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.
PIMF: “far better”, not “fat better”
A simple “I suppose not” would have sufficed.
One further thing: these angels, who prefer truth. Which truth do they prefer? For example do they prefer the truth about Israeli crimes, which we hear a lot about from the BBC, to the truth about Palestinian terrorism against the Israelis, of which we hear somewhat less? Do they prefer truth about apparently racist e-mails from non-descript Tory councillors of whom no-one had heard – until it was plastered all over the BBC for days, that is; to the truth about the two Trevors (Phillips with his Queen faux-pas and McDonald with his anti-white “racism”), of which we’ve heard precious little? The disgusting murder of Anthony Walker (accessible to all areas of the BBC), or the equally disgusting murder of Kris Donald (accessible to anyone skilful enough to negotiate to the Scotland page, ages 15-19 section)?
You may be right about Pounce’s comments (though there are several hundred other examples of BBC bias unearthed by Pounce that you have been strangely silent over). But just because the BBC does not lie does not mean that it furnishes us with the truth. As well you know.
“And yes, why was the 10 o’clock news OB covering the floods from somewhere that did not appear to be actually flooded?
D Burbage”
I didn’t see last night’s Ten, but I can check the running order.
It started with a package on what was going on in Yorkshire. Then moved on to a package looking at the dramatic helicopter rescues in Sheffield. Finally there was a live in Tenbury Wells where there was a round-up of what was happening in Worcestershire.
Working on Midlands Today I know we haven’t had a nearly collapsed damn, but Worcsestershire has had a bridge washed away and a man has been missing for 24 hours along with plenty of submerged houses and workplaces.
Looks like a pretty comprehensive round-up to me.
(As a veteran of flooding stories you do have to be careful with lives. Once it’s dark you need to be cautious around the water and sometimes late at night some locals can be a bit frisky. All these factors can combine so you can’t always get to the location you want. I once had to move from beside a river because the local kids were hanging off the bridge over the raging River Severn to get a better view of our sat truck)
But just because the BBC does not lie does not mean that it furnishes us with the truth. As well you know.
Heron | 26.06.07 – 3:44 pm |
the trick the bbc have always played is news by ommission…
Jonathan (Cambridge):
True, if you accept that the market’s tendency to the lowest common denominator is the only possibility.
Trouble is that the BBC (and because of its standards, Channel 4 and ITV can contribute, too) dominates the national discourse and not just in news, but in many other areas as well.
We can dispute the precise fairness and impartiality of the BBC, but its strength is that it is not driven by a need only to target those audiences its shareholders most value. ITV and Channel 4 have no interest, at all, in serving people over 55. Almost no advertiser wants them. The BBC does. Ditto pre-schoolers, and many other unattractive marketing demographics.
Fact is, the overwhelming majority of people use the BBC regularly, value it and use it as a model to judge its rivals. Parliament knows that and does not demur when renewing the licence.
The sums involved are trivial, and yes, they impact worse on the poor…as do most purchase taxes, because living costs make up a higher proportion of poor people’s income than others’.
If a tipping point arises and people stop valuing the BBC and are prepared to pay through the nose (look at Sky’s subscription costs) for the same services – because advertising-dominated services will increasingly aim for yoof – then the world will change.
But I suspect that won’t be for a while….
“1. Almost nobody in the commercial broadcasting sector would want the BBC privatised. The BBC would suck so much advertising/sponsorship/subscription revenue out of the market, several others woud go under. What would that do for choice?”
It is likely to be broken up first. Most other companies do not do their own program making these days, so the program making will be split off. This will answer one of the main criticisms from the private sector, that the Beeb dominates the programming and prevents access to programmes by competitors. The best bits might be bought buy the likes of Discovery Channel. The rest is “me-too” product like game shows which probably wouldn’t survive.
“2. Assuming it would reduce Government pressure is a big If … but it would inevitably lead to extra pressures. ”
Gordon Brown is very close to Rubert Murdoch. I should imagine it would reduce government pressure greatly!
“3. The competition for revenue would force naked populism to replace width and quality – just look at the blandness of American mainstream TV. Many valued services would disappear as the advertisers demanded they emphasise the key buying markets, of which the 16-34 year-olds are by far the most desirable. Yoof TV anyone?”
The BBC already does a lot of populist programming. It invented Yoof TV (Janet Street-Porter and the 5 minute attention span).
There is plenty of choice on digital TV.
