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.
Katya G Hardy | 28.06.07 – 2:11 am
Bravo! :+:
Nick Reynolds (BBC):
“Perhaps you would prefer this?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/asia_pacific/2004/china/default.stm
I’ll take a full look through later tonight after work, but for now I’ve only been able to read the main article of that “In Depth” coverage:
Guide to modern China
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/china_modern/html/1.stm
Nowhere in the seven pages is any mention made of human rights abuses in China; not even of the lack of democracy there. Indeed, it’s only an aside in the page on the economy that there’s any mention at all of the political structure in that country.
Perhaps you’d like to comment on that, Nick?
.
Nick the person TPO is talking about also described the current DG as a “headbanger”. And famously went to CNN. But TPO has given the biggest clue already to be honest.
He left yonks ago.
So he no longer works for the BBC any more? Then there’s no problem is there?
PJF – if you look at the other link seach results you will see lots of other BBC material on human rights abuses in China.
PS Loved the red umbrella with BBC News on it that Ed Balls was given to shield himself from rain at 6pm tonight. I wonder if there are any blue BBC News ones….
😎
dave t
“I’ve got one. It’s a bit flimsy in really high wind though. David G (BBC)”
LOL 8-0 Like umbrella like NuTories!
‘if you have any concrete examples of where a BBC reporter has deliberately falsified a report I would like to know about them. Email me if you don’t want to post them on this board.
Nick Reynolds (BBC)’
Personally, Nick, I think that the persistently skewed tone of much BBC reporting is not wilful, but the result of the institutional culture of the BBC which is now so reflexive that most BBC employees simply can’t see it. It’s glaringly obvious to people who don’t share the BBC world view, which, according to your own internal report, is rather a lot of your license fee payers.
However, I think that there are those on your editorial teams who are still capable of ‘cooking the books’
How about this widely reported example from the second Gulf War ….
‘Paul Adams, the BBC’s own defense correspondent in Qatar, fired off a memo to his bosses: “I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering ‘significant casualties.’ This is simply NOT TRUE.” He went on to ask, “Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving ‘small victories at a very high price?’ The truth is exactly the opposite. The gains are huge and costs still relatively low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected.”
“…if you look at the other link seach results you will see lots of other BBC material on human rights abuses in China.”
Nick, I went through 20 pages (200 links) of your first search-results-link and found just four mentions, however tangental, of human rights abuses by China dating from the last year. By far the majority of the China-abuse reports dated from before 2001 – hence my joke above.
The BBC currently doesn’t seem very active covering this aspect of the second most powerful nation on Earth.
The comparison to coverage of Israel is interesting.
.
Oh now come on everyone, we’ve all had a drink! Nick Reynolds is here as BBC bouncer to clear the rabble from the doorway.
Sober on the truth, as always, only he can see how inebriated you are on the cocktail of lies.
The BBC isn’t biased, because he says so. So off you go. And if THAT isn’t proof of how truly unbiased the BBC are then I don’t know what is: A company man giving his most objective opinion about the company that owns him. QED.
I despair with you lot I really do. There’s Nick going about his casual business of subconsciously aiding the Islamification of the UK, putting your freedom, your liberties, your family and your entire futures at risk. Placing his own public schoolboy politics, middle class guilt and contempt for western values first. And what do you do to repay him? Argue with him. A BBC man at that!
Seriously, what you lot need to do is see things from his point of view for once. Or twice. Well permanently in fact. What else is he HERE for?!
Well I didn’t go to public school for a start. How do you know what class I am ? And I don’t think I show “contempt for western values”, whatever that may mean.
I have been called many things including “Deputy Dawg”, (although I prefer Mr Magoo), but never a bouncer before.
As I said above I start from the position that the BBC is required to be impartial. I want to know whether we are living up to that. Which is why I am here.
@Nick Reynolds: “As I said above I start from the position that the BBC is required to be impartial. I want to know whether we are living up to that. Which is why I am here.”
Great. If the BBC is going back to its 70s vision of brutal impartiality where an Argentinian facist dictatorship is given exactly the same treatment as the UK government, and no moral judgement is made, then that is fine by me.
If that is so then perhaps the BBC can live up to this brutal impartiality by agreeing that Israel/Palestine does not actually deserve any more TV coverage than the other 193 nations.
anti-MMGW deserves exactly the same brutal impartiality as pro-MMGW.
Those that attack Richard Dawkins deserve exactly the same treatment and air time as he gets himself.
Getting my drift? Or do you have another vision for impartiality that perhaps we can agree on?
I doubt if we’ll ever agree. How about just “impartiality”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/editorialvalues/impartialitydiv.shtml
“We strive to be fair and open minded and reflect all significant strands of opinion by exploring the range and conflict of views. We will be objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. We will provide professional judgments where appropriate, but we will never promote a particular view on controversial matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.”
Good. Sounds like exactly the kind of thing I would like to see. Let me know when you make a start on this and we will see if there is any improvement.
Nick
How about responding to my example of editorial falsifying which made Paul Adams so hot under the collar?
This was not deliberate editorial falsifying – it was an error of editorial judgement.
Cottage in Scotland
http://www.cottage-inscotland.com/