Please use this thread for BBC-related comments and analysis. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not (and never has been) an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or use as a chat forum. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
One of the biggest websites in the UK (moneysavingexpert.com) ran a poll in the last week on “Is the License Fee Worth It?” . More than two-thirds said no! (see homepage link).
This is a quite astounding result since the website gets much of its publicity from the site owner’s appearances on the BBC (e.g. Jeremy Vine on Friday).
The discussion thread is particularly heated with the usual beeboids shouting down those who disagree with the TV Tax by claiming they’re BNP supporters and Daily Mail readers!
When i read this , the first thing that popped into my head is “why?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6934669.stm
what the yanks think of this , god only knows
Edited By Siteowner
archduke | 07.08.07 – 5:26 pm
when i read this , the first thing that popped into my head is “why?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po…ics/ 6934669.stm
what the yanks think of this , god only knows
The answers to both your questions are in the story, archduke –
The Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary said they had made the request because of recent steps taken by the US government to reduce the number of inmates at the camp in Cuba and “to move towards the closure of the detention facility”.
“These steps include an increasing emphasis on engagement with third countries over the transfer and resettlement of those detained,” the Foreign Office said.
US ambassador Robert Tuttle said the US “has no desire to be the world’s jailor” and wanted to close Guantanamo Bay by moving people to countries which would treat them humanely.
but logic dictates that if the americans are planning to close gitmo then it would be the Americans who put the request to the British government to take custody of the five.
not the other way round.
(i detect a whiff of spin here)
Yes JR but I think that the BBC’s default position is that it will be a good thing when these people are released and the idea that they may well be deadly enemies that it is in the interest of the West to keep shut away never gets a look in!
The BBC, its love for terrorists and half a story
Profile: UK residents in Guantanamo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6934782.stm
JAMIL EL-BANNA
“He has also been questioned about his links to imprisoned radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada, but he insists he only met him once in Britain. It is feared he would face torture if returned to Jordan.”
Really BBC, seeing as how Jamil followed Qatada to England from Afghanistan. How their children where born together and how Jamil visited Qatada while he was in hiding from the British Police.
OMAR DEGHAYES
“He grew up in Brighton, was privately educated and studied law at British universities. Amnesty International said he wanted to be a human rights lawyer.
But he dropped out of university and travelled to Afghanistan, where he married and fathered a son. He had applied for British citizenship but missed an interview because he was abroad.
The BBC leaves out that Omar became radicalised while at Uni, said bugger this country and went walk about in Islamic lands in search of Shangri-La. Strange how nobody bothers to mention his radical Imam of a brother who runs a dodgy mosque in Brighton and who had no problem paying Muslims to visit Afghanistan prior to 2001.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article675998.ece
SHAKER ABDUR-RAHEEM AAMER
“He is reported to have travelled to Afghanistan in August 2001 to carry out voluntary charity work.”
No BBC he was working for this Saudi Charity “al-Haramain Foundation” which was banned worldwide by the UN on the 15th Oct 1999 for funding and supporting Al Quada.
http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/consolist.shtml
BINYAM MOHAMMED AL HABASHI
After seven years in the UK he converted to Islam. He travelled to Pakistan and Afghanistan and allegedly got firearms and explosives training alongside shoe bomber Richard Reid.
Actually he is on record of saying he left the Uk to kick his drug habit and to see what living with the Taliban would be like, but he ended up in a terrorist training camp in June 2001 and spent 30 days learning how to kill for Allah. He was caught trying to get back into the UK in April 2002. seeing as the Yanks went in Oct makes you wonder what Binyam did for 7 months.
ABDULNOUR SAMEUR
“He lived in south Harrow, London. He was given leave to remain in the UK but travelled to Afghanistan because he found it hard to live as a good Muslim in Britain.”
If the BBC states this man as having left the Uk as he found it hard to live as a good Muslim in Britain why is he classed as a UK resident.