“4. It would potentially leave the BBC open to equally insidious pressure from advertisers, threatening the BBC’s unique championing of consumer issues. When did ITV, Channel 4 or Sky last broadcast a consumer series willing to take on big business on behalf of the ordinary viewer?”
This one is actually pretty bad. The BBC’s Watchdog has actually put people out of work thanks to its tendency to take minor customer relationship molehills and build them up into great mountains. It is not the BBCs job. We have a variety of legal mechanisms for consumers to seek redress from retailers etc. BBC News can report if they are successful….
“5. Look what has happened as competition has bitten hard at ITV, Channel 4 and others. More me-too reality shows, greedy quizzes, tabloid journalism and much, much less regional programming.”
Me-too shows? You mean, similar to the ones the BBC does? Eastenders = Coronation Street, Weakest Link = WWTBAM? Fame Academy = X Factor?
Regional programming? Nationwide stopped a long time ago…..
“6. When did we last see a major UK media company run by an enlightened, hands-off owner? Maxwell and the Mirror? Conrad Black? Richard Desmond? Carlton TV? The Barclay Brothers? You really prefer people like these to the BBC?”
Yes, because I can choose which to watch and pay for. And since when was the BBC run by enlightened hands-off people?
“7. Take Murdoch: The coarsening of tabloid culture, cheque-book journalism, sleazeballs like Clive Goodman and Mahzer Mahmood, kow-towing to China, overdue influence on politicians, tax avoidance and the corrupting of professional sport. Fancy him in charge of the Beeb?”
I don’t buy the Sun or the Times and the guy will soon be shuffling off this mortal coil. Your point is?
You are quite good at attacking Pounce, but not nearly so good at sticking up for what you believe in.
Further to David Gregory (BBC)’s comments, I did see the 10 o’clock news last night and the OB was the Tenbury Wells bit – and D Burbage is being a touch disingenuous – no, the place hadn’t actually flooded, but the water was up to the top of the bridge arches and had submerged two islands in the river. And besides, the point was that the river was rising and the fears of the residents was that if it reached the top of a ramp the banks would burst and cause massive damage and flooding. A pretty good demonstration of the fears of many throughout the country, I’d imagine.
The BBC and Not The Nine O/Clock News
Taliban tricked me into wearing bomb, boy says
The story of a 6-year-old Afghan boy who says he thwarted an effort by Taliban militants to trick him into being a suicide bomber provoked tears and anger at a meeting of tribal leaders.The account from Juma Gul, a dirt-caked child who collects scrap metal for money, left American soldiers dumbfounded that a youngster could be sent on such a mission. Afghan troops crowded around the boy to call him a hero.
http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070625/070625_afghanboy_hmed_3p.hmedium.jpg
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,5540909,00.jpg
Taken from this media outlet
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19420772/
This outlet
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0700world/tm_headline=horror-at–taliban-suicide-bomber—six%26method=full%26objectid=19356817%26siteid=50082-name_page.html
This outlet
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=464441&in_page_id=1811&ito=newsnow
This outlet
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-25-afghan-boy-bomber_N.htm
This outlet;
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3314347
This outlet
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21970147-1702,00.html
But not this news media outlet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/default.stm
The BBC and Not The Nine O/Clock News
Look Forward to Anger
It’s impossible to satisfy “Rage Boy” and his ilk. It’s stupid to try.
http://www.slate.com/id/2169020/
“The Spectator” was vastly more entertaining when Conrad Black owned it.
Can someone tell me what HH means by “enlightened”? He comes over as the most hidebound gliberal imaginable, so presumably it just means someone who agrees with him and who he’s therefore prepared to tolerate.
“What would you call fantasisng about a military coup in a democracy? Enlightened?” (sic)
The case for a coup:
1. One third of all households primary source of income is welfare.
2. The NHS routinely interferes with the personal liberty of its captives. i.e. it sucks your money through out your life and culls you when you get past age 65 (55 if you’re female) or are deemed ‘medically’ unfit to live.
2a. Psychiatry, and compulsory NHS psychiatry masks psychic pain, damages brains and generally ruins lives, particulary the lives of the psychotic.
3. Compulsory comprehensive education intends to destroy the intellect itself and produce demotivated psychological cripples and demoralised criminals. (Chavs)
4. The BBC/Guardian axis apologises for genocidal maniacs and indoctrinates children (see above).
5. The prisons are full and require massive expansion not early release of prisoners.
As for democracy, it doesn’t exist anyway, the Liberals destroy it by depriving liberty; cheifly financial liberty. They would be lost without that hollow sham of a Tory party pretending to be an opposition; they would no longer be able to pretend this is a democracy with competing ideas.
