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.
On Newsnight last night, Milliband did little to get/keep Paxman within the Brown fold.
Milliband gave Paxmann one of those sneers (lasting a good 10 seconds) which indicate that one considers the other guy to be of little brain.
Milliband’s words caused Paxman to say “Don’t patronize me”. It didn’t interupt the sneer.
Milliband was badly briefed on Burma & promised to provide the information for posting on the Newsnight website.
The exchange produces differing comments on the Newsnight blog.
Yes where are the facts Milliband promised?
And why, after the fifth thing Milliband said he didn’t know and wasn’t in his briefing paper, did Paxman not ask him ‘Is there anything you DO know about Burma?’
AND
Tonight on Newsnight Milliband was sharp, clear and concise. Paxman was confused and struggling to tackle him with any effect. The guy in the pink tie looked a bit pathetic.
Is Milliband the best political brain on the scene today or is Paxman the weakest political commentator?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/09/tuesday_25_september_2007.html
Listening to the awful Richard Bacon (yes he’s more annoying than Victoria Derbyshire) going on and on about Burma just made we wonder about the BBC.
Why Burma? Who cares? didn’t the people of Iraq or Afghanistan deserve help from an oppressive regime? clearly not according to the left.
Not a single word of thanks to George Bush for sticking up for the protesters in Burma.
And if the BBC think it’s such an important subject, how come looking around on the Russian, Chinese & Indian TV news channels I have it got no mention?
Sanctions? Well the BBC and other liberal media types objected to sanctions against Iraq, so why now?
It appears to me that if a regime is Islamic or Communist, the BBC seem to igore it, but if right wing they go all out against it.
How come no BBC hate fest against China? Could it be because the BBC will be covering the China Olympics?
If the regime in Burma was hanging homosexuals the BBC would be foaming at the mouth. But in Iran it’s OK.
Martin | 26.09.07 – 12:11 pm
“It appears to me that if a regime is Islamic or Communist, the BBC seem to igore it, but if right wing they go all out against it.”
Or call it by its indigenous name.
Check out the latest medialens alert, on Gavin Estler abusing members of the public via email:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/09/070926_i_fascist_robot.php
The Burmese regime is NOT RIGHT-WING … the policies are rather socialist, I believe … although the BBC will never willingly mention the failures of socialism (eg no mention that G.Brown’s spending spree has had Ef-all effect).
Hi Bla, your Medialens link isn’t active yet – but the story you mention is the current story on their homepage anyway.
Medialens does make me smile though – they are so serious about the apparent big business corporate bias of the BBC and they take themselves so seriously and espouse their views with such leftie angst – the sort of misguided people who should be indulged in the same way as amiable old dupes like Walter Wolfgang I suppose.
Still, like Biased BBC, it’s all part of the rich tapestry of national debate (though I expect I’m being more generous to Medialens than they would be to Biased BBC!).
But let’s not hear you Beeboids saying “See, Both Medialens and Biased BBC criticise us, so we must be doing something right…“, as we’ve heard so often in the past 😉
Speaking of Burma.
Yesterday, The BBC’s front page featured a story (It was the first story on the front page) titled : US attacks Burma ‘reign of fear’. It was basically covering George Bush’s speech at the UN; specifically the parts concerning Burma. The sub read: US President George W Bush has condemned Burma’s “reign of fear” and said Americans were outraged by the country’s human rights record.
Since it was a news report about (mainly) Bush’s UN Burma remarks, one wonders why the BBC chose the headline they did and not simply and more accurately- Bush attacks Burma ‘reign of fear’, for instance. After all, headlines featuring Bush are not uncommon on the BBC website.
Today, both the headline, the sub and parts of the story have been purged from the website.
The new headline reads: Burmese military imposes curfew and the Bush angle is reduced to 2 paragraphs somewhere in the middle.
News sniffer documents the transformation beginning here:
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/68559/diff/2/3
Google still has the old title with link to the ‘new and improved’ story, here:
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=us+un+bush+burma+site:news.bbc.co.uk&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
It looks as if the BBC is embarrassed by sharing the same sentiments as Bush (or maybe by the fact that Bush backs his words with deeds, something that the BBC’s favorite international heroes are incapable of doing.)
So, what gives?
Another point is that Bush’s UN speech hasn’t got any separate coverage; it isn’t newsworthy enough, it seems. OTOH, if one’s interested, one might search Google. Here it is:
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=bush+un+speech&hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=w&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=news.bbc.co.uk&as_rights=&safe=images
Here are Bush’s talking points somewhere in the middle, right after Ahmedinnerjacket’s defiant reiterated denunciations:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7011938.stm
Even with this little effort, there’s something the BBC somehow forgot to mention.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3453525,00.html
[OT comment deleted by the moderator. Sorry Cockney, we appreciate the attempt to seriously contribute to the discussion, but the whole Burma debate is just getting too OT.]
