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.
For some mysterious reason I can’t work out, the BBC have not picked up on this story.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2049678.ece
Watch out, here the BBC go ‘in-depth’ to profile the ‘plotters’. Something through is missing from the profiles. Can you guess what…. something, the thing, the motive for their actions?
‘Bomb plot’ trial: The four plotters
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6264839.stm
No muslims or islamic extreemism here – it’s been deleted by the BBC, doesn’t exist.
Contrast with Sky News background report:
An ‘Extremist Plot’ Unfolds
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1273280,00.html
“Prosecutor Nigel Sweeney QC accused the defendants of planning “an extremist Muslim plot” involving “murderous suicide bombings.”
Not that you’d know that by listening, watching or reading BBC News output.
BBC News is biased.
Thank you, oh anonymous colleague, for volunteering to cut the comments down to manageable (and relevant) proportions! Such fortitude is much appreciated.
More BBC bias! http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/07/dealing-with-ha.html
did you even bother reading the article before you deleted it,or was it just to boring for you,or maybe not enough bbc bias in it….please
tell.
Although Kamm’s article was fine, his complaint against the BBC was just a footnote at the end and not really specific enough to be worth a link (bearing in mind that the comments are currently overflowing).
Blimey – my reply to Towcestarian has been cut by you!!!!!!!!
Was it really worthy of your red pen? Really??????
Surely some mistake!
Sorry Chuffer. After trawling through hundreds of comments I don’t now remember what you wrote, but in general responses to what someone else posted will get cut unless they add something really interesting.
But surely, Slash, much of the comment section on an ‘open’ forum is, by definition, conversational; and therefore not every comment will neccessarily ‘add something really interesting’. The joy – or otherwise – for others is to ‘eavesdrop’ on these conversations, chipping in occasionally.
My reply to T’strian was a prediction (in response to his pointing out the lack of BBc coverage of the Juror in the burka listening to her ipod), that the BBC will move into overdrive when the predictable muslim outrage occurs if and when she is sentenced.
If something like that is edited out of an ‘open’ comment section of a website called ‘Biased BBC’, your comments section will become somewhat theadbare – and quiet.
The comments on this site are anything but “threadbare and quiet”! If it ever gets that way we’ll stop deleting so many, but for now the comments are just so big they’re off-putting.
Sure some of the conversations can be fun, but really we’re looking for relevant comments on, and hopefully analysis of, specific BBC stories and activities. There are plenty of other blogs where one can hang out and express opinions on politics and whatnot.
Go slash somewhere else! Up against a wall or something.
This is a perfect place to berate the world. Although we have just been warned that if we are too boring then we may be censored. Fuckin hell, I’m a middle aged smoking fat bastard who answers to nobody. Goodbye!
the only thing you will achieve by deleting comments is to alienate the people who make this blog what it is,and without people like pounce,bio.d,archduke,jonathon boyd
ect….this blog would count for zilch.
“pounce,bio.d,archduke,jonathon boyd
ect….this blog would count for zilch”.
Most of these posters have a pretty factual approach – I doubt they would be cut.
It’s the 500 posts of twaddle that are off-putting for the general reader.
Richy | 09.07.07 – 11:05 pm
Most of these posters have a pretty factual approach – I doubt they would be cut.
what every post they make ?..maybe pounce is true,but bio and archduke often go of topic…and they make this blog a lot more interesting for doing so…
>This is a perfect place to berate the world. Although we have just been warned that if we are too boring then we may be censored. Fuckin hell, I’m a middle aged smoking fat bastard who answers to nobody. Goodbye!
Come on, we’ve been extremely tolerant of people spouting off with whatever they feel like here, even though this is not supposed to be what the blog’s for, and there are thousands of other blogs and message boards where you can do that.
And anyway the main reason we’re now cutting down on all that is that the sheer amount of it is now swamping the excellent material by some of the insightful people who write good, useful, analytical comments (such as the very people who callmedave mentions).
A comment on the BBc being fined for a phone-in scam – and the cost to the licence payer – is cut? Unbelievable
I just heard the BBC 10 O’clock news say the convicted bomb plotters were ‘Muslim fanatics’.
BBBC is a great forum and al that but its EUREF that really holds the BBCs feet to the flames
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/07/subtle-bias-or-just-bias.html
Now that BBBC has introduced censorship, I`m off. Thanks all, Its been fun.