Democracy is dubiety, and if we had any doubts – if a single thought were to cross our minds – we would no longer continue on this path.
Democracy demands mediocrity,
Principals demand power,
Liberty demands action!
I’m off to lift some weights and listen to Rammstein.
ITV and Channel 4 have no interest, at all, in serving people over 55. Almost no advertiser wants them. The BBC does. Ditto pre-schoolers, and many other unattractive marketing demographics.
hillhunt | 26.06.07 – 3:56 pm
channel 4 maybe,but your talking absolute bollocks including itv in that.
The six-year-old suicide bomber ‘sent by Taliban to blow up Americans’:
The story of a 6-year-old Afghan boy who says he thwarted an effort by Taliban militants to trick him into being a suicide bomber provoked tears and anger at a meeting of tribal leaders.
Haji Niaz Mohammad, one of the elders at the gathering, said he hoped “God makes the Afghan government strong” so it can defeat the Taliban.
“They are the enemy of Muslims and the enemy of the children,” he said, shaking his fists in anger.
Photos.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=464441&in_page_id=1811
Ultraviolets:
Thanks for that. It’ll make an excellent warning for all thos who come here expecting a reasoned debate.
To say nothing about a respect for the rest of humanity.
Biased BBC: We Could Be Heroes. Just For One Day.
The BBC and Not The Nine O/Clock News (Part 1)
Hamas, Clan Rivalries, and Alan Johnston’s Dangerous Predicament
(Long but an interesting read)
BBC reporter Alan Johnston has been held prisoner in Gaza for 105 days, kidnapped by a militia hostile to Hamas. Liberating Johnston would improve Hamas’ image. But an offensive could also cost Johnston his life. For a week in Gaza City, there was calm. The occasional car horn blared. The waves of the Mediterranean crashed on the shore. Every now and then the cry of a muezzin would pierce through the hum of everyday life. Until Sunday. Then, once again, volleys of machine gun fire hammered through the streets along with the dull thuds of grenade launchers and mortars.
A family feud was underway: the Deraui clan against the Dagmoush clan. Having lost two sons to their rivals, the Derauis were assaulting the Sabra neighborhood, where the Dagmoushes had dug in behind sandbags and barricades. But there was more to it than just that. The skirmishes were the prelude to the liberation-by-force of kidnapped BBC reporter Alan Johnston (more…), who has been held by the Dagmoush-controlled Army of Islam for three months, according to people familiar with Gaza City.
It’s an open secret in Gaza City that the Dagmoush clan — called the “Sopranos of Gaza City,” an allusion to the US television series — is holding Johnston. Still, everyone who has something to say about the kidnapping prefers to remain anonymous: The clan’s influence is too great for anyone to want to provoke its anger. Still a surprisingly detailed picture emerges from conversations with various sources. What results is the panorama of a strip of land fought over by rival clans — the setting for dramas whose ruthlessness and brutality remind one of the Montague and Capulet families in Shakespeare’s play “Romeo and Juliet.”
Simply put, the Dagmoush operates in the best tradition of the cosa nostra. The family numbers some 2,500 members, making it one of the smaller clans in Gaza, where people can sometimes have as many as 5,000 or even 7,000 people in their extended families. What makes the Dagmoush clan so dangerous is its cohesion and enormous arsenal of weapons.
The members of the Dagmoush clan were ordinary and not especially wealthy people until the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 1994. They operated a donkey-cart delivery service, transporting food and building supplies through Gaza City. They smuggled cigarettes and drugs across the Egyptian border and into the Gaza Strip on the side. Their well-developed network of smugglers, coupled with close personal contacts to Fatah, eventually allowed them to enter the profitable arms trade. That was the foundation for their empire. Eventually the Dagmoush clan began making huge amounts of money in construction. A single clan member owns 20 of the most luxurious apartment blocks in Gaza City. “He’s my landlord,” says one source.
The BBC and Not The Nine O/Clock News (Part 2)
Pro-Dollar, Not Pro-Islam
Mumtaz Dagmoush is the clan’s godfather. He earned his credentials as a militia leader during the second Intifada, from 2000 onward, as the strategist of the Public Resistance Committee (PRC), half of which is close to Hamas. But he was not rewarded by Hamas when the time came to replace the PRC’s slain leader.
