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.
Andrew(BBC) says
the more money we can spend on programmes.
“We”. Who are “We” ? Why should the taxpayer fund this? I can imagine the communist authorities defending the dacha system this way “We need our enjoyable facilities not available to the rest of the population, but paid for by the population, to keep ourselves happy and govern better… other countries may have things like elections that keep them accountable but we are better than that”. Similar to the BBC, maybe.
Paxman has it right – if you own a washing machine we don’t pay a tax to manufacture Persil.
Abandon Ship,
Actually, the concern that the sub-prime mortgage fiasco has unfairly affected African-Americans is a fair one. The reason is that the idea behind much of the sub-prime market in the first place was an effort to help African-Americans become homeowners.
Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor (Democrat) under Clinton has a nice summary here:
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/03/fed-and-sub-prime-lending-debacle.html
It is not racist to say that a large percentage of African-Americans have less savings, lower household incomes, and worse credit, than the average US citizen. That’s an unfortunate fact of our society, and programs like these are intended to help change that. You know, give them opportunities they would otherwise not have. Of course, in the rush to help out the disadvantaged, nobody worried enough about their ability to pay the money back.
Personally, I see this as no different than credit card companies throwing all sorts of offers at people they know can’t afford. These companies take advantage of stupid people (like me), knowing that they’ll make enough money off enough of them to be able to write of the defaults and still make a profit in the end. They walk a very fine line between helping people get credit, and taking unfair advantage of people who need to have at least one credit card to function in today’s society. Mostly they do not err on the side of caution, in my view. Sub prime mortgages are the same deal, I think.
Having said all that, I think this is relevant to the Supreme Court decision last year which decided that a company policy which is not intended to have a discriminatory effect can be considered in violation of anti-discrimination laws if the policy inadvertently discriminates against a certain group. So it’s not a big leap to apply this logic to the sub prime lenders. They didn’t set out to take advantage of African-Americans specifically, but it’s easy to see how it looks like they ended up doing so.
Here is another, more coherent, and informed explanation:
http://www.alternet.org/story/50322/
Re the Blackwater incident, I heard a report from al-BBC last night on The World, which is a co-production of the BBC and Public Radio International in the United States. The correspondent in Baghdad (Andrew North, I think) had interviewed a number of ‘eyewitnesses’ who all claimed that the American contractors opened fire on a group of innocent Iraqi bystanders for no reason whatsoever. However, according to CNN.com, initial reports by the U.S. State Department say the convoy came under fire from 8 to 10 people “from multiple locations, with some aggressors dressed in civilian apparel and others in Iraqi police uniforms.”
So it seems there may be two sides to this story after all. What a pity the BBC managed to avoid getting one of them.
deegee @ | 19.09.07 – 7:48 am |
“Left wing/right wing; pro-Kerry/anti-Kerry? Seems a rather excessive way to ‘control’ someone who was disruptive rather than a danger to himself or anyone else?”
The video report given to you by the BBC doesn’t give you anywhere near enough information to let you make that judgment for yourself. No, you are given a snippet, out of context, and then lied to as if the full incident did not take place. In actual fact, John Kerry is a US Senator and former Presidential candidate, and police/security are obligated to take a sterner stance on potential troublemakers. It’s easy to look at this clown in hindsight and say he was harmless. At the time, a police officer can’t take that chance. This drama queen was given plenty of chances to back off and shut up. He chose to cause a scene, chose to taunt the cops, chose to physically resist arrest, which is itself a separate chargeable offense.
If you think about it, had the cops not used the taser, the guy would have become physically violent towards them, and would in the end have possibly gotten really injured. This guy wanted a scene, and he got it. He knew he had an audience, and this made him feel invincible. He clearly intended to escalate the situation into physical violence. The taser is a less harmful option, even though it looks sexy.
In the end, though, you’re at least half right:
“Some uniformed goon overreacted to heckling. Without the presence of John Kerry and a good video (if it bleeds it leads) this would be a non-story even on the BBC.”
