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.
The Times has an amusing review of last nights BBC1 piece of Islamic agit-prop ..
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article2440541.ece
Hi Archduke, it was indeed mentioned here before – back in June by Natalie – I found it earlier when I had a look back. I’ll be mentioning it in my next post. Watch this space. Thanks for the suggestion re. Drudge. Another thing to add to my to-do list… unless someone else does it first.
Archduke,
Excellent idea about Drudge. I was one of those who complained about this a few months back, and they did make some changes at the time. They didn’t fix everything, though, and even left some of the conspiracy mongering bits on one of the pages. It was definitely well covered here, and I seem to remember similar excuses to Sinead Rock’s posted here by some beeboid or other.
At the time(before they made any of the updates), I sent emails to several prominent non-Leftoid bloggers. Nobody seemed to notice then, but I guess it was only a matter of time before somebody brought it to Drudge’s attention. Like him or not, his site gets people’s attention.
” UN adopts treaty on native rights ”
http://newsbbc.co.uk/1/hi/world6993776.stm
Presumably British indigenous people now qualify.
I wouldn’t count on it. Probably only non-white, non-western ‘natives’ need apply. BTW I’m getting a 404 error message from your link. Did the Beeb pull this one too??
For reference above, try
“UN adopts treaty on native rights”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world
Or even this!
http://www2.newsbbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6993776.stm
Snide comment from Nick Robinson at the end of the latest BBC Isn’t-Brown-wonderful feature (the visit of Margaret Thatcher) – apparently she is a “Fragile, lonely old woman”. I suppose fragility is all part of being 82 years old, but how does he know she is lonely? Has he researched this, or (more likely) is he just employing stereotypes of the elderly…
Bet Maggie has more daily visitors than Nick Robinson! And much more important ones too!
Heh. We all know that indigenous peoples’ rights are ultra-sacred — on every continent except one relatively small peninsula jutting off the West side of Asia.
1327:
The Times has an amusing review of last nights BBC1 piece of Islamic agit-prop ..
http:// entertainment.timesonline…icle2440541.ece
The Torygraph’s commentary on the same piece of nonsense is even funnier:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/09/13/nosplit/bvtv13last.xml
“It opened like a Sunday-night drama: with swelling English music and lingering shots of the British countryside. The four women featured then declared how much they love Britain. “They’re Muslim, British and proud of it!” cried the narrator.
And with that, the programme had made its central point. Now all that remained was to make it again and again • and to such an overstated extent that Islam began to sound like a slightly blander version of the Church of England. Before long, you half expected to see these women cooking jam and singing Jerusalem (although presumably not posing naked for a calendar).”
Sounds perfectly horrible, like a cross of something written by the Guadian’s Madeleine Bunting and the author of “Pollyanna.”
TheModerator|Homepage|13.09.07-12:50 pm|
Thanks for the warning and at least acknowledgement that I did put effort into bringing together wide areas of view in opposition to usual BBC coverage of the Iraq war.
I disagree with the premise that one must directly reference BBC material in order to point out bias. And I was not intentionally following “anyone elses attempts here” knowingly.
It is in my opinion that most damage is done to average readers by daily omission of the full truth. BBC cherry picks bad news and daily omits good news. The latter which is most aggregious to the reader. How can one point out the bias of omission? In my opinion, by showing what they leave out.
But this is your site and I respect your forum. If you or others have recommendations how to address the omission of news as bias by BBC, that would be welcome.
Regards
Hi Michael, covering the BBC’s omissions is important to us. In the past some commenters have posted lots of links about all sorts of things on the pretext that “the BBC hasn’t reported this yet”, when very often it had or was in the process of doing so. There are two things to look out for in terms of BBC omissions:
1) Stories that are big and that the BBC should cover, but hasn’t after a reasonable length of time;
2) Stories covered by the BBC that omit details that are present in other news media or that you can vouch for in some other way.
The other thing is just to be concise, though I’d rather have a few longer comments than dozens of small comments popping up at random.
Lastly, it’s very easy to set up your own blog – so if you’ve got the time and inclination to write at length that might be worth considering, and then of course you could link to your blog from here too.
All the best, and thank you for participating in B-BBC.
This may not really be bias – and may just be a personal hobby horse but: Radio 4 News, 8.00 am, in a report on relaxation of movement controls for livestock there was a reference to “the Scottish Government”.
I knew that the new minority administration in the Scottish parliament had renamed the Scottish Executive as the Scottish Government (and removed unionist things like the Royal Arms from signs, notepaper etc) but I wonder if a national radio news channel supposedly of high quality should simply use the name without some qualification or explanation?
