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.
Not trying to disrespect the guy in the hospital who did step up, but I thought I had heard John say that a guy was punched and fell to the ground, then I read
“I tried my best to get the guy. I tried punching and kicking him but he punched me and I fell back and broke my leg.”
And the BBC want him to be the “hero”?
Don’t forget that the TRUTH about Global Warming (which involves pirates) can be found at the website of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:
http://www.venganza.org/
We have Al Beeb trying to dictate the discourse to us, aided and abetted by the EU’s ‘Ministry of Truth’:
“Europe Tells Britain: Don’t Say Muslims” (5 July)
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk
direct link:
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/news/view/12236/Europe-tells-Britain:-Don't-say-'Muslims‘
re the above.
bit hard to do when one terror group is called “islamic jihad”, another is “the army of islam” , and still another is “fatah al-islam”
A further insight into aspects of the E.U. and the xxxxxx issue:
“A Question of Identity: The Immigrant Europe is eager to get rid of” ( 4 July ):
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2233
Is Al Beeb willing or able to report this prominently?
Look at these comments for blatant BBC bias. It’s not the Arabs or the Muslims or the terrorists – it’s the UK, America, Israel and the CIA’s fault.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/6261816.stm
David Gregory (BBC)
Thanks for your response. Some interesting points especially re: sea temperatures. Interesting to see that you are broadly agreeing with me that there is a tendency to confuse weather with climate change. Oh and by the way I am right about “decreasing in intensity” – most low pressure areas are already beginning to fill by the time they hit the UK – something that can be evidenced by the many occluded fronts that cross the country – and would usually continue to do so as the low traipses east. This is by no means the rule every time, but happens more often than not.
Anyway, while I appreciate the need to report the current scientific views, I would certainly expect this to be strongly balanced by your pointing out that this weather situation is not that outlandish, and that we shouldn’t confuse weather with climate change.
The rising sea temperatures are a plausible explanation, and would certainly explain the large number of secondary lows developing (which are often the ones producing the severe weather, presumably because there is more thermal activity within them). However, seeing as sea levels rise throughout the summer and peak in early autumn, why are our early autumns often so dry?
Anyway thanks for the response. I realise that most people on these boards are more interested in Middle Eastern bias (as am I) but Climate Change is an area where the BBC’s tendency to report one side of the story is very pronounced, and at times, difficult to defend. Just ask Jeremy Paxman.
Heron writes:
“I realise that most people on these boards are more interested in Middle Eastern bias (as am I)…”
That may be true of commenters, but I’d like to know what the vast majority of readers think.
Purely personally, I believe there are huge areas of the BBC’s cultural and political (in the broadest sense) bias that deserve greater examination and that a tendency to concentrate on that subject alone rather lets the Corporation off the hook..
That was an interesting response to Dr Gregory, by the way.
Remember last year’s drought hysteria?
BBC News 20 March 2006:
‘Global warming policies’
Paul Kent, regulatory manager for Southern Water, said: “We are not entering into this lightly. We are in the driest period we have had for 70 or 80 years and we need to conserve the water so that it is sufficient for basic hygiene throughout the rest of the year.”
He said it was “possible” that similar bans would be necessary next year and said water companies were ready to change their long-term policies if it seemed that global warming was permanently reducing rainfall in the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4823938.stm
David Adam, The Guardian’s environment correspondent, 22 July, 2006:
Peering into the future is a tricky business, especially for something as volatile as weather and climate. But scientists know a lot about how events will unfold. They use giant computer programs, evolved from those that make weather forecasts, to work out how the atmosphere will react to the blanket of carbon dioxide we humans are steadily wrapping around the planet… So what does it reveal? Summer fetes are less likely to be rained off… sweltering summers and worsening drought. Rainfall will decline in the summer and the increased deluges in winter will struggle to replenish thirsty reservoirs because much of the water will run off the baked ground.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1826470,00.html
From The Environment Agency website, updated 2 July 2007:
The risk of restrictions in England and Wales this summer is low following the recent wet weather. If there is a return to very hot, dry weather for the rest of the summer, there is a small risk of restrictions in early autumn for some areas in England and Wales. However such continued dry weather through the rest of the summer and into the autumn is unlikely.