It’s not really about Kerry’s presence, it’s the fact that the offender was talking about sacred leftoid issues, and presented out of context the video seemed to show him being repressed by the system for doing just that. If he was merely “heckling” Kerry, as you call it, but was spouting Republican talking points, there is no story. It’s a story to the BBC because of what he said, not just to whom he said it.
In the end, the BBC sure thinks it’s a story, and they are still lying about what happened, just not on the front page anymore. Or they are just not doing their job properly. Yet another one of Helen Boaden’s junior, untrained temps at work, I suppose.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7001464.stm
Ooh, he can be heard screaming for help, can he? Business as usual at the BBC.
David P, Mugwump
Thanks for those informative comments and the links. The good thing about having a rant on BBBC is that, unlike the BBC, you get to find out what is really happening in the world.
Listen and learn well, Beeboids.
The Beeboid view: Best to keep quiet and ignore the Qassams my dears:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7002576.stm
“The Israeli cabinet’s move will only be seen by Palestinians as a form of collective punishment, the BBC’s diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says. He says it also risks consolidating support for Hamas amongst a population that is already struggling to maintain a basic economic standard of living.”
Abandon Ship,
Interesting comment from the BBC’s Jonathan Marcus. After getting past the criticism of Israel, one could almost believe he thinks it would be problem if support for Hamas was consolidated. Is that a slip of the tongue? Could somebody at the BBC think that Hamas might not be the best answer to the Palestinians’ problems?
This is almost encouraging.
Menawhile on the tasering incident: Local press and TV have reported that the guy was a known prankster and that he was wanting publicity as well as jumping the queue in any event.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297287,00.html
The local paper reports:
“As (Meyer) was escorted down stairs (at the University Auditorium) with no cameras in sight, he remained quiet, but once the cameras made their way down stairs he started screaming and yelling again,” Officer Nicole Mallo wrote in the 12-page incident report.
She was one of two officers who actually rode with Meyer to the Alachua County jail, and she said said he told them during the ride: “I am not mad at you guys, you didn’t do anything wrong, you were just trying to do your job.”
Mallo also reported that Meyer asked if cameras would be present at the jail. The Sun newspaper also reported that of the many videos circulating, one was shot with Meyer’s own camera.
Meyer asked Clarissa Jessup to tape his exchange with Kerry. One officer said the woman was “there to film him” and that Meyer asked, “Are you taping this? Do you have this? You ready?” before beginning his question.
So – planned and wanted maximum publicity. Funny how the BBC can’t do some basic research like American reporters and report all the facts and let people make up their own mind…..was Matt Frei busy trying to find another anti-Bush angle ?
dave t,
QED, then. Nice one.
On the sub-prime mortgage collapse:
Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor (Democrat) under Clinton has a nice summary here:
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/…ng- debacle.html
It is not racist to say that a large percentage of African-Americans have less savings, lower household incomes, and worse credit, than the average US citizen. That’s an unfortunate fact of our society,….”
Is there any reasonably free country on Earth where the black population is as wealthy as the non-black population?
Allan@Oslo,
The quote you have there is from my own words, not Reich’s. I was stating my own opinion, which may appear to paraphrase what Reich was saying.
In any event, it seems to me that you are asking a reasonable question, although maybe some hope might be found in the wealthier Caribbean island nations.
Still waiting for the BBC to query the fact that Northern Rock donated to IPRR the Labour Party’s think tank, and that Gordon Brown’s adviser also advises Northern Rock and that Mr Wanless a Director of NR is of course Gordon’s best mate….. now had it been Baring’s of course a Labour government would have thrown billions at the bank to save it!
NR is regarded as Labour’s bank in the same way that Coutts could said to be a Tory one based on the probable political makeup of the bank’s depositors etc. So shall we expect Panorama to point out the possible corruption or conflict of interests here or will it be up to Channel 4 yet again?
Michell Malkin has the full official Police report up for the tasering incident which confirms a lot of what has been said about the publicity seeking half wit. Perhaps the BBC should pop along and have a read!
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/19/document-drop-the-andrew-meyer-taser-stunt-police-report/
dave t,
I sent that link plus a link to a story on Fox News to the official complaints department of the BBC website, c/o “Factual Inaccuracies”. I did try to explain what they had missed and politely suggested that they do their homework. After all, I am reminded daily by their advertisements that they like to get the facts straight first and then report.