[Comment deleted by the moderator. A bit too speculative for us, Dave.]
Forgetting Burma.
Has anyone read this thread on the ever-so-impartial BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7014868.stm
You need a strong constitution not to retch.
The BBC has fallen head-over-heels in love with Brown.
Re: AnyonebutBrown’s post above –
So nice that the BBC has family friends in house to do those important interviews with major political figures. Did they pay him £250 as well?
I’m sure the BBC guidelines on impartiality begin with “We should not normally allow personal friends of political figures to interview them on BBC programmes.”
I listened to the BBC World Service this morning, a fantastic interchange between the presenter and the EU Foreign Minister ( I was unaware we have one but heyho !), on the subject of sanctions against Mynamar.
What I found totally amazing was the BBC presenter questioning what the EU had actually achieved with sanctions, and I found myself nodding in agreement, the presenter then went and linked the EU’s halfhearted sanctions with the EU’s refusal to take on China and it’s rather large army and economic power.
For once I found myself thinking brilliant the BBC have decided that reporting the news is not just about attacking the US or Israel, however, this moment of euphoria lasted until the same presenter then went on to his next news piece which was a 5 minute unchallenged speech by a certain Iranian President who attacked Israel and the US without allowing anyone else to discuss the speech.
oh I don’t know. The BBC’s attack dog (Kirsty Wark) is often wheeled out to attack the SNP. Oh hang on a minute, she’s a Nu labour luvvie as well.
David P., the Frostrup interview was a Labour Party production, not a BBC production, though it was covered, rightly, as part of their conference coverage.
As for Nick Assinder’s piece, he’s certainly straining to get a middle name like “tongueinnder”.
His piece was quite amusing – but I’m not sure at all that it should appear on the BBC’s shilling – it’s much more opinion than news – and as such shows the BBC stealthily expanding into the territory of commercial print journalism (that being what News Online is all about, on the pretext that print will someday move into broadcast – though don’t hold your breath on the latter having any impact any time soon).
It would have been more appropriate in a magazine or a non-BBC blog – it’s not news – which the BBC ought to stick to if ‘public service’ is ever to be a justification for the tellytax.
I don’t think we need to return to the days of “Minister, have you a message for a grateful nation?” but the splenetic “Don’t patronize me!” from Newsnight’s leading presenter to the country’s Foreign Secretary was an eye-opener in revealing the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman’s view of his position in relation to one of the senior members of the government.
This on the day when JP published an e-mail to Newsnight viewers in which the delivery of the minister’s speech was described –
“as if he was the school swot being asked to talk at Speech Day”
Patronizing? Moi?
nicely hidden away by al beeb.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7014585.stm
Andrew,
Frostrop is a well-known BBC figure, not an actress or athlete, or talking head who just makes appearances on various programmes and different networks. She is one of the BBC’s own, and as such is naturally perceived by an audience to be associated with the BBC. When she makes an appearance at a party political event, you get a Venn diagram of associations between the two, and rightly so.
Anything she does reflects back on the BBC. Even though she’s basically light entertainment, there is still the cachet of “BBC’s Mariella Frostrop” when she makes these appearances. She’s been a panelist on Question Time, and hasn’t she done stuff for Panorama? It just adds to the perception that the BBC is loaded with Brown supporters. Surely there are plenty of other famous Brown fans available for the task who are not BBC presenters. Frostrop wasn’t on the BBC clock at the time, but she may as well have been.
After all, hasn’t there just been a debate about the family Labour connections of BBC employees in a recent Open Thread between foxgoose and JR? Next time she’s on Question Time or any other panel, I expect her Brown/Labour connections to be mentioned in her introduction. If not, why not?
And if there was no expectation (pretense?) of professionalism, why would the BBC use the word “challenge” in the link blurb of the video clip? How was she described in the BBC’s coverage? Any mention of her BBC employment? Or did they make sure to say that she was there independently and the BBC doesn’t take sides? It sure doesn’t say anything about that in the clip, or in the headline for it. And there was no mention of her at all in the newsfeed I saw about Brown’s appearance. Even though we did get a shot of him answering one of Frostrop’s questions. It was a B-shot with both of them clearly in frame.