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/waterres/1014767/?lang=_e
Reservoirs in the south east are 100% full:
http://www.southeastwater.co.uk/reservoir_levels.asp
“I realise that most people on these boards are more interested in Middle Eastern bias (as am I)…”
I think that’s untrue. I for one am pretty bored of the fact that any thread is guaranteed within 10 posts to degenerate into the usual Israel/Palestine fest and by it’s extremely subjective nature it’s a topic where bias is hard to define.
Not that the BBC doesn’t err towards the Palestinians through some sort of quasiSocialist ‘stand up for the little people’ mentality, but some commentators see anti-Isaraeli bias in abso-f**king-lutely EVERYTHING. Yawn.
The refusal to objectively tackle European issues or challenge the very narrow PC consensus within which British politics seems to work these days is far more serious.
Oscar | 04.07.07 – 2:05 pm
It obviously doesn’t matter what Brown’s performance actually is the media is going to make out it’s all fantastic. Leading the pack, the BBC is spinning for him with no prompting from No.10 spin doctors. That probably counts as Brown’s most significant achievement.
Is there no ‘100 day honeymoon period’ at the BBC?
John Smeaton “Allah, Something, Allah, Something Allah, Every time He Threw a punch [at the policeman] he was saying Allah”
Something=Akbar
Allah o Akbar! God is Great …
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3690453825562349253/#363975
the unedited video makes great viewing.
@DavidGregory: “And yet. And yet. I’m reporting on floods which are classed as 1 in 150 year events. So far I’ve reported on 4 of them. Just today the Royal Show was canceled because of freak heavy rain for the first time in it’s 168 year history.”
Oh dear. You are falling into the psychological trap that has been set. You are a naturally suggestive person. Because someone in authority has said “Global warming will cause clmiate change” you are falling for a belief that the flooding is caused by MMGW.
Lets look at the facts:
1] Historical records show that precipitation is notoriously fickle.
2] The flooding has only occurred in some parts of Britain. On the basis of your thinking, those parts of Britain that have suffered flooding in the past but not today, are not suffering from MMGW.
3] There is no science in your claim. MMGW should result in warmer temperatures. That is the scientific prediction. There is no specific reason to believe it will cause greater precipitation, and indeed there is no pattern to suggest it has. Actually, it is quite cold for the time of year. June was not especially wet (would you believe) but was particularly cold. Clearly this would fly in the face of the MMGW theory.
4] There is likely to be greater flooding in some areas due to: flood defences in particular areas causing greater flow of water into areas not previously affected by flooding (I believe the Windsor area has been put on flood alert in recent years thanks to changes in the flow if the Thames aimed at protecting the area north of Reading), changes to flood plains due to overdevelopment, plate techtonics causing the southern half of Britain to reduce in height.
Basically no sensible scientist would claim that MMGW caused recent flooding. The science simply wouldn’t support such a claim and it would be readily shot down by others. It is extremely difficult to infer any kind of climate change from highly localised weather conditions.
@GCooper: “Opinion poll commissioned by government appointees says BBC is wonderful.”
Actually there were some nuggets in that report. Eastenders has lost 10% of its audience in the last 3 years. At that rate the Beeb will have lost its whole audience even for its flagship programs within a generation.
No surprise there. Young people would rather be on the web, or watching one of 50 other channels on satellite.
Apologies: The phrase “June was not especially wet (would you believe) but was particularly cold.”
Should have read:
“June in the South West was not especially wet (would you believe) but was particularly cold.”
****SICK COMMENTS FROM BBC*****
Mid-East views: UK bomb plots
Readers from the Middle East react to the attempted bombings in London and Glasgow.
” that there is a third party trying to do just this. The third party is the CIA, Israel, America – all people who hate and fight Arabs.
In today’s papers his mother says her son is very sensitive and well-educated and couldn’t do something like that. And I believe her – not the British police. ”
GHADA AL-KHATIB, 40, AMMAN, JORDAN, JOURNALIST
“Whenever any terrorism happens in London, they say it’s al-Qaeda. But it might be some other group.”