That was when the disappointed leader created his own militia, the Army of Islam, with the blessing of Hamas, according to a source close to the Palestinian intelligence service. The militia is said to consist almost exclusively of Dagmoush clan members. It is also said to pursue criminal rather than religious or political goals. The Army of Islam made its first appearance with the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit one year ago. The Army of Islam, Hamas and the PRC said at the time that they had planned and executed the kidnapping together.
The final split between Mumtaz Dagmoush and Hamas came a few weeks later, in August of 2006. Dagmoush’s Army of Islam kidnapped two journalists from the US network Fox News. After a two-week hostage drama, the militia received a ransom of between $450,000 and $1.2 million, according to rumors. “It goes to show they’re not pro-Islam: They’re pro-dollar,” says one source.
Hamas was eager to show that it could maintain law and order in Gaza — but the Dagmoush clan caused it to lose face, according to the source. Mumtaz Dagmoush and his men had to steer clear of Hamas from then on. Tensions increased even further when the Dagmoush clan used force of arms to try and prevent Hamas from setting up a headquarters in a Dagmoush-controlled neighborhood. Two Dagmoush clan members were killed in the fighting — and the clan quickly avenged them. Mu’zad Dagmoush, Mumtaz’s brother, has been wanted for the murder of a Hamas fighter ever since. “There’s not enough room in Gaza for both the Dagmoush clan and Hamas,” says the source.
When Alan Johnston stepped out of the building in central Gaza City where the BBC and half a dozen other media are based on the afternoon of March 12, he was abducted before he could climb into his armored BBC vehicle. He was most likely taken to Sabra, a Dagmoush stronghold just south of the city center.
The BBC and Not The Nine O/Clock News (Part 3)
Johnston has been a kind of life insurance policy for the Dagmoush clan ever since. Hamas cannot afford the death of a foreign journalist in “Hamastan,” which it has supposedly pacified, and Dagmoush has threatened to kill Johnston if attacked.
Local journalists in Gaza see the Army of Islam’s demand for the release of an Islamic hate preacher close to al-Qaida, imprisoned in Britain, as little more than a pretext. “Maybe they were even paid by al-Qaida to formulate this demand,” one journalist says.
It is much easier to see the handwriting of the clan in the other demands the clan has made, according to the source. “There are indications that they have demanded $5 million and a large piece of real estate from the former Jewish settlements on Gaza’s Mediterranean coast,” he says.
In the past few days, Hamas members have reported that their Islamic militia is in the process of tightening the noose around the Dagmoush stronghold. A battle is approaching, they say. The members of the Dagmoush clan know they have surrendered their right to live, Hamas sources say.
They are convinced the Dagmoush clan will not release the British journalist voluntarily. “When he’s free, they’re finished,” one Hamas source says. Hamas is currently trying to discover Johnston’s exact location — by offering informants safety guarantees and money. They are hoping to avoid a bloodbath by means of a targeted operation to free the journalist. “They’re trying to find the one who wants to save their skin,” the Hamas source says.
Prelude to the Final Battle
The Deraui clan’s attack on the Dagmoush clan is the prelude to the final battle, according to sources in Gaza City on Sunday. It is considered certain that the Deraui clan — which has had a score to settle with its rival clan ever since two of its members were killed by Dagmoush men — was sent ahead by Hamas in order to increase the pressure on the kidnappers.
The tactic seems to have had an effect — but not the one hoped for. Instead of offering a cease-fire and releasing the BBC journalist, the clan has prepared for a showdown battle, which one of the two sides — presumably the Dagmoush clan — will not survive. The video released on Sunday evening, which shows a frightened Johnston wearing an alleged bomb belt, is a sign that the kidnappers are increasingly desperate.
The skirmishes had died down again on Monday morning, but nevertheless the hope of a peaceful solution is dwindling. “The positions on both sides are hardening. Hamas will never forgive the Dagmoush clan,” says a source close to Hamas. The chances that Johnston will survive a violent liberation attempt are getting slimmer and slimmer. “The bomb belt shows the Dagmoush clan stops at nothing.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,490602,00.html
Ryan:
“1. (The BBC) is likely to be broken up first.
Doesn’t matter whether it remains as one entity or many – fact is large parts of it have a strong reputation and would require cash from the market, seriously diluting everyone else’s income.
“2. Gordon Brown is very close to Rubert Murdoch. I should imagine it would reduce government pressure greatly!