>A comment on the BBc being fined for a phone-in scam – and the cost to the licence payer – is cut? Unbelievable
Cut merely because we all saw the story and drew the obvious conclusion ourselves. Worth a comment if we only had a dozen comments, but with hundreds of comments this was one of the ones that got culled. Sorry.
>Now that BBBC has introduced censorship, I`m off. Thanks all, Its been fun.
Well, I hope you come back. We’re not looking to piss people off, but the comments have become a monster. (The great EU Referendum, who you mention, don’t get hundreds of comments like we do. That post you linked to, for example, had just two comments).
bio and archduke often go of topic…and they make this blog a lot more interesting for doing so…
callmedave | 09.07.07 – 11:15 pm
I’m not quite sure how we go off topic on an open thread but here goes 🙂
Contrast & Compare:
The BBC praises Hamas yet again, this time with a story about a nice cuddly animal, and leaves out the nasty bits about the “Palestinians” in general. In fact the BBC story gives the impression that all Hamas wanted was to free the lion.
Gaza lion freed after two years
A lioness has been reunited with her brother in the Gaza Zoo after being released by Hamas from a clan who had abducted her nearly two years ago.
Sabrina was kidnapped aged just three months, shortly after being brought to the Gaza Strip from Egypt.
Hamas militiamen say they freed her after a shootout with the clan members.
Gaza has been under Hamas control since 15 June, when they defeated forces loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Zoo officials say Sabrina is in poor health and very tired, and shows signs of mistreatment.
“The thieves had cut off the end of her tail, the black hair that is considered to be the symbol of pride of African lions. I am very sad for her. She must have felt very humiliated,” zoo veterinarian Saoud al-Shawa told the Reuters news agency.
…
The Islamist movement Hamas took control of Gaza on 15 June after routing the security forces loyal to Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, whose Fatah movement now controls the West Bank.
They have vowed to impose law and order in Gaza.
Compare with:
Hamas returns stolen lion, minus claws and teeth, to Gaza zoo
Even animals with large teeth and claws do not fare well in the volatile Gaza Strip.
On Monday, Hamas operatives raiding the hideout of a notorious drug ring stumbled upon a lion stolen at riflepoint two years ago from the Gaza Zoo, said a force commander, Abu Hamam al-Deeb. But she was malnourished, missing four teeth, claws and part of her tail, a veterinarian said.
The operatives found the 2-year-old lion – as well as drugs and a weapons cache that were the target of the raid – after exchanging fire with the gunmen, al-Deeb said.
…
“Slash” – I must say it’s a great pity you didn’t start censoring comments while “hillhunt” was at his most virulent. :o(
19 comments in 6 hours doesn’t give one much hope for the future. If people start to wonder if their posts meet your criteria then they’ll probably not bother for fear of wasting their time.
If you had nipped the trolls in the bud as was suggested two months ago you probably wouldn’t have needed to act at all. Half of the posts were HH et al and various responses from those who should have known better.
Censorship is a bit OTT in my opinion and will severely hurt this blog in the short-term, maybe longer.
Comment moderation is tricky and hard work to get right, but something needs to be done here (700+ threads!) – especially as a lot of the comments either distract from discussion of BBC bias and/or actually risk bringing the blog into disrepute. I say let’s give the blog owners a chance to settle things down before crying oppression.
Regular blog-supporters who feel bent out of shape might be consoled by the knowledge that the new regime applies to the likes of John Reith and hillhunt as much as anybody. Dissent will have to be as disciplined as agreement.
I’m reminded of a previous workplace when some VIPs were expected; upon seeing two guys larking about, a supervisor bellowed out across the hall, “Oi, show a bit of f*cking decorum!”
.
>19 comments in 6 hours doesn’t give one much hope for the future.
But at that rate we’ll have well over 200 comments in just 3 days! I know some people who visit here a lot like having that many comments to read, but for most people that’s just off-putting.
Hillhunt: if I remember correctly, he’s the very guy who got me thinking that the comments were getting silly, but I wasn’t in a position to delete stuff then.
But it isn’t just him. There’s just generally too many comments that aren’t relevant enough. Often fine comments, and amusing and insightful, yes, but this isn’t a general political blog.
Finally, it isn’t censorship to delete comments. This isn’t a personal bulletin board, nor is it (as I said above) a general blog. It’s a blog specifically aimed at what the BBC does. Anyway, blog owners are free to delete whatever they want (and anyone is free to start their own blog). But write a comment like Biodegradable did above and it’ll probably get through.
