arent your regular left wing political nuts like the SWP … as I have posted before whats different now is that the advocates of Hamas are a part of the Western Security apparatus …
In short there is a sinister effort to reach out and work with Islamic extreamists and de-legitimise the moderates throughout the Middle East … the BBC is at the forefront of this effort … its therefore very difficult to judge the extent of the collaboration currently underway between the BBC and Hamas … but be in no doubt they are working hand in hand to mis-represent the reality of Gaza …
bijan:
its therefore very difficult to judge the extent of the collaboration currently underway between the BBC and Hamas … but be in no doubt they are working hand in hand to mis-represent the reality of Gaza …
No, it’s not difficult to judge.
There is none. And only a fruitcake would suggest otherwise.
Bijan: David Icke. Without the charm.
HOW THE MSM STAGES HAMAS & AL AQSA PRESS CONFERENCES
This “Army of Islam” interview was staged yesterday
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6760000/newsid_6762000/6762087.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm
before you get too taken in by it have a look at the long list of Hamas and Al Aqsa front organisations giving press interviews (although I think you wont be seeing to many Al Aqsa press conferences from Gaza in the near future)
http://www.snappedshot.com/categories/21-Thug-Conferences
If you look closely at the Army of Islam uniforms and equipment you’ll notice a striking similarity with those worn by Hamas … in fact the only difference being the bandana which reads Army of Islam not Hamas … now how long does it take to change a bandana????
“But then I did say it was my own thoughts and if you wish to lump me in with the conspiracy nuts, then do you in the same breath berate the people who say that 9/11 was an inside job, that the London Tube bombings were MI5 led, that Kelly was murdered and that the attack on the USS liberty (1967) was an attempt by American intelligence in which to blame Egypt for the 6 day war.”
er… yeah. obviously.
The BBC and its hatred of the US;
as posted in NYC
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1312/546585419_bd7a8d5f28_b.jpg
and as reported on BBC editors.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/06/live_in_new_york_city.html
Glad to see there is now a link to the actual report, which is very good: open, honest and very interesting.
Bryan, you are wrong about Helen Boaden and Barbara Plett. Helen Boaden actually said that Plett’s FOOC on Arafat was an error of judgement.
That BBC report:
This extract below betrays it is exactly what we all suspected – a cynical dishonest attempt to justify the BBC’s biased news reports. I quote from Page 39:
When David Loyn reported for Newsnight in October 2006 from inside the stronghold of the Taliban in Afghanistan, questions were asked in Parliament about the BBC’s ‘unalloyed propaganda’ for Britain’s enemies. Loyn’s straightforward report was justified by the requirement of impartiality to explore the Taliban’s motivation, although (as the Falklands War and Northern Ireland have demonstrated) impartiality becomes particularly controversial when the lives of British servicemen and women are at stake in one side of the fighting.
There is, in fact, no such requirement at all. The BBC’s contention that there is, is a deliberate, cynical lie.
In this new report the BBC admits that bias can be effected by omission. Well, the report itself is shown to be guilty of gross omission, and therefore is itself proved to be another manifestation of BBC bias, for Loyn’s sympathetic Taliban dispatch wasn’t just criticised in the British parliament, it was criticised heavily by the Afghans themselves, which is far more relevant, as the BBC well knows • for BBC monitoring at Caversham Park picked up and reported it.
This is what BBC Monitoring reported the Afghan paper Weesa saying in direct response to Loyn’s cheerful Taliban travelogue:
BBC radio [as published] recently interviewed the Taleban spokesman, Mohammad Hanif. Some of the aspects of this interview are noteworthy because of their effects on the nation.
First of all, Mohammad Hanif’s words and reasoning obviously show that today, our nation is not confronting the previous simple Taleban. They are facing a new political movement which brings international experience of terror, such as suicide attacks, to Afghanistan. They are very different from the past in terms of tactics. They are now emerging as a mysterious movement whose threat is evident in advance.
Besides this, we do not know why the international media and an international media outlet like the BBC should act as a platform for such a dangerous movement to carry out their propaganda campaign.
The question is, if the Taleban, Al-Qa’idah and their supporters are terrorists, and if their power and strength will be dangerous for Afghanistan and the rest of the world, then why should they be promoted by the media in this way? Does this not foster the growth and development of terrorism?