Er, no. Murdoch himself is unlikely to be handed the whole shooting match. And he’d make sure his allies kept gunning for whatever the BBC becomes.
“3. The BBC already does a lot of populist programming. It invented Yoof TV (Janet Street-Porter and the 5 minute attention span).
No, Janet started that at LWT. Point is it’s not the BBC’s guiding light. Read the ITV, Channel 4 and Sky producer guides. They tell suppliers want the channels want. 16-34 year olds are their El Dorado.
“4. The BBC’s Watchdog has actually put people out of work thanks to its tendency to take minor customer relationship molehills and build them up into great mountains. It is not the BBCs job. We have a variety of legal mechanisms for consumers to seek redress from retailers etc. BBC News can report if they are successful….
Truth is most are under-powered, and audience research shows that consumer journalism is one of the most highly-appreciated parts of BBC work. Are you saying that big business, replete with legal advice and PR operations (a) can’t cope with criticism and (b) are on an equal standing with ordinary people?
“5. Me-too shows? You mean, similar to the ones the BBC does? Eastenders = Coronation Street, Weakest Link = WWTBAM? Fame Academy = X Factor?
Coast? Dr Who? The Proms? Life On Mars? Almost all worthwhile comedy? Attenborough? Top Gear? Radio 3? Radio Drama? Storyville? Religious Programming? Much, much more…
Regional programming? Nationwide stopped a long time ago…..
Being reinstated as The One Show, but most regional programming is specific to the region you live in. There’s loads of it.
“6. When did we last see a major UK media company run by an enlightened, hands-off owner? Yes, because I can choose which to watch and pay for. And since when was the BBC run by enlightened hands-off people?
There is no BBC line analgous to Murdoch or Maxwell’s deliberate manipulations. Its impartiality pisses off the B-BBC readership, because most of it really wants some grievance or other (mostly Israel or Islam) given a favourable spin.
“7. I don’t buy the Sun or the Times and the guy will soon be shuffling off this mortal coil. Your point is?
That powerful free-market forces are far more corrupting than well regulated independent ownership.
Incidentally, Bernard Manning’s funeral is now not only on the Entertainment index on BBC News Online, but on the Front Page too – under the flood story and the defecting Tory (both of which I would suggest are bigger stories).
So that’s:
1. “Honour killings” given the File on Four grilling, and their connection with Islamist extremism exposed by the BBC.
2. Gordon Brown welcomed into office with a rigorous examination by Panorama.
3. Bernard Manning’s farewell given substantial, indeed, disproportionately significant treatement.
Excellent. Are we crying, out here in the corrupted wastelands of Guardian/BBC liberal hegemony?
No, we’re not. Job done.
Biased BBC: Stop whingeing.
Coast? Dr Who? The Proms? Life On Mars? Almost all worthwhile comedy? Attenborough? Top Gear? Radio 3? Radio Drama? Storyville? Religious Programming? Much, much more…
hillhunt | 26.06.07 – 4:29 pm
its all a matter of taste
i cant stand any of the stuff you listed above,therefore why should i pay for it…
the simpsons/24 on the other hand
i’m happy to pay for,so i do…
3. Bernard Manning’s farewell given substantial, indeed, disproportionately significant treatement.
hillhunt | 26.06.07 – 4:46 pm
you sound a little bitter there.
Ignore the BBC bollocks about honor killings & read these articles.
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003793.html
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003795.html
callmedave:
Bernard’s up there with Ted Nugent in the pantheon.
Hillhunt:
All the arguments you give in support of the BBC at best make a case for additional broadcasting regulations. A monolithic poll-tax funded monopoly does not follow.
You decry the venality of private broadcasters, yet offer their support of the BBC as an argument in its favour.
You have, AFAIK, never acknowledged the costs of the BBC: the unfairness of the TV-tax, 130,000-odd prosecutions every year, 1000-odd people jailed every year (my estimate). How do you weigh the benefit you receive from the BBC against the interests of someone to whom it is a cost? At what level of funding do you think the cost of the BBC would outweigh the benefit?
You seem not to have considered possible objective benefits of the BBC’s privatisation/abolition. I imagine that consumers having an extra £3.24 billion to spend every year would be of considerable benefit to the ‘economy’, however you choose to define it.
As for BBC bias? Bias is built into the BBC’s charter. IIRC it talks about the BBC’s ‘social responsibility’ and commitment to ‘cultural improvement’, or some such. That implies a programme of social engineering for the ‘greater good’, about which the BBC cannot be impartial.