The executive only exists by virtue of, and within limits laid down by, legislation of the parliament of the UK. The executive might be Scotland’s local government – like the GLA or the London Borough of Lambeth are local government – but its government in any constitutional sense is the that of the union.
As I said above – perhaps not bias – but I’ve never thought of the BBC as particularly strong defenders of the union – or indeed of any established institution except itself – and the license fee.
Charley | 13.09.07 – 10:41 pm
Snide comment from Nick Robinson at the end of the latest BBC Isn’t-Brown-wonderful feature (the visit of Margaret Thatcher) – apparently she is a “Fragile, lonely old woman”. I suppose fragility is all part of being 82 years old, but how does he know she is lonely? Has he researched this, or (more likely) is he just employing stereotypes of the elderly…
Here’s Conservative MP Rob Wilson on the same subject:
Baroness Thatcher is 81, she is elderly, she is lonely, she is frail and she has difficulty with her memory. Those closest to her say that her grasp on daily life is “some days better than others”.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2007/09/rob-wilson-mp-w.html
Al Beeb spin.
There’s no ammo in Iraq so the Police have to ask photo journalists for bullets.
Or were the Police just asking the standard ‘Car Checking’ questions – do you have a gun, explosives or bullets in the car.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/07/middle_east_iraq_0surge0/html/3.stm
Here’s Conservative MP Rob Wilson on the same subject:
Baroness Thatcher is 81, she is elderly, she is lonely, she is frail and she has difficulty with her memory. Those closest to her say that her grasp on daily life is “some days better than others”.
http://conservativehome.blogs.co…ilson-mp- w.html
John Reith | 14.09.07 – 10:17 am | #
If you read the numerous complaints from clearly better-informed commenters on Rob Wilson’s post you will see that his claim that Lady Thatcher is lonely is as much an assertion as Nick Robinson’s is. In any case it is contentious – which is not the impression viewers would have got from Robinson’s throwaway assertion-as-fact remark yesterday
JR
Here’s Conservative MP Rob Wilson on the same subject:
Baroness Thatcher is 81, she is elderly, she is lonely, she is frail and she has difficulty with her memory. Those closest to her say that her grasp on daily life is “some days better than others”.
A good point JR, I think Nick Robinson was probably right.
It leads on to the question of what sort of machiavellian stalinist control freak would exploit such a frail old lady for political advantage.
I expect we’ll see this angle covered on the Beeb shortly.
What do you think?
Had the misfortune of watching a few minutes of “Bust My Ass” with Sam Delaney on BBC 3 last night. It began by showcasing a handful of citizens who have been arrested under various pieces of legislation for expressing themselves in ways the authorities didn’t approve of. A couple were war protesters, arrested for protesting near Parliament, and at least two others were on the hook for wearing t-shirts which stated “Bollocks to Blair”.
So Sam takes them to a vacant basement, arms them with spray paint and tells them to express those thoughts the authorities condemn – a barrister was brought in to review the comments for criminality. Slogans ranged from “Cameron Blows Goats”, “Troops Out of Iraq”, and placed prominently in the middle of the wall was a swastika – equal sign – Star of David.
This was odd as none of them mentioned being censured for being anti-Israel, or anti-Semitic for that matter. But there it was, right dead center: “Jews are Nazis”. And the camera, I noticed, kept it in shot while the barrister discussed the various other slogans, but oddly not that one. It passed without comment, present in almost every shot, but not commented on.
Quote from the TPA:
“A new YouGov poll of more than two thousand adults shows big support for lower taxes and strong scepticism of politicians’ ability to manage public services.”
“Council tax has doubled in a decade and is seen as the most unfair tax. The BBC licence fee is seen as the second most unfair tax, then inheritance tax.”
Beeb in good company
World service Outlook just ran a twenty minute report on honour killing and forced marriage in Germany, mentioning ‘Turkish’ and ‘immigrants’ and suggesting that ‘arranged marriage’ probably meant forced in many cases, but simply refused at any time to say the word Islam. Makes you want to weep, doesn’t it?
Plantman | 14.09.07 – 2:33 pm |
This looks interesting – have you got a link for it?
Thanks.
Rockall – here ’tis
http://tpa.typepad.com/campaign/2007/09/news-release-ta.html
Funny how JR finds ONE MP to agree with his viewpoint yet does not mention Labour MPs such as that twit Maguire who claims to be made physically sick by the thought of Maggie. Well even more of us are sick of the lies, the use of public funds to give to their union friends and sheer waste thanks to the Labour Party but we don’t go around slagging off former PMs etc in such a fashion.
Pathetic and typical that JR as always picks one minor point to come back with yet ignores the HUGE picture of deceit and lies being spun through the BBC at the moment about Newsround and other programmes.
