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.
At the best of times John Humphrys is often inaudible the way he mumbles and raises and lowers his voice as if he never heard of projection. Oh they don’t teach broadcasters that at al-beeb, you say? But today was really the most puzzling of all. At about 7:15 this character starts reviewing the press and mentions the front page of The Independent. “You can guess what that’s about…” he waffles on. Oh, can I? It’s bad enough when you can hear these clowns, now we have to guess what’s on their tiny minds!
BBC News 24 has just had on an item about the impact of laws covering age discrimination in business. It was a good example of how the BBC operates.
You have a filmed segment which goes for a few minutes. This involves talking to young people who complain that the laws aren’t working, or don’t go far enough, and how hard it is for them to earn enough money. You don’t hear anything about the economic absurdities of these laws.
They then have a little in-studio debate featuring a business representative and some guy from a Youth Council. The business guy is unhappy with the laws, while the Youth Council guy wants them to go further. This debate is extremely superficial.
The Beeb can then say, if anyone complains, “Look, it was balanced, we had a debate with a person on each side”. But of course what they’ve done is heavily influence the viewer with their one-sided, pre-filmed piece.
How about this one for anti-Bush, pro-AGW comment?
‘The British climate envoy, John Ashton, said the US seemed isolated on the issue of fighting climate change.
“I think that the argument that we can do this through voluntary approaches is now pretty much discredited internationally,” he told the Reuters news agency.
The BBC’s environment correspondent Matt McGrath, in Washington, said Mr Bush’s plan did not sit well with the majority of delegates.
The plan exposed serious differences over the best way forward on climate change, he added.
Shortly after taking office in 2001 Mr Bush said he would not ask Congress to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on cutting emissions, and has consistently opposed mandatory cuts.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7019415.stm
No mention of the Clinton administration? No mention of the 95-0 vote in the Senate in 1997 ensuring that the US would NOT sign up to Kyoto?
Hmmm….
Here’s the first of the several hundred positive articles the BBC owes us in the interests of balance and impartiality. Only hundreds more to go before balance is achieved, Beeboids, so thanks for this start.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7016176.stm
I found this little message on another forum that I peruse, there is something about the line “helping shape the views of middle England” that I find pretty nasty. Probably explains why I end up turning off the Jeremy Vine show whenever it gets onto its preachy mmgw/evilamericans/nastyconservative so-called debates:
“I has a new job!
For the next three months, anyway. I will be helping shape the views of middle England on the Jeremy Vine programme on Radio Two.
Most importantly, it means that I will have all weekends and evenings free, and will be able to attend more Urban events. Hurrah!”
[The Moderator: Hi dr, thanks for that. Do you have a link for it?]
I think someone needs to explain to the BBC that mandatory and legaly binding cuts are and have been shown to be a failure in all cases! Like many other examples of socialist centraly target driven culture it is doomed to fail because it does not take the variable nature of things into account! From NHS targets to crime targets to CO2 targets ALL will fail and yet being socialist in nature the BBC simply cannot understand the concept of a flexible voluntary system within a capitalist framework that can be modified to suit economic conditions!
When the BBC complains that Bush is “isolated” and has been “critisised” by many(nameless of course)what the BBC really means is that the BBC is offended and upset because Bush just will not dance to the BBC tune!
nations and groups
Currently on the front page, the BBC has this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7019296.stm
“Schools to become ‘world class’
–
Gordon Brown has pledged to take Britain’s schools to the next level and make them “world class”.
The PM was speaking during a national day of debate on how the government should improve children’s lives.
He said celebrities needed to become role models for young people and speak out against drugs.
He said: “We’ve moved our schools from being below average to being above average. We’ve now got to make them world class.””
It’s not necessarily an example of bias – the bulk of it is quoted from Brown’s speech – but it’s very poorly written. The headline isn’t an accurate reflection of Gordon Brown’s words. It should be something like “Brown pledges to make schools ‘world class'”. And the first paragraph implies that the next level up from “above average” is “world class”, rather than for example “competent” or “good”.
But really, the article is just a long puff-piece for a government speech. I was particular struck with this bit, near the end:
“The government was stung by a controversial report earlier this year from Unicef, which put the UK at the bottom of a league table of children’s well-being among 21 industrialised nations.
It argued that the report was based on out-of-date information and that its polices had helped to improve children’s welfare.
But when Gordon Brown became prime minister he changed the education department to become the Department for Children, Schools and Families, to put a greater focus on children.
Mr Balls then announced a 10-year plan, saying it would set out the long-term goals for the new department.”
The third paragraph, in which Gordon Brown does his thing, is a big non-sequitur. The article presents no other opposing viewpoints apart from the Unicef report. The speech itself offers no concrete plans for anything, and it uses the phrase “send a very clear message”, which was a cliche in the days of Yes Prime Minister (although this is really a problem with the speech rather than the report).
As a teacher I can tell you we are trying to get our schools ‘world class’ DESPITE the efforts of Labour and their social engineering – giving resources to the wrong (Labour voting/ welfare subsidised) places, wasting so much money on local authority Education Departments (who have lovely offices…) and their so called ‘education experts’ who are supposed to help make schools better but spend their time waffling in meetings or arranging ridiculous CPD sessions that have no relevance or influence on our teaching or the kids’ learning instead of on the schools!