The BBC, its love for terrorists and half a story
The BBC its love for the Taliban and rewording ‘failure’
Taleban in rare frontal assault
US-led forces in Afghanistan say they have fended off a rare frontal attack on a coalition base, killing at least 20 Taleban rebels. The US military said about 75 militants tried to overrun Camp Anaconda in the southern province of Uruzgan.
US and Afghan forces responded with mortars, machinegun fire and an air strike. Two Afghan troops were hurt. There are more than 50,000 US and other coalition troops fighting with Afghan soldiers against Taleban militants.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6935590.stm
Rare frontal assault indeed. How about failed attack, failed assault or even an assault.
I’m sure it won’t be long before the BBC inserts they have received a call from their Taliban friends saying that 100 civilians got hurt.
The BBC its love for the Taliban and rewording ‘failure’
Just seen the Newsnight description of the 5 men the gov has asked to be released from gitmo. I am frankly amazed. I learn more about their backgrounds by reading pounce’s posts here than they revealed on newsnight.
The BBC, friends of terrorists the world over.
Why is Jamil el-Banna a refugee from Jordan? He may have been born in Jericho on the West Bank. That would possibly make him a Palestinian rather than a Jordanian but it doesn’t explain why in the words of the UNHCR he has a ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’.
Jordan is not normally on the list of countries producing refugees. Rather it is home to many refugees from ‘Palestine’ and more recently Iraq. Why does Jamil el-Banna fear torture if returned to Jordan?
Why doesn’t the BBC or any of el-Banna’s defenders provide this relevant piece of information ❓
See the BBC in full flow this morning over the foot and mouth outbreak , leading with, and multiply repeating “focus is on the American owned Merial” (i.e. nothing whatsoever to do with the British Government) compare this to Sky News, who mention Merial once, but within the context of the wider initial report.
Talking about “friends of terrorists” I’m wondering why the BBC is not reporting this story:
‘Hamas forced professor to convert’
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/017661.php
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1186066387589&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
And before John Reith and other BBC apologists like Misterminit pop in to tell us that the MSM in general is not reporting it either, I should point out that the BBC is the one with the hotline to Hamas terrorists and with a whole bunch of Palestinian stringers supplying the BBC with inside info from Gaza.
So why the silence? Does the BBC only intend to publish good news about Gaza, if it can find any?
Or does the BBC think that Hamas’ two-week abduction of a Christian university professor (who is then returned to her family mumbling that she is a Muslim) is not news? And that the abduction was apparently carried out by underlings of ‘prime minister’ Ismail Haniyeh is of no significance?
While the fact of a female Muslim taxi driver in Jerusalem is of such earth-shattering importance that it has been on the BBC Middle East page for two weeks:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6261934.stm
That the shameful BBC is in the pocket of Hamas is now without doubt.
Praise where praise is due.
Anyone see the Pakistan travelogue presented by Saira Khan last night? I was expecting the usual BBC whitewash but was very pleasantly surprised. The presenter was critical of many aspects of the society she found, particularly what she called the extension of Wahabi intolerance cross the country (and indeed across British Pakistani society), and interviewed some of the victims, alongside others representing more enlightened belief systems.
Khan came across as an honest and engaged intermediary, light years from the abject beeboid clones we’ve become used to reporting from the front line of Islamofascism, who compensate for their overwhelming feelings of Western colonial guilt by giving a free ride to the perpetrators and supporters of murderous absolutism.
Khan’s programme reminded me that behind all the negative headlines in Pakistan, there are many other interesting stories in that country. At the end, I had been entertained by the people she had met, impressed by the beauty of the country and educated about some of the complexities of life there. All in all, a very Reithian experience.
This should be of interest.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/more_abu_ghraib_agitprop.html
News 24 increases lead over Sky
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2143546,00.html
“The BBC head of television news, Peter Horrocks, said: “We are maintaining our traditional values of accuracy and authority, with an emphasis on original journalism and vivid story-telling.