MODYY, 28, EGYPTIAN IN JEDDAH, SAUDI ARABIA, TRANSLATOR
“It makes me think there is a game going on to present Arabs to the world, as terrorists.”
OMAR, JOURNALIST, AMMAN, JORDAN, 22
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/6261816.stm
“A group of 45 Muslim doctors threatened to use car bombs and rocket grenades in terrorist attacks in the United States during discussions on an extremist internet chat site”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/05/nterror405.xml
More nonsence from the bbc
Reza Kazim of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, sees double standards at work. “The language used by some of the cartoon protesters may have been ethically unacceptable but where was the evidence that it was intended to incite murder?
“Whereas, we know that BNP rhetoric has led directly to attacks on Muslims and others.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6236730.stm
Indikit: Fair enough. I’m sorry to have bored you. But can I ask you remain polite about me when I’m discussing questions raised by other posters?
Heron: We come back to this problem that you seem to be labeling what I report as biased. But I go out of my way to report what science is saying. That’s my job. Intelligent Design is an extreme example but there are people who regularly accuse me of bias because I will not report it in the same breath as evolution. With Climate Change it is more complex but the fact remains there is a warming trend and it seems we’re responsible. That is what science is telling us now.
GCooper: Which of course brings us to the political. So the West Minster Hour does a report based on an upcoming report from the Commons Environment Committee on what we can all do to lower our Carbon Footprint. And by the sounds of the report save some people QUIDS600 a year! It looked at what politicians can do to help people who want to do this. I have no problems with this. As I said the science tells us there is a warming trend and we are causing it.
Now in the context of this report what would you see as balance? A clip from Melanie Phillips saying Climate Change is rubbish and we don’t need to do anything? What would it add? That’s not the point the debate is starting from.
Anonanon: Very good point. But of course it all comes back to the problems of confusing climate with weather.
Ryan: I apologise, you misunderstood that comment. Heron (I think) was saying he’d seen flooding from a train for a number of years. I was simply responding with another flooding story illustrating the opposite.
Back to
Indiekit: I think we’ve all pretty much exhausted this one. I’m happy to continue this discussion but perhaps people would prefer to do that via email rather than clog up the board? david.gregory@bbc.co.uk
Anonymous:
More nonsence from the bbc
Although that story does the give the lie to the suggestion that the BBC won’t dare risk discussing Islam, Muslims and the downsides of giving freedom of speech to fire-breathing Allah-botherers.
Does it not?
It appears that the BBC pays bonuses for recruiting ethnic minorities, i.e. not recruiting “white” people, and by extension recruiting based upon skin colour rather than talent:
“No BBC boss took home a bonus because targets for ethnic-minority recruitment were not met. But total pay for the top 11 staff was £4.25 million, a rise of 2 per cent.”
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article2022963.ece
Iran no longer has to rely on the BBC for it`s anti Western Jihad propaganda:
“IRAN’S NETWORK SPEWS”
“The government of Iran is not only dangerously volatile, the nuke-loving regime has developed a twisted sense of humor.
For the last two days, I’ve been watching PressTV, Iran’s brand-new, state-run foray into 24-hour broadcast news. As if the world needed any more anti-Western propaganda than what’s already generated by CNN and the BBC”.
MORE
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07052007/news/columnists/irans_network_spews_columnists_andrea_peyser.htm
hh
The article tries to give the impression that Nick Griffin was inciting violence, which he clearly was not; otherwise he would have been convicted. The bbc may not like that fact but it is true.
Whereas those whom the bbc view as “The ones who enrich our lives in every way” who were convicted of incitement to murder are played down and their apologists are given free reign.