I hope whoever reads it tomorrow morning doesn’t choke on their elevenses.
David Gregory (BBC):
Now onto your slightly new point. How well should the BBC treat staff? Should we sit in a barn or in a pleasant office? What about Christmas parties? Corporate entertaining? etc etc. Good point for debate
Finally we agree on something, I also think it’s a good point for debate – thats why I raised it in the first place. My view is that, since the BBC is funded by compulsion and contributes nothing to to the country’s GDP, its employees (who have above average job and pension security) should settle for salaries and perks well below the private sector equivalent. A bit like the old Civil Service ethic.
“Motivational” perks should be unacceptable and I really wouldn’t mind if you worked in a “barn”. You obviously think the idea is beneath you – but I started my first business in a shed and didn’t move out until it started making profits – something the BBC has never done.
and:-
David Gregory (BBC):
And finally of course, the BBC DOES make money! BBC Worldwide made Ā£189M last year. That would buy staff a lot of yachts. But every penny goes back into programme making.
No David – the BBC DOES NOT MAKE MONEY – it generates revenue to offset some of its costs.
If it made money Capita would be popping round to give us all a cheque at the end of the year.
Andrew (BBC employee):
I also love your argument that because the BBC gets generated income from the licence fee, the BBC doesn’t need to treat its staff well, nor try to keep them.
I take it a different view. All licence fee payers are paying for the organisation. As a licence fee payer myself, I want to know that I’m getting good value from what I pay. The less money that is spent replacing annoyed staff who leave every five minutes, the more money we can spend on programmes.
I don’t think you can preach to us “as a licence fee payer” when you probably take out of the licence pot about fifty times what you put into it.
You guys really live in a bubble don’t you.
This whole discussion has confirmed for me what I only suspected before – you really do believe that the rest of us owe you a living.
Why??
Foxy is on fire tonight..! Well said!
Foxy
I don’t think you can preach to us “as a licence fee payer” when you probably take out of the licence pot about fifty times what you put into it.
So an NHS consultant can’t call himself a ‘taxpayer’?
Interesting that anon 11:05 compares;
Some highly skilled professional, who could earn a better living working entirely for the private sector, SAVING PEOPLES LIVES.
To propaganda merchants who could not get a job anywhere else but in a government dole office, who are directly responsible for putting old ladies in prison. Promoting world wide terrorism. Cheating and lying to young schoolchildren. Bringing state socialist Fascism to a country that should have been the last to embrace it etc etc etc.
Its always best to end a list of “BBC crimes again human individual liberty” with lots of ‘etc’s’. Life’s just too short.
Andrew:
You comment that John Reith brings debate to these forums, and I accept that. However, I would be no more willing to debate bias at the BBC with a BBC member of staff, then I would be willing to discuss the non-existence of god with a Jehova’s witness. I don’t see how it can get anyone anywhere and will certainly have no influence on the BBC whatsoever. If anything, all it does it puff up those already over-majestic feathers on JRs back as he regards himself the vanguard of BBC opinion, and often stifles very significant postings about BBC bias which seem to go un-noticed during the fracas of people wanting to be heard by the enemy.
My point isn’t to criticize this forum, but to ask what it’s focus is?
I personally believe that this Blog is the ONLY public consensus that the BBC are afraid of. For that reason it wields great power, and I wonder why it isn’t used to better effect.
For instance, when you invited readers to complain to the BBC for their phoney newsround article, it was the first time I read something here and thought:
“At last, something we can all do together.”
But you published that invitation almost apologetically. Why? Who did you think you would offend by asking us to do the very thing the BBC deserve. A collective assault.
Perhaps I’m being too romantic about the Biased BBC. Seeing it as a possible spring-board for physical action against the Beeb, perhaps it’s better suited for us all to continue with these casual threads asking “what have the Romans ever done for us.” But why can’t J.R and his BBC cronies be given their own separate threads where they and others can indulge in their own intellectual flagellation.
I personally read these threads for instances of Bias, not for the likes of BBC employees attempting to earn themselves a pay rise.