Assinder’s piece seems more like something for the BBC to use to cover its collective ass on things like this. If somebody complains about the obvious BBC-Brown connection, all they have to do is point to this to demonstrate their concern. He just can’t come out and say that it’s not too kosher for a BBC figure to do something like this. Otherwise, I fail to see the point of his criticism. The whole piece is about her lack of professionalism on the day. It logically follows that at least Assinder expected her to be more objective. Why else would he be critical of her swooning over Brown? If it’s no big deal that she’s doing this, and I’m wrong about saying this is evidence of the BBC’s close ties to Labour, why would Assinder bother to write what he did?
If this sort of thing isn’t frowned upon, it ought to be.
Frostrup did a fawning BBC interview with Brown at the Hay literary festival a few weeks ago about his book ‘Heroes’. Her closness to Brown and Lab explains a lot.
BBC regular Sandi Toksvig did a spoot at the LibDem conference last week – which perhaps explains why she makes lots of anti-tory jokes as host on R4 programme The News Quiz .
The media should have said that for the interview to be carried LIVE on the BBC (and Sky) an independent interviewer be appointed.
If Nu labour want a love in with Gordon they shouldn’t get free publicity from it.
Yes with that Dentist case, you do wonder why the “liberal” BBC seem so understanding.
Oh and a heads up people. Next week on BBC 2 (monday) there is a programme about Sharih law and can it work alongside traditional English law.
Oh that should be good. Public beheadings and stonings alongside ASBO’S
What next? Women being executed at the Emirates stadium for adultery?
Very 21st Century England.
Can’t wait.
Here’s the link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/listings/programme.shtml?day=monday&service_id=4224&filename=20071001/20071001_2100_4224_11360_60
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7014585.stm
Actually its on the front page!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7014868.stm
It seems it was not only Mariella smitten by the charming Mr Brown. The BBC’s love in continues.
Ms Frostrup is a family friend of the Browns
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7014868.stm
…….what the hell is she doing on Question Time then?
[Comment deleted by the moderator. AS, long-winded meditations on what a bunch of fascists the BBC are are unlikely to get past me.]
Here we go again – BBC News at One
‘Critics call America the world’s biggest polluter’.
‘America is the world’s biggest polluter’
Twice in a minute.
The basic arithmetic that the world’s wealthiest and one of the world’s largest nations is going to be the world’s biggest … a lot of things.
But how often have you heard on the BBC that ‘America is the world’s biggest polluter’ vs for instance ‘America is the world’s biggest donor to charity’?
What do you think of government proposals to offer more protection to “have-a-go heroes”?
This HYS subject had as the most recommended item (56) a comment with a reference to the BNP. It contained a comment saying that the BNP wanted a law called Tony Martins law. The commenter simply said that unless this was what Labour were going to do then his vote would go elsewhere. It was on the site for a long time but it has now disappeared and been wiped off the site. I can only assume because it referred to the BNP. Surely this is blatant bias from that most impartial of institutions the BBC. I see it as nothing else.
For a giggle..compare and contrast
In the BBC corner, Mariella Frostrup made to look idiotic swooning in the full glare of Gordon Browns charimsa:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7014868.stm
In the Daily Mail corner, Quentin Letts (to be honest, no friend of New Labour nor Mr. Brown), finding the sainted (in the eyes of BBC employee and family friend of the Brown’s Ms Frostrup) Mr. Brown to be an image-spun clunker having a awful David Davis moment:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=484143&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=228
I’m not sure that it is even correct to state that the US is the World’s biggest polluter. If one defines a harmless, odourless, colourless gas which is essential for life on earth as pollution then perhaps it would be. But if one looks at pollution such as toxic dumping in rivers and seas, particulate emissions etc then I think other countries would have a greater claim.
[Comment deleted by the moderator. AS, you’re not being censored. We are merely declining to host your long, unspecific rants which are not germane to the point of this blog. If, as you say, every other site on the internet lets you make such comments, then I suggest you continue you publishing them there.]
China has overtaken the US as the “world’s biggest polluter” in absolute terms. Australia is the “world’s biggest polluter” in per capita terms.
The US isn’t “the world’s biggest polluter” in any terms.
Except the BBC’s.
[Deleted. If you have things to say to me then send me an email, biasedbbc@gmail.com, Andrew.]
Sarah:
China has overtaken the US as the “world’s biggest polluter” in absolute terms. Australia is the “world’s biggest polluter” in per capita terms.
The US isn’t “the world’s biggest polluter” in any terms.
Except the BBC’s.
Sarah | 27.09.07 – 2:59 pm | #
Sarah – do you have any links to stats/research on this? I feel a complaint to the BBC ‘facts’ dept coming on.