BBC euphemism of the day
“web designer”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6273188.stm
David Gregory (BBC)
I do not accuse you of being biased with your reporting. I am from Manchester rather than Birmingham and I have not heard your broadcasts. There is indeed a large number of scientists that tell us that the planet is warming and that we’re responsible. There is what can be described at least as a “sizeable minority” that disagree vehemently with the second half of that statement. My complaint is simply that this large and often highly qualified band of dissenters are very rarely covered by the BBC (compare this to say, the proportion of coverage offered to the 3% of the British population that are Muslims) – I do not know whether you personally are guilty of this. My specific complaint here is that any wet or dry, warm or cold period is enthusiastically taken up by the BBC as an example of global warming, when I, you and most other people with any understanding of the weather know that it is not. You appear to agree with me on the last point – it is a trait straight out of the tabloid media and in some cases I would say that this kind of reporting is deliberately dishonest and pursuing an agenda.
Global Warming advocates, groups like Greenpeace, and egotistical popstars like “I don’t pay my taxes” Bono, and indeed Muslims, do seem to shout very loudly over our airwaves over one thing or another. It seems that whoever shouts the loudest gets the airspace. The whole MSM is guilty of this, but the BBC has to be careful not to let pushy people dictate the agenda just because they’re pushy. There is a need for impartiality on their part.
David, don’t take this as any personal criticism. Your views add hugely to the discussions on this board.
anonymous:
The article tries to give the impression that Nick Griffin was inciting violence, which he clearly was not
I disagree. The article is clear that the allegation against Griffin was pitched at a lower level, and that he was able to show that he was talking to a like-minded group of people, not the wider population.
In fact, the piece contains criticism of the CPS, suggesting they only prosecute Muslims when they call directly for murder, and not when they use other kinds of inflammatory language.
holiday in hamastan:
BBC euphemism of the day
“web designer”
That’s just perverse. The article it makes clear as day that the guilty parties were acting in the name of Islam.
Mizanur Rahman, 24, of Palmers Green, north London, made the remarks at a protest about the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
At the protest, held near the Danish Embassy in London in February 2006, the web designer also called for the beheading of anyone who insulted Islam.
I thought the B-BBC beef was that the BBC tiptoes away from the I-word? Doesn’t seem to have happened here…
Good news & bad news for the BBC
Good news
Ofcom may give all-clear for politically biased news
Bad news – Ofcom doesn’t regulate the BBC, so it will have to stay as impartial as now!
But belief in impartiality draining away?
Research by Ofcom shows that 73 per cent of 16-to 24-year-olds think that impartial television news is important • down from 93 per cent four years ago. Only 54 per cent thought that BBC News, still the most highly rated news service, was impartial • down from 77 per cent in 2002.
Channel 4 slumped dramatically, from 44 per cent to 19 per cent
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2028706.ece
UK Police: We are wasting our time… we should just target potential bombers..
“TERROR SEARCH FIASCO”
Tory MP Philip Davies said: “I agree with him completely. It makes my blood boil. In a nutshell, what police officers are being told is put political correctness above the security of people in this country.”
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/12372
I see that the BBC has a webpage about welcoming the Tour de France to London, this Saturday, 7 July. Fine.
But I can’t find a national BBC page commemorating the victims of the Islamic jihad bombings in London, 7 July, 2005. Lest we forget, indeed.
In the general run of things, Government(Labour), Media(General), BBC(in particular) the white indigenous working and tax paying population does not exist as an entity and is always automatically considered last (if at all) behind almost ANY minority group.
This has always struck me as anti democratic in that democracy holds that the will of the majority should prevail.
The fascination with every loud mouthed pressure group, religion, region etc intrigues me.
Why, for example, do people in power or the media accept as a good thing that the Scots have a parliament controlling all decisions affecting Scotland, but are aghast and oppose the very same idea for England?
The same mindset apparently leads the the thinking that to upset Asians by looking for Asian terrorists in order so stop them slaughtering anyone in the general population by burning them to death with petrol and LPG or ripping them apart with nail shrapnel is a bad thing and should be avoided.
I wonder how the people making these crassly stupid decisions will feel if they ever have to look into a hospital bed at one of their own loved ones with third degree burns and limbs missing. They seem to live with the hope that if the terrorist gets through the chances are it will not be them or one of theirs that suffers.
It seems to me that until a terrorist gets to kill and maim members of the Government and or the BBC, these fools will continue to Dance with the Devil at other peoples expense.