There is an important distinction between ‘impariality’ and ‘objectivity’. AFAIK the BBC makes no claim to the latter.
Hillhunt: Middle-class. Elitist. Statist. Complicit in the oppression others for his own benefit. There is a special word for people like that.
HillHunt (BBC):
Murdoch doesn’t want the shooting match. He has made it quite clear what he wants. Access to BBC program output paid for by the licence payer so he can compete on an equal footing.
They wouldn’t need more of the available cash. There are probably about 50 commerical channels and they would gladly lift the BBC programmes that are worth lifting. Discovery channel would take Coast perhaps. Since they are only likely to lift a proportion of the output the overall provision of programming would become more efficiently delivered.
If I remember correctly, Janet-Street Porter was made head of Yoof TV on BBC2, which is when she made the outrageous and untrue claim that yoof have an attention span of 10 minutes. It was only true when watching her programmes. You would know better, since you have pretty much revealed yourself as a BBC insider!
16-24 year olds are the ElDorado? Doesn’t explain 16 channels of kiddie programming on satellite (cartoon network, nickleodean etc). Countdown on Ch4 surrounded with adverts aimed at the grey market (which has a very high net disposable income). God only knows how many home makeover and garden shows. Not many shows aimed at the working classes – but the Beeb doesn’t do those either: Eastenders is a parody.
Interesting you should mention TopGear. There are numerous similar shows and this one would undoubtedly be lifted by someone else. C4 does a show that is technically superior (but without Jeremy Clarkson, which could be a benefit for some). TopGear has also been accused of undermining the competitive market for car magazines by using the BBC subsidy to buy its way into the market.
Worthwhile comedy? The Simpsons is on Sky every day. SouthPark is on Ch4. Paramount specialises in comedy 24/7.
Attenborough? A Titan. But one fears not for much longer. It also has an international market for this. So Discovery Ch is likely to lift it.
Prime Suspect? Morse? Lewis? Cold Feet? Not as if the ITV can’t do the same…
Radio drama? Never listen to it. Buy an audio book – far fewer interruptions for “book at bedtime”.
Maxwells deliberate manipulations? From beyond the grave??????
John Birt (promoted to House of Lords). Greg Dyke former Labour donor. Yes, very independent. And even then the government turned on them and got them booted out. Actually make the Beeb independent and then perhaps we can talk about keeping it paid for by the licence fee.
Good to see B-BBC has having an effect too 😉
The Jewish tent was apparently organized by Jewdass.org who don’t provide an email for contact. So it’s possible the journalist was simply quoting a weak attempt at satire. If you can provide photographic evidence or another report using the same words I will happily back-down.
I took the report to be a gratuitous throw away line by BBC reporter secure in the belief that the BBC (and the sub editors) will overlook ‘mild’ antisemitism. Had it raised any red flags in editing the offending paragraph could easily have been rewritten. A banner on the Jewish tent said “‘Jew Tent’ Jews and Infidels welcome” but I didn’t have time to explore this further.
deegee | 26.06.07 – 7:51 am
It’s jewdas.org
http://www.jewdas.org/events/events.htm
Glastonbury 2007. Jewdas will be relocating to Somerset for the Glastonbury weekend where you will find us in the ‘jewish’ tent. Drop in for inter-religionary disputation, films, mass conversions, speeddating, israeli dancing and challah-baking. Bring your tefillin.
That’s ‘jewish’ tent, not Jew tent or Jew(ish) tent.
No mention from the BBC either that the organisers, jewdas.org, deal in satire.
The BBC obviously doesn’t understand Jewish humour, even when it’s left-wing Jewish humour.
john of borg:
You decry the venality of private broadcasters, yet offer their support of the BBC as an argument in its favour.
Not so fast.
C4 and ITV are instructive on the destructive pressures of market forces on previously-rounded public service broadcasters. Murdoch is another issue entirely – no pretence of public service, and plenty of evidence of near-monopoly abuse of position.
If choice is the only aim, then the sell-off of the BBC would fundamentally change everything because it’s such a big player and would take many of the resources others currently depend on. Whether that kind of broadcasting chaos is a a good thing is another matter. The UK’s creative industries are major currency earners and an implosion in the business would put all that in jeopardy.
‘Social responsibility’ and commitment to ‘cultural improvement’? You make those sound like bad things…
It’s a question of philosophy. Do I want men like Murdoch controlling the national discourse? No.