“Sarah – do you have any links to stats/research on this? I feel a complaint to the BBC ‘facts’ dept coming on.
Ritter | 27.09.07 – 3:39 pm | ”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
Robin Aitken was right because you can’t trust the BBC.
The news at 6pm yesterday said there were two ex Tory candidates who had defected to Labour. Surprise surprise, the BBC was telling porkies —>
http://tonysharp.blogspot.com/2007/09/brian-jenner-apology.html
Funny headline:
There is a new name for terrorists. They are now called a ‘crew’!
‘Israeli strike hits ‘rocket crew’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7015787.stm
David Preiser | 26.09.07 – 9:13 pm
Mariella Frostrup is decidedly not chiefly known for being a BBC TV presenter.
She’s had her own TV shows on Channel 4 and Channel 5 and most recently Sky. But not on BBC TV, so far as I’m aware.
She is the classic freelance. She even owns her own TV production company.
Sure she’s done some work for the BBC (even guest-presented one Panorama some years back) • but that represents a tiny proportion of her overall oeuvre.
Most of her BBC work has been on the radio.
But for the past three months or so she has presented an arts TV programme for Sky • that’s where she did the Hay on Wye interview with Gordon Brown that gave rise to the Toksvig parody.
You may have noticed that she also does loads of voice-overs for ads…..BBC presenters and freelances chiefly known for their association with BBC programmes are not allowed to do commercial voice-overs.
As for Question Time panellists • isn’t the whole point of them is that they’re not supposed to be impartial?
John Reith,
My mistake, then. The only time I’ve ever seen her has been on BBC shows, or she’s mentioned on them. Since I live in the US, and have only made occasional visits to the UK in the last couple of years, I don’t really watch any UK broadcasts other than BBC shows. Unless, of course, it’s Channel 4 nonsense being flogged as their own on BBC America. In which case I turn it off and wouldn’t know if she’s on or not. It’s mostly Radio 3 for me anyway.
I think the radio counts as part of the official BBC realm, though, so her Radio 2 & 4 presenter credits ought to count for something. But I’ll accept that most people just see her as a media figure, and not specifically BBC.
Yes, the whole point of Question Time panelists is that they’re not supposed to be impartial. But their affiliations are supposed to be identified in their introductions.
If Frostrop is introduced as “Labour Supporter” or “Brown family friend” or something, then that’s fine. Is she? Or is it just “Broadcaster and Host”? Seeing as how she’s been making comments about her friendship with Brown for years, the BBC ought to know about it, and ought to mention it when appropriate. If she ever does anything for the BBC on a political topic, that would be very telling as well.
Have to say I agree with JR on this one • I think most people would describe Frostrup as a ‘TV personality’ but not specifically a BBC one.
Don’t think the BBC need to be quite so coy about her political affiliations, though, she most certainly is not a neutral.
John Reith:
BBC presenters and freelances chiefly known for their association with BBC programmes are not allowed to do commercial voice-overs.
……………………………………………………….
Hardly evidence – that ‘ad-lady’ with the fag-croaky voice to whom you refer is not repeat not Mariella Frostrup.
But keep trying.
Matt Frei on Bush. Frei’s article isn’t overtly anti-American, but the first sentence is quite revealing.
Washington diary: Bush on Burma
By Matt Frei
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7015465.stm
“It was both uplifting and odd to hear US President George W Bush vent his anger over Burma on Tuesday.”
Why so odd Matt? Perhaps, because you’ve spent the last few years telling BBC viewers what a right-wing racist (New Orleans anyone?) terrorist (Iraq) Bush is?
Bush ‘vents his anger’ about undemocratic dictatorships, murderous regimes and the like, all the time.
And most of the time, it’s Frei and his left-wing chum(p)s who slag Bush off for it.
However that lady wrapping herself round Ian McCartney at the New Gordon Party conference was repeat was Carolyn Quinn of the impartial BBC’s impartial Today Programme.
” Ritter | 27.09.07 – 5:03 pm |”
somebody should send Matt Frei a copy of the “Pentagon’s New Map”. then he wouldnt be writing such silly claptrap like this:
“Burma came along as a welcome distraction. Let’s hope it becomes more than that.”
Mr Frei – Burma is part of “the gap”. Along with Iran, North Korea etc…
Bush is being consistent..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon's_New_Map
joe bonanno | 27.09.07 – 4:56 pm
that ‘ad-lady’ with the fag-croaky voice to whom you refer is not repeat not Mariella Frostrup.