“Audiences might have reason to question our competitors’ commitment to news. Sky News is no longer valuable on cable and BSkyB want to take it off Freeview.
“ITV made the mistake of moving from News at Ten to ‘news at when’. Audiences don’t easily forget this lack of commitment to news.
“All this, taken together, means that for many audiences ‘the news’ now simply means BBC News.”
Ho ho ho!
re; foot and mouth. a 2 minute scan of the the merial website shows that this company is a 50/50 joint venture between a french co. and an american company.
busy beeboids obviously have got the time to explaint this to us unwashed masses so they say “american company”
twisting the facts, it’s what we do…
The BBC has posted a laughable article about Browns first six weeks as Dear Leader entitled (in an unbiased and detached manner, not) “Six of the Best?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6916931.stm
It looks like the handiwork of well known Biased BBC offender Nick Assinder, but carries no author.
The article might as well have been penned by one of Brown’s spin doctors for its gushing style. What is most troublesome is that it fits squarely with the NuLab narrative of Brown undertaking a huge volume of frantic activity as asked for in the not-so-secret Gould memo to Brown:
“We have to have a strategy of audacious advance. The best way of achieving this is to hold an early election after a short period of intense and compelling activity. A kind of “shock and awe strategy” blasting through the opposition and blasting us to the mid-40 per-cents.”
Doesn’t the BBC article just support this narrative and might as well have been written by Labour in support of their re-election strategy?
Says a lot about the BBC carrying it…
Re this comment on the thread above
Damian Thompson | 08.08.07 – 3:23 pm
Gavin Esler’s Mail column on the glories of Bill’n’Hill includes this
Paul Begala, who helped mastermind Clinton’s 1992 election campaign, insisted that some Republicans were so obnoxious in their hatred that they “would never call him President Clinton in public, or Mr President. There was an effort to de-legitimise him.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=473907&in_page_id=1787
So that will be why the BBC refers to the current president as just “Bush”.
will | 08.08.07 – 4:33 pm
Can you name one BBC broadcaster or one programme on TV or radio that makes a habit of referring to him as just ‘Bush’?
No, thought not.
The BBC, free fruit and only half of a story.
Pupils ‘benefit from free fruit’
A national scheme giving primary school children in England a free piece of fruit each day has improved their diet, a study of 5,000 pupils has found. The number of children who ate fruit every day rose from 46% to 65% as a result of the initiative, researchers at Nottingham University discovered. The school fruit and vegetable scheme was rolled out nationally in 2002, amid concerns about healthy eating. It provides a piece of fruit to all those in the first three primary years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6935464.stm
A feel good story about how the provision of free fruit has benefited the children of this country. Which is strange as the BBC forgot to mention this story on its sidebar.
School refuses free fruit
A school in Leicestershire is withdrawing from a programme giving free fruit to youngsters because the scheme is paid for by the National Lottery. The scheme aims to improve the diets of youngsters, and ensure they develop healthy eating habits.
But children at Charnwood Primary School will not be able to have the free fruit as the head teacher decided it would be more respectful to pull out of the scheme. Head teacher Judy O’Connor is taking the action because many of the youngsters are Muslim and Islamic law strictly forbids any form of gambling.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/3056150.stm
A fine example of the liberal multicultural dogma which prevails as common sense at the BBC. I wonder why they left that story out.
The BBC, free fruit and only half of a story.
John Reith | 08.08.07 – 4:43 pm,
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, didn’t the BBC have a derogatory poster of the President up in the newsroom? BBC hacks are like giggly adolescents when it comes to their pet hates. I noticed it frequently on the World Service – all Bush this and Bush that – though the BBC seems to be changing its approach of late and showing US President George W. Bush the respect due him – or at least paying lip service to it. Maybe they have some senior BBC people paying close attention to this site and others. Oh, hang on…
You can’t really be trying to tell us that the BBC hasn’t by and large been cheerfully spreading the anti-Bush virus far and wide. And there is little evidence indeed that the BBC leopard can or will change its spots.