Is it right to consider a mixed broadcasting system a public good? Yes.
Do the public think so? Yes, it seems.
People evade all taxes. I’m not happy that money I earn went to fund a war in Iraq. Can I opt out? No. Was I given a say? No.
Releasing the cig tax or booze tax would liberate even more than £3bn. So what?
“Is it right to consider a mixed broadcasting system a public good? Yes. ”
It would be without the licence fee. FilmFour (cultural output) is a subscription service. Boomerang (kids TV) is free to air, paid for by commercials.
Oh and I forgot! TopGear = Grenada Men and Motors. A whole channel devoted to vehicles (and boobs). What more could a man want? And its free to air!
Bernard’s up there with Ted Nugent in the pantheon.
hillhunt | 26.06.07 – 4:59 pm |
god!i do hope not
charlie byrd and bob monkhouse sounds nicer……
Technical correction.
Filmfour was a subscription service.
Now it is paid for by advertising.
hillhunt (ex BBC light programme)
“More me-too reality shows, greedy quizzes, tabloid journalism and much, much less regional programming.”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
In fact I need to continue laughing or else I’d cry.
You know just how pathetic that statement is.
hillhunt: attempting to justify absolutely anything whatsoever the BBC does under any conditions and refusing to decry the BBC poll tax
That’s ‘jewish’ tent, not Jew tent or Jew(ish) tent.
wonder if the BBC editors would have allowed a refernce in a BBC article the equally satirical Paki(stani) Tent … definitely not.
BBC is all about binning the Bible and worshipping the Koran
“wonder if the BBC editors would have allowed a refernce in a BBC article the equally satirical Paki(stani) Tent … definitely not.”
No but to be fair they also wouldn’t have allowed “Kike Tent”
…. and rightly so. “Paki”, like “Kike” has become an extremely abusive term for whatever reason. “Jewish is not”…?
deegee:
It’s possible (in the tradition of Sacha Baron Cohen telling Jewish jokes and getting away with it) that the tent labelled Jew Tent (certainly not in any publication I’ve seen) and had a banner (as suggested by MisterMinit) inviting ‘Infidels’ but I doubt it.
Unless someone proves me wrong with a photograph I would take that as a gratuitously antisemitic remark and wonder how it made it through editing.
Biodegradababble:
That’s ‘jewish’ tent, not Jew tent or Jew(ish) tent. No mention from the BBC either that the organisers, jewdas.org, deal in satire.
Dunno, BioD and dg. You’re just not down wif da kids are you?
Meet Michelle Le Hysterik, a DJ who socialises in London and Tel-Aviv and is a big fan of psychedelic/punk/techno. (No butter or grits involved, sadly).
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=130612968
The cached version reveals she was heading for the jewdas tent at Glastonbury:
now gettin ready for the festivals and the mud, especialy glasto, where the jew-rave concept shall be revealed at last.
This appears to be what’s known as an in-joke. Young people have been developing a musical form known as new-rave (nu-rave if you want to sound hip), and it sounds as if Michelle and her friends have played with the J word to identify their particular flavour.
What was that about the word Jew and gratutiously anti-semitic remarks?
By the way, I’ve left a comment on one of the jewdas.org pages asking if they actually welcomed ‘infidels’.
…. and rightly so. “Paki”, like “Kike” has become an extremely abusive term for whatever reason. “Jewish is not”…?
Jonathan (Cambridge) | Homepage | 26.06.07 – 6:11 pm
As has already been pointed out calling it a “Jew tent” (not Jewish) is abusive, unless of course it was the radical left-wing Jews who ran the tent gave it that name, in which case it’s self-abuse which explains why the BBC had no problem telling us about it.
http://www.sioeengland.blogspot.com/
Stop Islamification Of Europe (SIOE) is an alliance of people across Europe with the single aim of preventing Islam becoming a dominant political force in Europe.
SIOE is growing in Europe with the amalgamation of similarly minded groups.
………..
One of the fundamental benefits in the West is the right to offend and be offended. Religion has not been a threat to society and the clergy has not formulated legislation in the West, although it has been allowed to lobby the various elected governments.