I would have thought that there are thousands of people who visit this board, who would quite welcome more direction as to where their complaints should be steered, or how to demonstrate against the BBC or better still – how to NOT pay the TV licence at all.
You have the chance to mobilize an army against the BBC with this Blog, so why are you passing up such opportunity?
Foxgoose: But you started this debate with a series of statements that I’ve tried to show are wrong.
No cheap food and booze. No subsidised nice clubs. If BBC staff chose to put their salary into such things that’s a matter for them. But the corporation doesn’t use licence fee cash for any of it.
I can assure you I (and I hope most BBC staff) take value for money very seriously. The government does require us to make 3% efficiency savings year on year, it was written into the settlement.
It would be great fun to have Google-style offices scattered across the country but we don’t. As I’ve said before, if B-BBCers want to come and poke about I’d be delighted to give people a tour.
Allaboutme: “My point isn’t to criticize this forum, but to ask what it’s focus is?”
Recording, discussing and airing the bias, waste, incompetence and stupidity of the BBC (and sometimes its good points too).
Allaboutme: “I personally believe that this Blog is the ONLY public consensus that the BBC are afraid of. For that reason it wields great power, and I wonder why it isn’t used to better effect.
I doubt we scare them significantly. Annoy them yes. Cause some of them to think outside the BBC bubble a little, yes.
Allaboutme: “For instance, when you invited readers to complain to the BBC for their phoney newsround article, it was the first time I read something here and thought: “At last, something we can all do together.” But you published that invitation almost apologetically.”
Not apologetically. I remarked that it was unusual for me to make such a call. It’s not something I want to do every day, but perhaps we should look out for more opportunities for collective complaints.
Allaboutme: “I would have thought that there are thousands of people who visit this board, who would quite welcome more direction as to where their complaints should be steered, or how to demonstrate against the BBC or better still – how to NOT pay the TV licence at all.”
I will see what we can do to provide this information in an easy to access form.
Allaboutme: “You have the chance to mobilize an army against the BBC with this Blog, so why are you passing up such opportunity?”
I am but one person, and spend more of my time on Biased BBC than I should as things are. My colleagues are mostly busy elsewhere at the moment. I’d happily do this full-time and organise the kind of campaign we’d all like to see, but that’s not possible without an income from somewhere – let me know if you know anyone willing and able to finance a proper campaign š
Andrew
I’ve thought a lot about a safe, painless way of exploring the potential for some direct action.
I think a good way to test the water might be to set up a pledge on the “pledgebank” website asking for 10,000 people to “refrain from making use of their TV’s” (choosing my words quite carefully here) for one year and donate the licence fee to the campaign.
A good slogan might be “donate a years licence fee – it could be your last”.
Even a couple of thousand donations would be enough to kick of a decent campaign with you as full time organiser.
David Gregory (BBC):
…….. The government does require us to make 3% efficiency savings year on year, it was written into the settlement.
It would be great fun to have Google-style offices scattered across the country but we don’t….
Many thanks for that reassurance David, I’m sure many of us are much happier knowing that the BBC is not squandering our money on lavish accomodation.
Hang on a minute – what’s this:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/broadcastinghouse/thefuture/bh_vision.shtml
“….the BBC’s single largest project ever……..will also call upon top architects, designers and artists, in order to create a truly inspirational workplace ……Off the arcade, is the main staff entrance and visitor reception. Through this the lofty structure over the newsroom can be glimpsed…….a column-free space, surrounded by technical areas and day-lit by the eight-storey high atria above. About twice the size of the largest floor available in Television Centre, this will be one of the largest live newsrooms in the world.”
Bloody ‘ell – the guys at Google will be jealous.
Pull the other one David!
I see that in his latest Gaza sob-fest on today’s BBC News website, Jeremy Bowen says that
‘Israel, like most of its Western allies, regards Hamas as an unreconstructed terrorist organisation bent on the destruction of the Jewish state.’
That’s absolutely right Jeremy.
Just as we regard a large, grey,four-legged mammal with a long trunk and big ears as an elephant.
Foxgoose: Imagine that the client and an architect talking up their project š