Slash writes:
“Hillhunt: if I remember correctly, he’s the very guy who got me thinking that the comments were getting silly, but I wasn’t in a position to delete stuff then.”
Had it occurred to you that this might have been precisely what he hoped to achieve?
He was (as several of us remarked at the time) a troll with a clear, wrecking purpose.
As someone who only comments occasionally, I accept that having to wade through pages of (sometimes rather silly) comments can be tiresome.
Then again – and with all due respect to B-BBC’s primary posters, as opposed to commenters – I find it is the latter who tend to produce the real gems (especially with regard to links).
I do hope we are not going to suffer a bout of ‘enthusiastic new moderator syndrome’. Old hands will know what mean.
The USA is a big country. A lot happens there. A heck of a lot.
So doesn’t the following story, prominently featured on the BBC’s ‘news’ website, suggest that someone has been looking just a little too hard for stories that help maintain the BBC’s theme that Americans are stupid?
“US woman arrested over dry lawn
A 70-year-old US woman has been left bruised and bloody after an unexpected clash with police who came to caution her for not watering her lawn. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6282348.stm
Biodegradable | 10.07.07 – 12:03 am
The thieves had cut off the end of her tail, the black hair that is considered to be the symbol of pride of African lions. I am very sad for her. She must have felt very humiliated,” zoo veterinarian Saoud al-Shawa told the Reuters news agency.
Isn’t this just a little too much projection even for the BBC? Someone please show some credible link that proves lions (or any other animal) feel pride in symbols or the emotion of humiliation.
I don’t see why you have to turn deletion of comments into a formal policy. Why not stick to the old system of deleting all or part of a comment with a short explanation for the deletion?
The open threads are usually the ones that get clogged up with too many comments irrelevant to the blog and become slow to load. I would guess that part of the solution there is to put new open threads up more frequently.
OT on the OT: What happened to the Monthly Archives? Are large chunks of this site’s documentation of BBC bias over the years now lost – or at least very difficult to find given the limitations of the search engine?
Some people have written to complain about the deleting of comments in a way that suggests they think that there are not going to be any comments at all.
So let me just add that there are still going to be a ton of comments on this site. We agree that the comments sections have an amazing amount of great stuff in them, and really drive the site. But we want to make the ratio of great stuff to waffle higher.
Someone else wrote to say that the high amount of comments in recent times is what has made the site more popular. In actual fact the site has not become more popular recently, but has been flatlining at a time when other blogs have been hugely increasing their numbers. This is probably due to the paucity of posts as much as anything else, but we would like our excellent comments section to be more effective.
Ritter:
This has been deleted once, but, the BBC did in fact use the quote …”Prosecutor Nigel Sweeney QC accused the defendants of planning “an extremist Muslim plot” involving “murderous suicide bombings.”
on 5live.
I have been avoiding the site for a while since the comments got a bit large but only because PEOPLE COULD NOT RESIST BAITING THE TROLLS!
Slash the trolls like hillhunt (congratulations on your success, hillhunt) only…it’s not censorship.
My only other beef was when people used it as a personal chat board for their pet projects.
Lets face it, the comments have got completely out ouf hand recently and a bit of light pruning has become essential. Too many threads have absolutely nothing to do with the BBC (Anonymous 8:34) and too much space has been devoted to flame wars with the trolls collectively known as Hillhunt.
So can everyone just calm down a bit and can the moderators please moderate with a light touch. Then we can get back to Beeb Bashing.
Slash:
In actual fact the site has not become more popular recently, but has been flatlining at a time when other blogs have been hugely increasing their numbers. This is probably due to the paucity of posts as much as anything else, but we would like our excellent comments section to be more effective.
In my case, the lack of visits was PURELY because of the fools who continued to dance to hillhunts tune, hence clogging the place up.
My last comment was cut, this one too I guess.
I did not support the cutting of comments.
Mick In The UK supported the cutting of comments
Mine – cut
Mick’s – not cut
Does this selective editing remind anyone of another organisation?
Hey, a comments thread full of discussion about what constitutes a decent comments thread.
What a refreshing change from 8635 comments about Israel. I might start reading again! 🙂
Slash,
Deleting posts that deliberately seek to divert attention away from the topic in hand are welcome, but I can’t see comments being deleted summarily by one person – you – as being especially popular. Is there not a way that people can complain about posts and you react to those complaints? I know it’s a bit BBC-ish in itself, but done properly (i.e. not like DHYS) it works well without offending regular contibutors and encouraging them to go elsewhere. At the moment there seems to be a feeling that some comments are deleted without much reason, and that the thread of the threads (sorry!) is being lost. I appreciate your efforts as something needs to be done to stop the trolls ruining the threads; however, it has taken a long time to get such a big following on Biased BBC, and without some balance to the censoring of comments, this website will return to square one. Listen to the regular posters’ opinions – it is they who make this site effective.