David Gregory writes:
“Now in the context of this report what would you see as balance? A clip from Melanie Phillips saying Climate Change is rubbish and we don’t need to do anything? What would it add? That’s not the point the debate is starting from.”
And I repeat – what debate? It is only a debate if two sides are heard and I am only hearing one of them. You keep using the word as if one were actually taking place.
The only example I have seen of an alternative point of view getting mainstream airtime in the past year has been when Ch4 had a go. From the BBC, all we get is a relentless monotone.
I’ll ignore the remark about Melanie Phillips, meanwhile, and give you a sensible response instead.
Why not an investigation into the dark politics at work behind the various lobbies and just who is pulling the levers in Westminster?
Surely that would be a better role for The Westminster Hour than frothy material about one journalist’s environmental audit?
As I’ve said before, the problem lies less with the output of some BBC science journalists, than with the wholesale propagandising from the non-specialists in just about every other BBC department, whose endless proselytising is almost as boring as it is absurd.
John Sissons Rubs Hizb-ut-Tahrir’s Mustafa’s Balls …. ho hum …. just another day at Al Beeb
John Sissons goes into severe limp wrist mode questioning Taji Mustafa …. takes every answer at face value … gets a little worked up at the end on the legitimacy of shooting British Soldiers in Iraq, Doesnt get an answer and ends the “questioning” … Al Beeb then links the audio broacast to its front page and labelles it Hizb ut Tahir ‘non-violent’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6270000/newsid_6272700/6272778.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm
BBC: SPREADING THE GOOD NEWS OF THE COMING OF THE CHALIPHATE – ITS WHAT WE DO.
Alan:
I can’t find a national BBC page commemorating the victims of the Islamic jihad bombings in London, 7 July, 2005. Lest we forget, indeed.
I think this is what you’re looking for.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/victims/default.stm
Business as usual from “The Religion of Peace”:
“Al-Zawahri, the top deputy of Osama bin Laden, called on Muslims to follow a two-pronged strategy: work at home to topple “corrupt” Arab regimes and join al-Qaida’s “jihad,” or holy war, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia to fight and train “to prepare for the next jihad.”
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070705/481/16c56af0cbfe4430a6a23f31dec1aa59&g=events/iraq/082701iraqplane;_ylt=AuSPcdV57OM0qbUULrR58MAUewgF
Where is the BBC information about national events this Saturday, 7 July
commemorating the victims of 7 July, 2005 Islamic jihad bombings?
On the debate about the nature of Islam/Islamism, last night’s Radio 4 ‘The Moral Maze’was stimulating, and is well worth a listen. (Available online.) Repeated (by chance, but approriately) on Saturday, 7 July, 22.15 – 23.00.
David Gregory
“But can I point to one single event and say this is proof? No. Not because the science is flawed or because my reporting is biased. But instead because science doesn’t work like that.”
Indeed, science doesn’t work like that. If Popper was correct it works by conjecture and refutation. In one sense the Newton/Einstein illustration of the Popperian system does science a disservice by making C&R appear simple or, at least, just “black and white”. It appeared that the edifice of Newtonian physics collapsed in 1905 with publication of the Special Theory and was finally buried by the confirmation of one of Einstein’s predictions in 1919. It didn’t, of course, and much of Newton’s physics is still “correct”. All the MMGW sceptics are asking for is for the scientific process to be allowed to . . er . . proceed and be reported as a scientific process, not a non-conversation between the “enlightened” and the neanderthals. By admitting (in a previous thread) that the BBC has declared the C&R process over you have conceded – as far as the BBC is concerned (if not you personally) • that discussion of MMGW on the BBC is no longer scientific: not “scientific” because no refutations are to be considered valid.
Heron listed a number of refutations of the MMGW case which demonstrate that elements of the MMGW conjecture are incorrect or based on questionable evidence or questionable reasoning from the evidence. This is not to say that the MMGW is not a valid conjecture (as was the phlogiston theory), it is that the BBC does not report contrary evidence (or mentions it briefly never to return – as was done this morning in, I believe, just one newscast on Radio 4 in respect of the maintenance of the Greenland ice mass). Such evidence points to the possibility that whole MMGW conjecture or elements of it are refuted (or may be refuted). It is a disservice to describe how the BBC reports the MMGW/IPCC scenario as the reporting of a scientific “debate”, it is not. To take just two examples, the BBC’s attitude to MMGW is evidenced by the obsequious interview with Gore on “Today” and the inordinate excitement shown by all manner of BBC announcers, presenters and newscasters concerning this weekend’s Live Earth concert. It is not science, it is not even news, it is propaganda pure and simple.