John Reith:
will | 08.08.07 – 4:33 pm
Can you name one BBC broadcaster or one programme on TV or radio that makes a habit of referring to him as just ‘Bush’?
No, thought not.
John Reith | 08.08.07 – 4:43 pm | #
You’re avin a larf!
Name one BBC panel/comedy show that doesn’t!
pounce I completely fail to understand how the BBC not linking to its own reporting of a story is the BBC leaving something out?
Someone should tell him that it is possible to try too hard.
Just back from two days in Edinburgh and two points:
1. BBC News this morning was gibbering about poor wee Chinese river dolphins now becoming extinct. Yet Teletext on BBC added the words – but the WWF say that the research is not complete and that this may not be the case. So do you believe the Worldwide Fund for Nature or the silly woman on Breakfast News this morning especially when her report was undermined by her colleagues on BBC Teletext? Hope one of the dolphins doesn’t appear in the river next week or she really WILL be upset!
2. Watched Ms Khan in Pakistan in the comfort of my hotel room. Excellent two programmes – much better than Sanji in India. BUT……..how come Imran Khan was allowed to wiffle about “Bush’s phony war” and got around 5 minutes and the President of Pakistan was asked ONE question and was on screen for around 15 seconds? IF Imran Khan claims that the war on terror is phony can he tell us just WHO slammed into the WTC and why so many terrorists are trained in Pakistan or radicalized in Pakistani madrasses?
The BBC, GPS and half a story.
Planes to use accurate satellite data
A new type of satellite navigation system accurate enough to be used for flight is being prepared for a full-scale launch after a series of trials. The European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service – Egnos – is designed to augment and improve the current Global Positioning System (GPS) to make it much more accurate.
Dominique Detain, of the European Space Agency which developed the system, told BBC World Service’s Digital Planet programme that Egnos was built because of concerns over the reliability of GPS data. “That data you receive and the positioning you get in your receiver that comes from the GPS satellite is not trustworthy,” he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6934813.stm
Anybody read the above report on the latest EU science project. Reading it you are informed that GPS isn’t trustworthy (I wonder which country supplies GPS) and that EGNOS is the Bee Knees and the best in the world. Well when it is up and running that is.
Which is strange as the Yanks have had the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) which does exactly the same job that Egnos does but they have had theirs up and running since June 2003. Egnos on the other hand isn’t meant to come on line until 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_Augmentation_System
The BBC, GPS and half a story.
Sarah jane writes;
“Someone should tell him that it is possible to try too hard.”
?????
It’s quite simple – how is a BBC story evidence of the BBC not reporting something?
It would have served the cause better to leave that one out.
a story they could not resist on 2nd slot tonight on news at ten- attempting to smear c4 over bias in “undercover mosque” .
a chance to have a dig at c4 and defend islamists was just tooooooo tempting for the beeb.
what part of ” throw homosexuals from a cliff ” was taken out of context please ?
cps and west midlands police collusion in reporting good journalism to ofcom was the icing on the new labour cake. well done everyone !
jimbob you clearly missed the interview with Nick Higham at the end where he inferred as far as possible that the West Mids Police and CPS had got this one wrong*, and that C4 were right but Ofcom were the best to judge that (*as with Kent Police and Donal MacIntyre).
Obviously the way you represent it here conforms better to your own view of the world, and that of this blog.
But it is not the way it was reported.
Is Sarah Jane the new Hillhunt? We need to know! 😎
Beeb report on C4 thingie but no mention of the major part played by ex BBC reporters who learnt their trade at Auntie’s knee!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6936681.stm
Sarah-Jane, unless your comments start making more sense I’m going to start deleting them.
re Galileo
I have been noticing the BBC’s love of this project for a while now. And why not, it ticks all the BBC Pro-EU/Anti-US boxes.