Two eminent scientists Denis Amery and Fred Singer conduct an extensive review of evidence and have published a book saying there is no evidence that global warming is probably natural and not all bad.
Do the BBC:-
a) Publish a fair account of their new book on BBC Online?
b) Ignore them and call up a climate change supporter scientist called John Marburger and then present that phone call as a news story?
The Moderator|Homepage|14.09.07-6:57 am
Thanks for clarifying and I’ll keep your points in mind for future post. My apologies if to many comments appeared as random ramblings on.
I’ll follow your policy gladly.
As to my own blog, it has been well considered in the past and a verdict yet remains. The call is strong, not to be a random reactionary to the vacuous content, but provide solid facts, opinion and analysis to fill the void.
Regards
Two eminent scientists…
Barry Wood | 14.09.07 – 5:15 pm | #
Just to help me clarify.
..a book saying there is no evidence that global warming is probably natural and not all bad.
I’m not sure I understand this.
Meanwhile, I can fathom that some more scientists on one or other ‘side’ (perceived, admitted or otherwise – are there any just doing their best to find out the facts?) of the whole CC debate have published yet another book.
But I have to say that, from Bjorn Lomborg to James Lovelock, the attachment of a book to sell does not inspire much confidence immediately, especially when it comes to the associated PR efforts that will be used to perk up a jaded media more interested in a quick ratings fix than any worthwhile contribution.
However, just doing so does not surely mean that it has to be covered (maybe for the aforementioned reason, if not the Moderator’s rul… guidelines).
So if they were ignored, what was the phone interview with John Marburger (didn’t know of him before, so can’t reasonably comment on his affiliations, be they purely science based or more complex) about?
I agree you can’t just phone up a person to spout off for no reason, and as has been noted here (and accepted by the BBC) there needs to be some measure of balanced debate, but I just can’t follow how this played out in this case.
Is there a link? All I could find was this – Bush aide says warming man-made http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6994760.stm , which is apparently from a guy ‘who advises President Bush’ and is advised as ‘the starkest warning from the White House so far about the dangers ahead’. Hardly the most expected source of unthinking MMCC endorsement.
And frankly, to me, news worth knowing.
The rest is, of course, still fiddling while the Titanic accelerates. But still, whatever floats the talkers vs. doers boat… while it floats.
Apologies if this has been raised – but the coverage online of the Pope`s visit to Austruia couldn`t be more wrong. It reports that no crowds were lining the streets ( so as to imply that no-one turned out). The streets were closed to public, who were coralled in various set points along the route, so as to avoid chaos – you know how organized the Austrians are. The same online report then remarks that those who w ere there were bussed in by church groups (implying that the crowds were orchestrated). Again, not true – the Police had banned cars and private transport into Mariazell and the only allowed form of entry was by registered coaches. The article also said that the Pope “wisely” stayed away from the themes mentioned at his Regensburg lecture a while back, with regard to Islam. Wise ? for whom ? Those wanting to stifle true debate. The whole online page was an utter disgrace. And David Willey even got the date of Pope Benedicts election wrong.He said it was April 2004, when it was in fact April 2005. The BBC is Anti Catholic.
This was odd as none of them mentioned being censured for being anti-Israel, or anti-Semitic for that matter. But there it was, right dead center: “Jews are Nazis”. And the camera, I noticed, kept it in shot while the barrister discussed the various other slogans, but oddly not that one. It passed without comment, present in almost every shot, but not commented on.
David S | 14.09.07 – 1:15 pm |
Thanks for this account Dave S. Highly revealing – not just for the chilling anti-semitism that the BBC is now so often quietly endorsing, but also for the usual portrayal of ‘protest’ running the gamut all the way from being anti war in Iraq to being anti Blair to being anti Israel to being anti Tory. Funny how these brave protesters always seem to reflect dominant BBC output.
I wouldn’t imagine anyone else would have access to this programme, since it was recorded some weeks ago. It was an episode of Rick Stein’s trip around the Med – in this particular one he went to Morocco. Now, when I watch cooking shows, I want to learn about the food. But in this particular episode we had Rick talking to a man, a British ex-pat in fact, who had moved there. In fact, not only had he moved there, he had converted to Islam and kept jabbering on about how hospitable Muslims are and how there’s no crime etc in Morocco. And this had precisely what to do with food?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6996251.stm
Cardinal in ‘Nazi art term’ row
A German archbishop is in hot water for his warning that “when art became estranged from worship, culture became degenerate”
This is being compared with the Nazi Germany usage of ‘degenerate art’
My reason for posting this here is simply that paragraph 5 and 6 of the article states:
“The BBC’s Marianne Landzettel says this was no off-the-cuff remark by the cardinal, delivered in a sermon in Cologne Cathedral, but was precisely scripted.