Afghan Tolo TV also discussed the letters and Id congratulatory messages of Mullah Mohammad Omar, Golboddin Hekmatyar and President Karzai in one of its programmes last night. This has the same negative effects on the Afghan nation as Mohammad Hanif’s interview with the BBC.
Isn’t this an intentional attempt to recognize and to give prestige to those opponents who are on the one hand pursued by the whole world and are known as leaders of terrorism who turned our country into a cave of death in the process of chasing them while they, on the other hand, rank in the media on the same level as those elected by public vote?
If there are no rules or regulations for freedom of speech, the media and democracy, and if the field is open to all, then this means that freedom of speech and democracy has turned into a strange drama.
We do not say that the media, especially free and independent media outlets, should be the voice of the government. We also do not say that power should be dominant and the media should be its voice, but there have to be some rules and regulations to differentiate legal and illegal movements and deeds. Do not allow dangerous forces to penetrate the nation and become more dangerous. It is not only the right of our war-torn society, but it is the right of all of humanity for the media to avoid broadcasting the messages of terrorism. If this is not observed, the nations of the world will be blown away by the fight between terrorism and antiterror forces. The more the media ranks both sides the same, the more national mentalities will change and finally the limits of which side is legal and which is illegal will be lost, which will be a giant disaster for humanity.
(c) 2006 BBC Monitoring South Asia. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.
Only yesterday the psychopaths whose motivation the BBC “attempted to explain” slaughtered 35 policemen. No doubt their lovers, wives, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, mothers and fathers will be gratified upon learning that the killers’ morale had been bolstered by good old Auntie’s perverse interpretation of its legal obligations under Her Majesty’s Royal Charter.
Think about this: The BBC World Service is financed by the Foreign Office. So, here we have one arm of the UK government financing the international broadcasting of enemy-morale-boosting-propaganda which another arm of the UK government is spending zillions, and British servicemen laying down their lives, to defeat.
And yet, in its new impartiality report, the pompous, arrogant, we-know-better BBC defends this fucked-up Orwellian doublethink with reference to a legal requirement that doesn’t actually exist, for fuck’s sake. The sooner the whole bloody rabble is broken up and sold off the better for the peoples of the U.K., Afghanistan, Iraq, the U.S., Israel, and anyone who doesn’t actually aspire to murder and bloody mayhem.
The BBC’s own online account of the report is in itself an example of the problem.
The main example it gives is of a new computerised weather map which overemphasises the south-east.
The, apart from quoting Mark Byford on a duty to report alternative viewpoints “no matter how unpleasant they may be” it sidesteps around the issue.
BWood
The BBC’s own online account of the report is in itself an example of the problem.
The main example it gives is of a new computerised weather map which overemphasises the south-east.
The, apart from quoting Mark Byford on a duty to report alternative viewpoints “no matter how unpleasant they may be” it sidesteps around the issue.
Its MisDirection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdirection
Hillhunt,
One step at a time then.
Do you think there is any bias in the Radio 4 “comedies” ?
More on MisDirection
http://www.leirpoll.com/misdirection/misdirection.htm
Paul Daniels would have been proud …
jbh qc:
The sooner the whole bloody rabble is broken up and sold off the better for the peoples of the U.K., Afghanistan, Iraq, the U.S., Israel, and anyone who doesn’t actually aspire to murder and bloody mayhem.
Just remind us. Who, apart from God-deluded Jihadis and their Millenialist equivalents actually aspire to murder and bloody mayhem?
And what do they have to do with the governance of the BBC?
Another thing about the BBC weather map, there is frequently nothing at all between Newcastle and Birmingham. Apparently, those of us in Yorkshire and Lancashire don`t count. (But our license fee does!)
Robin:
One step at a time then.
Do you think there is any bias in the Radio 4 “comedies” ?
Give us a break. There’s hours of the stuff to take in. Came across Uncle Mort’s North Country and couldn’t get past it because it was so damn funny. Wonderfully unflattering sideswipe at Arthur Scargill, too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm
Click on “Any questions?
If you could ask anyone a question, what would it be?”
Mmmmmm who is that in the picture al-beeb