All this is changing due to the imposition of Islam. No other religion demands more from those who do not adhere to its doctrine. This would not be a problem in the West, if our leaders actually stood up for Western values and insisted that Muslims live within our laws and accepted our cultures and social systems. Instead, it is we who are told we must abandon our values, cultures and societies in order not to offend Muslims. It is Islam that is being rammed down our throats and the throats of our children. It is not only in the West that Islam is causing misery and mayhem. All around the world Islam is battling the ‘infidels’. In response all our politicians, journalists, social commentators and religious leaders do is avoid mentioning the murderous activities in places like Indonesia, Thailand and sub-Saharan Africa. However, if an Israeli soldier so much as farts within earshot of a Palestinian mosque the whole
world knows about it within minutes and politicians resoundingly condemn Israel. Such sanctimonious, selective conscience is contemptible and Europeans are fed up with being oppressed for the sake of what most believe to be the most corrosive and intolerant political system ever devised.
Phoebe – I promise I will personally hand over to you the sum of One Hundred Pounds Sterling if you can substantiate your claim that the BBC has reported on Isareli soldiers farting in the direction of mosques in the Palestinian territories.
google the single word “Jew” and you will find the first result is this:
http://www.google.com/explanation.html
See also:
http://www.answers.com/topic/jew
USAGE NOTE It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun.
(Admittedly, you don’t mention the BBC specifically in your post, but I infer that you’re accusing them on being one of the ones who tell “the whole world” about the farting soldiers, leading world leaders to “resoundingly condemn Israel”, since you’re postng this on the Biased-BBC blog).
“…pounce consistently weakens the B-BBC case by making such a fool of himself.”
hillhunt, I’ve pointed out to you before that your fellow commenters at Biased-BBC blog do not represent Biased-BBC blog any more than you do. You know this fundamental difference is true, yet you continue to misrepresent commenters as being part of the blog itself. Since you aren’t thick, one is forced to conclude that you are disingenuous.
On a related note, pounce produces a great many examples of what he considers to be BBC bias. You only highlight a few and are silent about the rest. Given your evident enthusiasm for pouring scorn on errors, it’s difficult not to draw the conclusion that you are simply unable to contest the majority you don’t mention.
.
That’s a stinker of an offer Thom!
If you think hillhunt is barking then take a peek at this cuckoo.
http://blogging-the-malice.blogspot.com/
And here she off to the pokey.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1917943.ece
PJF:
On pounce, my point is wider. Pounce’s statements are wild and unreliable. He is rarely taken to task for these ill-starred interventions. Biased BBC fails as the resource many posters claim it to be when idiot statement is piled on idiot statement with no real debate.
From my experience, pounce is reliably unreliable. Life is simply too short to keep up with his extraordinary output, but it is worth challenging some of the most hysterical stuff, simply to staunch the flow.
My hunch is that the majority of B-BBCers are so obsessed with the Beeb’s imagined failings that they’re happy to play along so that even the nastiest of pounce’s rants become “true”. When they ain’t.
By the way, I notice that the absurd debate about the hippy-dippy Jewish tent at Glasto is another bit of his malicious sh*t-stirring. And the usual suspects ran around waving their injured feelings in the air….
Phoebe – “that’s a stinker of an offer Thom!” – indeed. Alright then, a thousand pounds. I think I can afford it. Although I also suspect my money’s safe…
Hill*unt
The public just about still think so because the BBC keeps telling them so and because of socialists like yourself that see the BBC as “their channel”
A non-capitalist alternative to the free market. With the added bonus of helping to keep ” 3 headed, baby eating crazies like Murdoch from teaching the prolls how to eat their own babies.”
Just what is it with you socialists?
You trust the free market to fly you around the world. You trust it to educate YOUR children. You trust it too cure and or look after YOUR mother. You trust it when it makes movies like Fahrenheit 9/11. You quite like it when it sells you sex drugs and rock and roll. You trust it to build the house you live in. You trust it to keep food in the supermarket.
So why do you not trust it to entertain educate and inform the great mass of the population on the TV at least as well and as impartially as the BBC?
Dont answer that question unless you intend to be completly honest in answering it.
Although I know my current opinion.
Its because you are a brainwashed socialist. Very much closer to the type that used to go around Berlin in 1938 dressed in BROWN shirts then you have the free witts to understand.
garypowell;
You are barking, and your Brownshirt rant spells that out.
We all trust the free market in many ways. But health and social care, for example work far better here in a mixed market than in the States, where an insurance-dominated system screws up royally.
Many of the films which make a real difference are funded by private and public funds. Some of the richest businesses on the planet use tax funding to grow their businesses and access new markets. That’s life.
My argument is for a mixed system, not a state monopoly. Feel free to remind us all in any event of your theory that Gordon Brown’s about to march us all off to the gas chambers.