David Gregory (BBC):
Your statement that “it seems we’re responsible. That is what science is telling us now.” is a bit of a give away.
You have made up your mind and accepted the man made bit of MMGW. You will appear biased to those who disagree you UNLESS you repeatedly explain why the alternative theories are not sound.
There are a lot of scientists/climatologists who dispute the “man made” bit. For all I know there may well be a greater number who say it is “man made” but science is not about majority voting.
I don’t see why we need the BBC but if it is there and we are forced to pay for the damn thing it might as well be useful.
In my opinion useful would be for a forum for intelligent programming. In this instance, repeatedly bringing forward and debating all shades of scientific climate change debate. The pro and cons of the arguments.
It seems to me that the BBC have wholly accepted the MMGW / Gorcale type arguments. All we get from the BBC is “CO2” , “carbon footprint”, “USA the world’s biggest polluter” followed by a quick chorus of Private Fraiser’s “we’re all doooooommmmed I tell ye, doooommmed”
BTW. To all. I for one greatly appreciate David Gregory taking the time to debate here. It greatly improves the sum of my knowledge when we get see intelligent and polite debating as with Heron and David Gregory recently.
scientists/climatologists who dispute the “man made” bit. For all I know there may well be more who say it is “man made” but science is not about majority voting.
If we are forced to pay for the BBC it must do something useful , like for instance repeatily expressing and debating all shades of scientific climate change debate
( We need intellegent debat
Sorry few random lines accidentally added to my last post…try again
David Gregory (BBC):
Your statement that “it seems we’re responsible. That is what science is telling us now.” is a bit of a give away.
You have made up your mind and accepted the man made bit of MMGW. You will appear biased to those who disagree you UNLESS you repeatedly explain why the alternative theories are not sound.
There are a lot of scientists/climatologists who dispute the “man made” bit. For all I know there may well be a greater number who say it is “man made” but science is not about majority voting.
I don’t see why we need the BBC but if it is there and we are forced to pay for the damn thing it might as well be useful.
In my opinion useful would be for a forum for intelligent programming. In this instance, repeatedly bringing forward and debating all shades of scientific climate change debate. The pro and cons of the arguments.
It seems to me that the BBC have wholly accepted the MMGW / Gorcale type arguments. All we get from the BBC is “CO2” , “carbon footprint”, “USA the world’s biggest polluter” followed by a quick chorus of Private Fraiser’s “we’re all doooooommmmed I tell ye, doooommmed”
BTW. To all. I for one greatly appreciate David Gregory taking the time to debate here. It greatly improves the sum of my knowledge when we get see intelligent and polite debating as with Heron and David Gregory recently.
hillhunt | 05.07.07 – 3:57 pm:
I think this is what you’re looking for.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/victims/default.stm
If the BBC’s reporting generally was up to the spin-and-bais-free high standard of that piece and its offshoots there wouldn’t be any need for a B-BBC blog.
All the BBC’s online reports ought to carry their authors’ names, so the good and the bad can be identifed; and to instil some accountability. Is that something upon which we can agree?
JBH QC:
All the BBC’s online reports ought to carry their authors’ names, so the good and the bad can be identifed; and to instil some accountability. Is that something upon which we can agree?
In principle, yes. But a lot of it appears to be subbed from other reporters’ work or agency copy. It’s not quite like identifying the authorship of a Panorama or a book.
Can’t say I warm to the hint of McCarthyism which is implied by identifying the good and the bad. Even the best people make honest mistakes; one of the consistent failures of these threads is when people can’t see that there’s a developing news story in front of them and assume that what they read at any second is the definitive piece. It rarely is….