She says the phrase degenerate art – “entartete Kunst” – in German has only one connotation: that of Nazi Germany and the persecution of artists, the banning of paintings and the burning of books.”
Surely as a news report there is no reason to word it in this way. As the correspondent for Germany surely she should be reporting the facts and not instead telling us what his remarks intent was???
“Cardinal in ‘Nazi art term’ row:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6996251.stm
A German archbishop has sparked controversy by calling some modern art “degenerate” – a term used by the Nazi regime in its persecution of artists.
dot dot dot
The BBC’s Marianne Landzettel says this was no off-the-cuff remark by the cardinal, delivered in a sermon in Cologne Cathedral, but was precisely scripted.
She says the phrase degenerate art – “entartete Kunst” – in German has only one connotation: that of Nazi Germany and the persecution of artists, the banning of paintings and the burning of books.”
Two things struck me. It seems wrong for a BBC journalist to have such a prominent voice in a story’s editorial choir – she tells us that the cardinal intended to use a Nazi term, but we have no way to evaluate the accuracy of her claim; and there is no explanation of why he might do such a thing, or rebuttal from his side.
The second thing is that Marianne Landzettel’s few other appearances on the BBC’s websites are in debates, where she is presented as someone who is not a BBC employee:
http://tinyurl.com/2aa7je
E.g. she is “a German working in London”, a “German radio journalist” etc. This isn’t necessarily disingenuous, because those debates are from 2001-2002, and she might have joined the BBC subsequently. And it is also possible that Landzettel is not the BBC’s anything, or that she has briefly freelanced for the BBC. Still, I have to wonder how many of the supposedly neutral parties in those old debates were drawing cheques from the BBC, or expected to do so in the future; I imagine that journalists circulate around a lot.
this little posting on devils kitchen
made me laugh…
http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2007/09/19-years-is-just-not-long-enough.html
From Al-BBC web news..
“Bounty set over Prophet cartoon
The purported head of al-Qaeda in Iraq has offered a reward for the murder of a Swedish cartoonist over his drawing depicting the Prophet Muhammad.”
Good to see that the islamists and leftists at Al-BBC give Muhammad his proper, fawning muslim title.. “Prophet Muhammad”. Surely, objectively , they should just say “the muslim prophet Muhammed” .
But like the good little dhimmis they are, Al-BBC are happy for their news stories to read like a broadcast from Saudi TV.
Strange, but I don’t ever remember Al-Beeb reports ever referring to “Our Saviour Jesus Christ”.
France 2 has been awarded damages against Philippe Karsenty because he dared to suggest that they faked the well-known Al Dura hoax. This in spite of the recommendation of the Procureur that Karsenty be acquitted.
http://politicscentral.com/2006/10/19/al_dura_the_verdict.php
Not a word about it in the BBC website. Why not? You’d think that such an important decision, legally justifying the MSM’s “impartiality” would be reported gleefully by the BBC.
Melanie Phillips reports the case.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1612
Karsenty’s appeal is being heard this week. Maybe the BBC is waiting until tha appeal is heard, so that they can repeat it then – if Karsenty loses, of course.
A anti-conservative sneer from the BBC, as is expected, in this piece on passport photos. But is it really a passport photo of Cameron? All the other samples appear to be the real thing, but not his. Is this another piece of BBC fakery?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6981500.stm
I’m back and unbanned 🙂
Bounty set over Prophet cartoon
On a legal point. What would the BBC’s responsibility if someone attempted to collect $100,000 for murdering Lars Vilks after first hearing of the bounty from the BBC? The first paragraph and the headline make this sound like a public-service announcement on behalf of al-Qaeda. Could the BBC be charged with incitement?
In other developments:
* at least 10 people were killed and 15 injured when a suicide bomber blew himself up near a market in the district of Amil in Baghdad
* Iraq’s defence ministry said it shared a common vision with the US over when Iraqi forces may take over security responsibilities from US troops
Are we to believe that this is in any way connected with a Swedish cartoonist?
Abdul Sattar Abu Risha (accompanying picture) was one of al-Qaeda’s top targets
Who is he, and what has he to do with this story?
Reading this article to the end is at best confusing. Perhaps the BBC doesn’t expect anyone to read to the end?
deegee: “I’m back and unbanned”
deegee, you make it sound as if you were banned on purpose, rather than accidentally as a side-effect of a ban on someone who is a troublemaker!