Oh yes it is. Hear her yourself doing the Piz Buin Suncare ad here:
http://www.visit4info.com/details.cfm?adid=9396
Check out how she rates in the celeb voice-over stakes here:
Mariella Frostrup
Boots, Hugo Boss, Panasonic, Persil, Tropicana, Simply Be.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/justthejob/followyourdream/wrap/v_trivia.shtml
Read all about her M&S Money car insurance ad here:
http://pressexposure.com/Jodie_Kidd_Goes_The_Extra_Mile_In_New_MandS_Money_Campaign-3025.html
and her pro bono (I presume) work for Save the Children/Unicef here:
http://www.codegent.com/portfolio/
The BBC, its hatred of Israel and Half a story.
Israeli strike hits ‘rocket crew’
Wednesday’s attacks included a strike on a vehicle in the east of Gaza City, that killed at least five members of the Army of Islam.
The Israeli military said the passengers had been preparing to launch rockets across the border into southern Israel. The Army of Islam was responsible for holding BBC correspondent Alan Johnston hostage for 16 weeks this year and claims to have taken part in the capture of Cpl Shalit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7015787.stm
The above statement can found hidden away deep within a BBC article about the trigger happy Jews who just can’t stop presuming they are playing the latest Microsoft shoot-them-up.
What I do find strange is how the Guardian today reported the same story. A story I might add sheds a little more light on those who died in that attack;
Israeli missile strike kills two Palestinians
Yesterday, five members of the Army of Islam were killed when their vehicle was hit by an Israeli air strike in the Zeitoun area of Gaza City. Among the dead was Muqtassar Khatab, one of the kidnappers of Alan Johnston, the BBC journalist. Khatab was involved in talks prior to Johnston’s release.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2178154,00.html
Now seeing as the BBC spent a month of Sundays devoted to Mr Johnson sojourn. I wonder why they didn’t explain to the great unwashed just who had died instead of burying the story in the middle of a gun happy Jews missive.
The BBC, its hatred of Americans and doing what it does best, telling half a story.
Afghans flee US shooting incident
A US soldier opened fire near a crowd of people after a suicide attack in Afghanistan, the US military has said. Shots were aimed away from the crowd after a car bomb was driven into a US coalition convoy in the eastern city of Jalalabad, the US military said. Two attackers died in the explosion, and another was later shot by police. Witnesses say a number of US soldiers opened fire, causing civilians and police to flee. There are no confirmed reports of civilian casualties.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7016900.stm
So what impression do you glean from the above. That the Yanks are trigger happy thugs who just open fire for the sake of it.
Here is how Reuters reported the above story;
U.S. fire scatters crowd after Afghan bomb: witness
BATI KOT, Afghanistan (Reuters) – At least one U.S. soldier opened fire to scatter a crowd of civilians and police on Thursday after failed suicide bomb attacks on a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military and witnesses said.
…………………..
A spokesman for U.S.-led coalition forces said only one soldier had opened fire. “A U.S. servicemen fired two shots and those shots were away from the crowd and not directed toward the crowd,” said Major Joe Klopple.The shots were fired to disperse the crowd out of concern for their safety because of what was thought to be another approaching suicide bomber, the U.S. statement said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSISL21059120070927?rpc=401&
Strange how the Reuters story explains just what happened leaving the reader with the knowledge of just what transpired.
The BBC, its hatred of Americans and doing what it does best, telling half a story.
Ritter, Sarah, Lookin4RealNews: Before you complain you might want to check out Roger Harrabin’s report for the Six tonight reporting exactly the points you raise.
I see the Brown Broadcasting Corporation are really worried about Boris Johnson with links in the announcement he is to stand for Mayor from anyone who has a bad thing to say about him “Johnson’s Media Scrapes”.
I seem to remember that the present Mayor has had a few of those as well, but they don’t seem to get mentioned.
Re Ritter’s comment on the distortion of Bush’s policies.
Jon Snow writes today (in his Snowmail email)
The improbable on climate change is underway in America with George
Bush, who was once a denier, now staging a conference to discuss the
increasing speed of global warming.
Frei, Snow & co for some reason are incapable of separating views on climate change from the position taken on Kyoto.
Bush said
June 11, 2001
First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.
There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html
Anyone noticed the BBC News graphics about carbon dioxide emissions? The BBC have decided to put the little 2 above the O in CO2, rather than below it as is normal for chemical formulas. Sloppy, but par for the course at the BBC. They obviously don’t bother to get anyone with a science background involved in their global warming propaganda.
Pete
I saw that. I really cringed. It’s important as a journalist to stay across the graphics. Still I thought B-BBC would have enjoyed the story overall.