In its self-manufactured “humanitarian” photo op, yesterday a/k/a the release of pan-Islamist BBC “reporter” Alan Johnston, HAMAS claims it’s turned over a new leaf. Said terrorist medical doctor and HAMAS leader Dr. Mahmoud Zahar:
It’s a new era. We will not allow illegal activities against anyone.
Uh-huh. Sure.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/07/quote–_big_lie.html
Translation: We will continue with our illegal existence. And we will continue to murder countless innocent Israeli AND fellow Palestinian civilians. What we won’t allow is for our fellow terrorists to cause more problems like this, in siezing our favorite infidel puppet reporters. They shall enjoy the utmost protection in helping us destroy the Great Satan (America) and the Evil Zionist Empire (Israel).
Terror attacks, floods, global jihad.
You wouldn`t think so –
“A woman in western India has stripped to her underwear in public to protest over alleged abuses from her husband’s family for not providing a dowry.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6274318.stm
” will | 05.07.07 – 2:33 pm”
very interesting survey. the 4 year gap in surveys co-incides with the rise of political blogging both here and in america, and of broadband. i cant help wondering if thats been a major factor in the figures.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2028706.ece
Can I repeat that (one or two snarky digs aside) I enjoy debating this whole issue on here. But I’m starting to become aware we are going around in circles a bit.
Can I state once again, as a scientist myself (though more of a coal-face one so a bit distant from the whole two cultures thing) I really do see this as a process. But once again I must stress I report what science is telling us. No one at the BBC tells me what to say. I’ve seen an Inconvenient Truth, and I’ve also watched The Great Global Warming Swindle. Neither would be my first choice of scientific evidence.
As I said perhaps we should draw this to a close as we seem to be going round in circles a bit and I don’t want to clog up the board. Please email me direct david.gregory@bbc.co.uk if you want to carry on the debate.
Mind you, I shall be watching Live Earth and watching the response it gets here with a great deal of interest…
Hillhunt:
In fact, the piece contains criticism of the CPS, suggesting they only prosecute Muslims when they call directly for murder, and not when they use other kinds of inflammatory language.
Regarding http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6236730.stm
“The language used by some of the cartoon protesters may have been ethically unacceptable but where was the evidence that it was intended to incite murder?”
I would have thought “Behead those who insult Islam” would be considered incitement to murder, is it not?
Mind you, I shall be watching Live Earth and watching the response it gets here with a great deal of interest…
David Gregory (BBC) | 05.07.07 – 7:05 pm
Good point. The BBC Trust’s recent report into bias singled out the gushing coverage of Live 8 as a prime example of the BBC’s failure to provide balance. This weekend’s Live Earth propaganza offers an early opportunity to see if the BBC has taken any criticism on board. The fawning interviews Al Gore received on various BBC outlets earlier this week suggest little has been learned. Does anybody else think it might be interesting to have a Biased BBC comments thread devoted to the event – “Live Blogging Live Earth”? Of course, for this to work some of us will have to watch and/or listen to at least part of the proceedings. I appreciate this could be considered a sacrifice too far, and will be happy to acknowledge the idiocy of my suggestion.
Apparently the BBC has no information about events this Saturday, 7 July, to commemorate the victims of the 7 July 2005 Islamic jihad bombings in London.
The BBC is propagandising for ‘Live Earth’ events on July 7 instead, it seems.
Anonymous:
hh
The article tries to give the impression that Nick Griffin was inciting violence, which he clearly was not; otherwise he would have been convicted. The bbc may not like that fact but it is true.
Whereas those whom the bbc view as “The ones who enrich our lives in every way” who were convicted of incitement to murder are played down and their apologists are given free reign.
As far as I know Nick Griffin said Islam is a “wicked, viscious” faith and didn’t call for murder of Islamists. Whereas the cartoon protesters waved plackards and shouted slogans calling for beheadings and suicide bombings… Is this correct?
Of course the BBC article make a clear comparison between the two and doesn’t bother to give us the important background facts about the Griffin case. By not filling us in on the facts of the case the Beeb sneakily implies that the difference between Griffin’s case and the Muslim proterstors was just a matter of the nature of the gathering private vs public.