A couple of examples. Firstly, when a big project such as this goes over budget, we usually get BBC stories of doom and failure. There were many such stories associated with the recent Wembley build. But when Galileo went massively over budget we did not get these type of stories. No, we got:
Europe secures extra Galileo cash
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5298876.stm
Taxpayers ‘should build Galileo’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6660629.stm
and many more of this ilk, with no critical look at the whole point of the project.
But my absolute favourite Galileo story was:
Galileo challenges sat-nav firms
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6897944.stm
Entrepreneurs are being urged to look to the future of satellite navigation. A competition, which aims to find novel ideas that exploit the pin-point accuracy of Europe’s soon-to-launch Galileo system, is calling for entries.
With such pearls of wisdom as:
“Everybody has been amazed at what clever entrepreneurs have been able to do [with GPS]; it does far more than what anyone could have dreamed of when they invented the system,” said Richard Peckham of EADS Astrium Navigation, and one of the Judges of the UK competition.
“I think the same will be true in the future when you have Galileo plus GPS.” He said the UK competition was primarily looking for something that had business potential.
So they do not even have a clue about what they will do with the massive white elephant in the sky. And not a single critical look from the BBC. Just a massive number of Pro-Galileo spin stories.
The BBC: EU good, US bad, its what we think.
Fancy a laugh? Here is part of a letter in today’s Spectator from Francesca Unsworth, Head of Propaganda, BBC News:
“As for giving Alastair Crooke airtime, as a leading light on The Moral Maze, Melanie should appreciate that the BBC tries to reflect and test all shades of opinion on its airwaves, however uncomfortable those opinions might be.
We are not promoting ‘engagement’ with Hamas nor are we turning ourselves into a vehicle for Hamas propaganda. The BBC is reporting from the region fairly and impartially and in greater depth than any other broadcaster.”
It’s the way they tell ’em, as frank Carson used to say.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/letters/77891/letters-to-the-editor.thtml
Sarah-Jane, unless your comments start making more sense I’m going to start deleting them.
The Moderator | Homepage | 09.08.07 – 12:13 am
What on earth is wrong with Sarah Jane’s comments? Like this one:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1502687126413285216/?a=25882#366549
Besides, she’s CBBC. Good to have another representative of the enemy here.
Some of Sarah-Jane’s more obscure comments read like she’s drunk. (Maybe that explains some of the BBC’s output).
The BBC its hatred of America, The Indian retail business and half a story.
Shopkeeper protest to sweep India
Thousands of Indian small shopkeepers are expected to protest against the arrival of international retailers in India on Thursday, just days after Wal-Mart announced its plans to expand in the country. Most of India’s retail sector consists of traditional corner shops, who fear losing their livelihoods if big players enter India.
…………
“We can’t compete with the likes of Wal-Mart or Reliance,” Mr. Darji says.
………………
Traders here have just heard that Wal-Mart and Bharti have tied up to set up stores around India –
……………
“Why don’t they stay in America? Why do they have to come here?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6936846.stm
Strange how the BBC picks out Wal-mart and America as the major culprit here in this tale of Apu and the Goliath. Seeing as they reported on this very same story in May this year which tells a totally different story on the very same subject
Supermarkets devour Indian traders
For generations, Indians have shopped for food and groceries at open markets and from roadside vendors. But this is now beginning to change as a number of large Indian companies are setting up western-style supermarket chains to cater to the country’s growing middle class. The American chain Wal-Mart is poised to enter India next year and the UK-based Tesco is hoping to follow – all hoping to corner a part of a retail market valued at $330bn a year and growing all the time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6186930.stm
Which still isn’t the full story.
Wal-Mart to enter Indian market
US supermarket giant Wal-Mart is to enter the Indian retail market after announcing a joint agreement with India’s Bharti Enterprises. The two companies said they had signed a deal to “jointly explore business opportunities” in India. Bharti chairman Sunil Mittal said the two companies intended to open “several hundred” stores across India under the Wal-Mart brand name.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6186930.stm
But for the full story one has to go back to Feb 2006 in which to get the full picture.