>Does this selective editing remind anyone of another organisation?
There are lots of comments here criticising the new comments policy.
>Is there not a way that people can complain about posts and you react to those complaints?
Sure, if you think your comment was that important and was overlooked too quickly, put in a complaint in a new comment. That may get a response, or it may get deleted, it depends on how interesting or whingy it is. (Alternatively, write a more pertinent comment.)
>At the moment there seems to be a feeling that some comments are deleted without much reason
We’ve explained the reasoning. (Of course it’s going to be somewhat subjective, but we’re not going to have a committee running it).
>and that the thread of the threads (sorry!) is being lost.
I don’t see that this is true.
>however, it has taken a long time to get such a big following on Biased BBC
No, the site’s stats have not improved at all over the last year, and are not much bigger than they were a few years ago. As I said before, this is probably due as much to the fact that we haven’t had as many great posts as we used to a few years ago. But we would also like to improve the comments section which contains a lot of gems.
>Does this selective editing remind anyone of another organisation?
There are lots of comments here criticising the new comments policy.< So when there are x number of comments agreeing or opposing with a position it is the sites intention to "balance" them out? A bit HYSish , No?
>Yeah, but a lot more have vanished!
Yes, because we’re trying to cut down on off-topic comments!
>So when there are x number of comments agreeing or opposing with a position it is the sites intention to “balance” them out?
No.
Just cut HH’s posts and JBH’s long rants about the stupid Hamilton case. Open new open threads more regularly. Your traffic will die otherwise.
The World Service’s weekly navel-gazing programme, Over to You, has a funny habit of not updating the text on the website to reflect the latest programme. I’ve told them about it but, in the finest BBC tradition, they are ignoring the problem. The blurb about the Taleban is old:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/over_to_you.shtml
What’s actually on is a BBC News person’s poor attempt to justify the saturation coverage on Alan Johnston, in the process not allowing the person who complained about it to have much of a say on the matter.
Having washed his hands of that little problem, the presenter, Rajan Datar, then moves on to gently question interactivity editor Vicky Taylor over the treasonous call from the BBC for info on troop movements in Iraq. He pre-emptively disguises Taylor’s inadequate response by playing a short and sweet clip from a caller expressing the hope that the BBC will “rot in hell.” I guess that’s meant to indicate that the BBC is big enough and transparent enough to both take and reveal such criticism. What Datar could really be intent on doing here, knowing the BBC, is deflecting criticism by showing how unreasonable and emotional it is.
But the cherry on the top was Datar’s claim that public criticism had fizzled out because of Vicky Taylor’s apology and explanation on The Editor’s blog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/06/bad_phrase.html
Datar concludes with an analysis of an error in a science programme: it was stated that Benjamin Franklin was a US president.
I give the BBC 2 out of 10 for this week’s Over to You.
What a refreshing change from 8635 comments about Israel. I might start reading again!
Cockney | 10.07.07 – 9:56 am |
You might want to skip this one.
The BBC’s Martin Asser is doing a series of articles on Lebanon this week. Two so far, but no mention of the fact that Syria has invaded Lebanon and taken up positions in the mountains. As Michael Totten says:
If Israel sent the IDF three kilometers into Lebanon and started digging trenches and building bunkers it would make news all over the world. But Syria does it and everyone shrugs. Hardly anyone even knows it happened at all.
If Israel had done this you can be sure it would be headline news on the BBC; Jeremy Bowen would be in Lebanon by now, sharpening his anti-Israeli rhetoric for use in the battle against the evil Zionists.
There have been rumours that Syria is planning some sort of action in defiance of the International Investigation Commission report into the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Al-Hariri. The non-Hezbollah majority in Lebabon will be reassured to hear Martin Asser’s assessment: “There is probably nothing in it.”
Syrian troops are already 3km inside Lebanon. There is probably nothing in it.
>Open new open threads more regularly.
That we will do.
“There are plenty of other blogs where one can hang out and express opinions on politics and whatnot.