Welcome back all the same 🙂
How the BBC would report the Battle of Midway today;
Midway Island Demolished. Yorktown, destroyer sunk.
Many US planes lost
June 7, 1942
The United States Navy suffered another blow in its attempt to stem the Japanese juggernaut ravaging the Pacific Ocean. Midway Island, perhaps the most vital U.S. outpost, was pummeled by Japanese Naval aviators. The defending U.S. forces, consisting primarily of antique Buffalo fighters, were competely wiped out while the Japanese attackers suffered few, if any, losses.
In a nearby naval confrontation, the Japanese successfully attacked the Yorktown which was later sunk by a Japanese submarine. A destroyer lashed to the Yorktown was also sunk.
American forces claim to have sunk four Japanese carriers and the cruiser Mogami but those claims were vehemently denied by the Emporer’s spokeman.
The American carriers lost an entire squadron of torpedo planes when they failed to link up with fighter escorts. The dive bombers had fighter escort even though they weren’t engaged by enemy fighters. The War Dept. refused to answer when asked why the fighters were assigned to the wrong attack groups. The Hornet lost a large number of planes when they couldn’t locate the enemy task force. Despite this cavalcade of errors, Admirals Fletcher and Spruance have not been removed.
Code Broken
The failure at Midway is even more disheartening because the U.S. Navy knew the Japanese were coming. Secret documents provided to the NY Times showed that “Magic” intercepts showed the Japanese planned to attack Midway, which they called “AF”.
Obsolete Equipment
Some critics blamed the failure at Midway on the use of obsolete aircraft. The inappropriately named Devastator torpedo planes proved no match for the Japanese fighters. Even the Avengers, its schedule replacements, were riddled with bullets and rendered unflyable. Secretary of War Stimson dodged the question saying simply: “You go to war with the Navy you have, not the Navy you want or would like to have”. Critics immediately called for his resignation.
Taken from;
http://www.strategypage.com/hotstuff/articles/humor20051121123.asp
Do I detect a general sense of glee in the reporting of the Northern Rock run?, even a faning of the flames?
Nothing to do with the Beeboids , hoping and praying for an end to the capitalist system, or anything like that?
Once again, it is Channel 4 who do some needed digging…
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/unholy+war/802852
…and NOT al-Beeb.
Tom Atkins.
On the BBC’s main index page as of 9am this morning, we are linked to
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6996136.stm
Rush on Northern Rock continues.
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6997197.stm
Fears over bank’s online accounts
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6996653.stm
Northern Rocked. Savers across the country rush to withdraw their money
4. http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=7333&edition=1&ttl=20070914085024
Northern Rock loan: Are you worried.
So there might be something in what you say. Certainly making smoke while NR, The FSA, Bank of England and Chancellor have all stated that their aint no fire.
http://www.order-order.com/2007/09/boom-to-bust-political-bail-out.html
“Guido suspects that the Treasury pressurised Mervyn King, against his better judgement, to bail out Northern Rock for political reasons. Brown’s Britain is a bigger version of Northern Rock. Gordon’s macro-economic policies are Northern Rock’s borrowing policies writ large. Gordon has mortgaged spending through PFI, government debt has ballooned and the consumer economy is floating on debt secured against over-stretched property prices. It can’t go on for ever…”
Guido points out that the Gov of the Bank of England has reversed course and allowed help to Northern Rock. He also points out that NR is a Labour bank, who supported the miners etc. As Guido says – Barings was allowed to collapse – can you imagine the BBC et al if NR was a perceived Tory bank? He also makes a good point – NR could be likened to the UK economy under Brown. No wonder they stepped in to help – it is to save their necks not the NR! SO why are we not seeing comment like this on the BBC as well to give the other side?
Tom: I can assure you as a member of BBC staff with a Northern Rock mortgage I’m not praying for the end of capitalism of trying to “fan the flames”.
I hope that David Gregory’s understanding of both finance and contract law is not a reflection of that of the BBC “experts” in this field. As I suspect DG knows very well borrowers from NR are more or less unaffected by NR’s woes – and would not be seriously affected were NR to collapse. It’s the depositors and shareholders of NR who would suffer in a collapse. There are very few mortgage customers queueing up outside NR branches demanding to repay their mortgages.
Umbongo: Surely there’s a long term risk that the NR might want to try and increase it’s rates now to claw back more cash from those of us with mortgages? I’m keeping a weather eye on it.
David Gregory,
It’s probably more likely that NR will either sell the mortgages to raise cash, or someone else will acquire them when/if the bank goes under. Either way, the new owners will possibly have gotten your mortgage at a lower cost, and will make a better profit off you in the long run on your current contract than NR would have in the first place.