Countdown to India’s retail revolution
The Indian retail sector is now worth about $250bn (£140bn) a year, but it is heavily underdeveloped. Well over 95% of the market is made up of small, uncomputerised family-run stores. Now there are finally signs that the Indian government is dropping its traditionally protectionist stance and opening up its retail market to greater overseas investment. Last month it eased restrictions on foreign investment, allowing overseas retailers to own 51% of outlets as long as they sell only single-brand goods. For the first time, chains like McDonalds, Marks & Spencer, Body Shop and Ikea can, if they want to, open and control their own operations in India.
………..
But allowing in the big multi-brand, international retail groups like Wal-Mart, Tesco and Carrefour was considered a step too far, says Kamal Nath, India’s Minister of Commerce and Industry. “We have announced a partial opening of our retail market, to single-brand retailers,” Kamal Nath told BBC News. “But beyond that, we need to find a model that doesn’t displace our existing retailers.” The Indian government has been conducting an impact analysis of how the introduction of supermarket chains like Tesco and Carrefour would hit its retail sector.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4662642.stm
Now remind me again why the BBC is making such a song and dance (Bollywood style) about Wal-mart and America
The BBC its hatred of America, The Indian retail business and half a story.
Just listened to Victoria Derbyshire talking to the mother and sister of murdered teenager Jesse James on R5. Derbyshire stated that Jesse’s brother was in prison and asked her two guests why he had been sent there. Jesse’s mother and sister became very defensive and said it had nothing to do with Jesse and his death and they were only there to discuss Jesse. Derbyshire backed off big time and did not press the question. Previously they had all been talking about the “walls of silence” which seem to spring up whenever a murder occurs in certain areas. I thought it was a perfectly legitimate question to ask and was surprised Derbyshire backed off so quickly. Also there was not too much made by the interviewer about why Jesse was out in the early hours of the morning in such a dangerous area. Of course the interviewer has to show sensitivity when conducting such an interview, but Victoria Derbyshire seemed a little too deferential.
I thought the new moderation had done away with the absurd time wasting postings of those that insist upon telling all of the B-BBC contributors that they all have one world view, infer they are all of one mind and imply they belong to one organisation (the latter like the BBC actually is).
Please do not let this blog slip and slide back into this ridiculous level of bs.
I have in fact deleted some of the more off-topic comments this morning.
I ask all commentators not to start treating this blog as a general chat forum again.
zboy, I think you’re clutching at straws a little.
Sir Michael Lyons, the Chairman of the BBC Trust, has hinted that the BBC may have to sacrifice one of its channels to meet budget cuts of £2 billion that will be imposed over the next six years. He did not rule out axing BBC3 or BBC4 as part of the “radical changes” needed to help the corporation to balance the books.
Scrapping an entire channel is not thought to be an option favoured by Mark Thompson, the Director-General of the BBC.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article2224732.ece
Surely there are many programmes on BBC1 & 2 that are of so little worth that they could be axed to accommodate the best of BBC’s digital only channels.
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklytop30&requesttimeout=500&flag=viewingsummary
Tim Worstall’s take on this threat:
—————————–
Ah, how delightful, a perfect example of a bureaucracy at bay:
The BBC may need to close one of its television channels as part of a £2 billion cost-saving exercise, the chairman of the corporation’s trust said yesterday.
When budgets are cut, there’s never a general slimming down, a firing of a few backroom people who simply shuffle paper, a reduction in diversity coordinators. No, of course not, there’s a closing, or a threatened closing, of something highly visible, something to show how viciously the poor poor provider is being attacked through its lifeblood, access to your money.
This is why when a local council faces a shortage, it closes libraries and the swimming pool: these actions might not even save any money at all, but they’re possible to point to as examples of the effects of the cuts by those nasty people.