Slash | Homepage | 09.07.07 – 10:38 pm”
indeed there is , such as LGF , but membership is limited.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/lgf-register.php
getting back to the BBC , i note that the Syrian invasion of Lebanon isnt highlighted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/default.stm
One can only imagine the howls of indignation if Israeli troops advanced three kilometers into Lebanon.
refs:
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2007/07/did_syria_invad.php
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2007/07/syria-invades-lebanon-and-no-one-cares.html
http://themoderatevoice.com/places/asia/middle-east/israel/13952/double-standards-ii-syria-invades-lebanon-whole-world-yawns/
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001483.html
Michael Totten confirms it. And he writes:
“If Israel sent the IDF three kilometers into Lebanon and started digging trenches and building bunkers it would make news all over the world. But Syria does it and everyone shrugs. Hardly anyone even knows it happened at all.”
he also writes:
“Meanwhile, the Syrian government is evacuating its citizens from Lebanon in advance of…something they expect to happen after July 15, 2007.”
reference:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3422565,00.html
“Lebanon to erupt in 1 week”
I find it astonishing that the ÂŁÂŁÂŁÂŁ multi-billion funded BBC with *thousands* of journalists hasnt informed us of these developments – a build up to what could potentially be an major war in the Middle East.
Walid Jumblatt on the other hand states that rather than fleeing Lebanon, Syria is flooding the country with thousands of “tourists”, along with many Iraqis.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3423447,00.html
Jumblatt also points out the Fatah al Islam – Syrian conneciton – a battle with the lebanese army is still raging (notice how thats dropped off the headlines? )
Slash:
>Is there not a way that people can complain about posts and you react to those complaints?
Sure, if you think your comment was that important and was overlooked too quickly, put in a complaint in a new comment. That may get a response, or it may get deleted, it depends on how interesting or whingy it is. (Alternatively, write a more pertinent comment.)
I’ve not had a comment deleted – I usually visit this site to read rather than to contribute. Your last sentence – depends on how interesting and whingy it is – sums up the problem you are creating for yourself. More like “depends on how interesting and whingy YOU THINK it is. Understandably this will, I guarantee, be extremely unpopular. Not to say extremely arrogant to assume that you can be the sole arbiter of what’s relevant, irrelevant, interesting or boring, whingy or pertinent. Surely you can see that?
>At the moment there seems to be a feeling that some comments are deleted without much reason
We’ve explained the reasoning. (Of course it’s going to be somewhat subjective, but we’re not going to have a committee running it).
It is somewhat subjective, and in my opinion a worse situation that having to scroll through pages of Hillhunt. At least before people were free to express their views, rather than free to express their views so long as Slash approves of them.
I rather thought that we had dealt with HillHunt since it had become increasingly apparent that he was a paid stooge for the Beeb. That, and some psychology, had reduced his comments to just a handful over the last few days. However, one could argue that HillHunts weak attacks on B-BBC actually brought some energy to the site.
I would say that for me the biggest problem with the site is the obsession with Israel/Palestine. I am really not at all interested in Israel/Palestine and I suspect that is true of the majority of the British people. My biggest gripe with the BBC is the amount of airtime devoted to the subject. Naturally, I don’t want to see the subject discussed elsewhere on other blogs. I would suggest that as well as an “off-topic” thread you also have threads for Israel/Palestine and possibly some other topics that deserve threads of their own.
” Slash | Homepage | 10.07.07 – 10:09 am |”
1. posting more often on the actual blog will ensure greater traffic. just monitoring the comments on here will give you ample material to do at least 2 or 3 blogposts PER DAY.
2. make sure your site is submitted to technorati.com and feedburner.com, that helps.
3. you have an RSS feed which you dont highlight in the sidebar:
http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/atom.xml
4. use social networks to promote your blog – facebook.com would be a good place to start. theres a lot of political types on there.
5. your template isnt quite right for googling – in that the blogposts dont have a title – instead they all have a linked “#” sign.
for example, the previous blogpost to this should be headlined like so:
Some Refreshing Honesty on BBC news
that’ll really help the search bots and generate more traffic.
” Ryan | 10.07.07 – 10:31 am”
thats a good idea. because the situation is hotting up over there, you could have an entire thread just dedicated to that topic and the bbc’s coverage of it.
other aspects of bbc bias do indeed get kind of lost sometimes.
Cockney: “What a refreshing change from 8635 comments about Israel. I might start reading again!”
Looks like you spoke too soon…
Interesting how much of the Alan Johnston thread was hacked out. Genuinely curious about this: are BBBC’s editors removing the conspiracy theories for a particular reason?