Speculation has been rife about where the axe will fall, with BBC3 and BBC4 being singled out as possible casualties.
In this case, it’s not even cuts in cash: it’s a cut in the rise they thought they were going to get. So full marks for the manouvre: let’s close something only watched by the highly vocal upper middle classes shall we? To get the maximum uproar from a trivial cut in expenditure? Heaven forfend that we might actually just lower star presenter’s pay, cut back a bit on bureaucrats, shut down Radio 1 which has any number of private sector equivalents (or even sell it).
As I say, full marks for the perfect playing of a page from the Bureaucrat’s Handbook.
—————————–
jimbob | 08.08.07 – 10:59 pm
Given the ringing endorsement ‘Undercover Mosques’ received on this blog and how many contributors chided the BBC for not having made the programme themselves, I’d be interested to know what you’ve got to say now that it has emerged that parts of the film are said by the authorities to be about as reliable as an RDF showreel.
Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyer Bethan David scrutinised 56 hours of media footage, only some of which was used in the broadcast.
She said: “The splicing together of extracts from longer speeches appears to have completely distorted what the speakers were saying. ….
Abu Usamah, one of the preachers from Green Lane Mosque featured in the programme, said he was shocked when he saw himself depicted. …
Mr Usamah said he had been featured as saying homosexuals should be thrown from a mountain when in fact he was explaining it was an opinion featured in some books, which was not one he believed.
{my emphasis / ordering}
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6936681.stm
No, there wasn’t any “ringing endorsement” of this programme. A few commentators drew our attention to it, and commented that the BBC is reluctant to show any programmes which portray Muslims in a bad light. (And some commentators criticized the programme.)
Whether the accusations of “distorting views” hold up is another question. Is there actually footage of Mr Usamah saying “But I don’t personally accept this view of homosexuality”? I haven’t seen any reports of this. And it would seem very foolish of Channel 4 to send such footage to the police.
According to The Times, the preacher in question said “I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered, that is my freedom of speech, isn’t it?” That doesn’t sound like he’s just reporting someone else’s opinion, does it? So I reserve judgement on the question of whether the quotes really were taken out of context, or whether this is just backtracking on the part of those who were shown.
I also note that Beeboids have been quick to jump to the defence of the Muslims portrayed in this show, the opposite of what they would do with extremist parties of a different stripe.
In the past when other broadcasters have come under attack the BBC has usually shown solidarity with them as colleagues in the struggle for journalistic freedom and public service.
Not so lately.
Could it be that the BBC has rushed to report recent findings against other media such as channel4 and ITV in order to make out that ‘all of them are at it’ mentality stick in the public’s mind in order to diminish and smokescreen their own shocking recent failings over the blue peter scandal, enormous fat cat celebrity salaries, memos leaked showing bias, balen report suppression, huge payments in bonuses for no apparent reason, crowngate, the ‘littered with errors’ e-mail, fake charity winners and (phone)deceptiongate.
Since the head of the BBC has admitted that it is likely that the discovery of further deceptions will occur are we to expect more desperate BBC reporting of anything going awry at the other broadcasters?
Mr Reith writes;
“Given the ringing endorsement ‘Undercover Mosques’ received on this blog and how many contributors chided the BBC for not having made the programme themselves, I’d be interested to know what you’ve got to say now that it has emerged that parts of the film are said by the authorities to be about as reliable as an RDF showreel.”
Mr Reith the character used by both you and the BBC Abu Usamah
As an example of misconstruing his comments as an example of the bias shown by every NON BBC news outlet is in itself misconstrued.
Abu Usamah belongs to the Salafism branch of Islam. It is a very severe form of Islam which believes that the doctrine of early Islamic life is the only way to live.
To that end while the Koran may not say throw Homosexuals off the highest building.
The belief doctrine of Salafism does. By equating western mores with Islamic mores we allow the people who preach hatred to walk off on a technicality.
Again the old cop out of “I was misunderstood” has been used in which to allow people who wish to kill me and my own to get off Scott free.
Ok so lets agree that Abu didn’t believe in what he said when he spoke about throwing the likes of Adam and Steve off the nearest trig point. But what we shouldn’t forget is that the Muslim world which protests at any pictures of Mohamed, alleged abuse of the Koran and the right to do as they please because the Koran tells them so. Is now saying that because the Koran tells them to kill Gays they don’t actually believe it. Yup right I’m sure a number of gays in Iran are glad to hear that snippet. Pull the other one Mr Reith you may smirk as much as want to. But the Salafism branch of Islam is so close to Wahhabism it could be a clone. Maybe you could explain why in that program ‘Abu Usamah’ was forming at the mouth when he broadcast to the faithful that Apostates had to be killed. Pray tell me he was brushing his teeth at the time. But according to you,the liberal media and the CPS he didn’t mean it.
Pull the udder one.
On BBC some people are fair game for making nasty racist comments:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3203287.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3648471.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4670574.stm
And some are not fair game for making nasty, racist comments:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6936681.stm
pounce | 09.08.07 – 1:50 pm
I dare say Abu Uamah believes all kinds of terrible and ridiculous things.
That isn’t the point.
The point is that the CPS claim that the footage was editied in a way that made it appear that people were saying one thing, when, in fact, they were saying another.
If you support that method of editing when it reinforces your opinions, you are already half way down a slippery slope….
Abandon Ship! | 09.08.07 – 2:11 pm |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5248516.stm
they seem to have a soft spot for this bigot as well….
John Reith 09.08.07 – 2:20 pm said:
>The point is that the CPS claim that the footage was editied in a way that made it appear that people were saying one thing, when, in fact, they were saying another.
>
>If you support that method of editing when it reinforces your opinions, you are already half way down a slippery slope….
Reith, this is an appallingly slimy comment. No-one here ever said or suggested that they supported the editing of footage in a way that distorts the opinions of the person shown. It’s absolutely outrageous that you would insinuate that some people here have.
None of us know whether the footage was misleadingly edited. Some of us here have our doubts whether it was; after all, the CPS have not referred to any specific instances of footage that shows this, but seem to be relying heavily on what the people in the show have subsequently said. But whether it was edited misleadingly or not, it is not anyone’s position here that such editing would be justified.
Anyway, this matter has nothing to do with us here at Biased BBC, as none of us were involved in the making of the show , and it was not “ringingly endorsed” here as you claimed earlier.
It is mischief-making for you to come here and make these suggestions. We’ve been happy to have you here arguing (however poorly) the BBC’s case in the past, but if you start turning into a troll, making ridiculous allegations in order to stir up trouble, then you’re out.
>I dare say Abu Uamah believes all kinds of terrible and ridiculous things.
>
>That isn’t the point.
It is one of the points. If he believes in all kinds of terrible things, then why doesn’t the BBC cast their critical gaze upon the likes of him, instead of defending him?
Telford 09.08.07 – 3:39 pm
instead of defending him?
The BBC hasn’t defended him. All the BBC has done has been to run a story not materially different in any significant particular from the story in the Times. You should know this as you linked to the Times story
yourself.
No-one here ever said or suggested that they supported the editing of footage in a way that distorts the opinions of the person shown
No….I suppose not, if you claim to know their opinions – even when those opinions (as ‘known’ by you) are different from the ones actually expressed.
Pounce appeared to be arguing that it was okay to misrepresent what Abu Whatsit said because ….here I paraphrase….we all know he’s a Salafist…so he must believe in …..murder, mayhem, gay-bashing….whatever he actually said on the tape.
Perhaps you’ll argue that that wasn’t what pounce was arguing.
If so, please enlighten me precisely what was the burden of his post…..and specifically what you understand to be the meaning (if any) of this sentence:
As an example of misconstruing his comments as an example of the bias shown by every NON BBC news outlet is in itself misconstrued.
Edited By Siteowner