Can Gordon Brown stick his head above the firing line for once in his life and let me get my classroom painted for the first time in 14 years? Thought not.
[Nor do we “want to open that particular angle” nadders. Sorry. The Moderator]
[The Moderator: Hi dr, thanks for that. Do you have a link for it?]
dr | 29.09.07 – 12:09 pm |
its on urban75:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=223680
you need to register just to view some of the forum, not sure whether this one is a free to view on or not.
Beeboids are starry eyed socialists when it comes to tax and spend policies. Particularly eye-catching is this little gem from the “business” section:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7018253.stm
“Despite a hysterical campaign against inheritance tax in some quarters of the media, HMRC figures show it is not as onerous (as stamp duty).”
It must be the BBCs wrong time of the month today! They have been doing lots of anti American “cut’N’shut jobs on the facts again! The BBC cannot call America “the worlds worst polluter”(only in CO2)so that must have made the BBC quite vindictive because they are now breaking the ammount down to an average per head of population BUT they fail to explain that the USA is a major exporter of industrial goods to the world, many of which cannot be made by the purchaser nations! So in fact the receiver nation of those goods should come into the misleading BBC figures breakdown as its the receiver nation that uses and benefits from the USA made goods! So when the BBC tells you the average CO2 production per person they are misleading the viewer and not telling them the full facts!
In true terms there are lots of other pollutants ie CFCs, NoX, acid rain, methane, lead Etc IF these are taken into account instead of CO2 because there are many scientists who in fact deny that CO2 is a pollutant because atmospheric CO2 levels are so low and the vast majority of CO2 is natural, then a strange fact emerges, the USA no longer is a major polluter! in fact the USA comes way down the list of polluting nations!
Oh dear! no wonder the BBC are pushing the failing CO2 pollutant theory so hard and for so long because a major stick with which to beat America would be taken away! Isnt it time for the BBC to give people ALL the facts and information?
Mr Dr, take a screen shot, or better yet, save the whole page. They can’t do you for it.
Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJvWyFeb0s
Scroll down to this comment:
“I tried to post comments on the BBC website, but after answering their survey (said I was conservative from USA), their website actually said it didn’t need my opinions!
I laughed so hard (at them). What a bunch of rubes!”
And of course watch the whole video.
Latest article of apology for terrorism: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7019929.stm
“The Muslim country has a reputation for tranquillity and the capital has not witnessed gunfire or explosions since an attempted coup in 1998.”
Tranquility.
Dr writes, above.. “Probably explains why I end up turning off the Jeremy Vine show whenever it gets onto its preachy mmgw/evilamericans/nastyconservative so-called debates..”
If there’s anything likely to make me crash my car it’s listening to the Jeremy Whine show. They simply love to sneer at middle england, you can almost hear them clapping when they manage to get some Wolfie Smith right-on Pee-Cee merchant on the phone in response to one of their “stories”.
How the lefties must have loved it when they managed to ease old Jimmy Young out of the studio.
At last! another programme we can use to propagate the AlBeeb world view!
Just a few facts that the BBC should be telling viewers… CO2 is a trace gas that makesup less than ONE% of all atmospheric gasses(not much is it)
and human activity makes up less than FIVE% of the total atmospheric CO2(the rest being natural) these facts alone are NEVER mentioned by the BBC and I wonder why?
Heres another inconvenient fact that the BBC NEVER shares with the viewer… All plant life depends on CO2 for its existance they need to breathe CO2 in to breathe O2 out! So in fact far from being the bad guy the living world would very quickly die without the life giving properties of CO2! When the BBC report on CO2 why dont they give the viewer ALL the facts?
Children are being brainwashed by the BBC to think of CO2 in the most negative terms with no balance or rounded and logical background information and that alone is a crime that we will all live to regret!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7018253.stm
“Despite a hysterical campaign against inheritance tax in some quarters of the media, HMRC figures show it is not as onerous.”
Great assumption that any calls for tax cuts must be hysterical… presented as fact in an unattributed news article.
Presumably it must represent the BBC’s official view then…
I nearly fell off my seat the other day when Reporting Scotland newsreader Sally Magnusson, described the Glasgow Airport Islamic suicide bombers as “hopeful bombers”.
It is also a known fact that the first John Smeaton interview conducted by Lorna Gordon ,was buried because Smeaton mentioned hearing the Islamist shouting “allah , allah”.
Following on from Towcestrian’s comments, the BBC kicked off coverage of the Conservative conference (6pm news on R4) quoting Alistair Darling berating the Conservatives over their review of Gordon’s blundering mess of a tax credit scheme. The report ended with a threatening – ‘the Tories won’t be allowed to get away with any unaccounted spending plans’. Amazing really after Brown has just got away with a whole raft of unaccounted spending plans in his fantasy of ‘personalised’ health care and ‘personal tutors’ for everyone and education funding up to 21 for low income families etc etc etc. without any airtime given to the opposition. In the beeboid world only Conservatives have to be held to account. When the Great Brown Man speaks they get so choked with pride and emotion somehow no questions are asked.
This was published on an earlier thread by jo blo, it’s worth putting here as well:
The BBC has slyly tried to pass off the Yentob fiasco as just a regular case of interview “noddies” and not the flagrant deception it actually is. I’ve worked as a news producer 20 years, five of them at the Beeb. In that time I’ve never seen nor heard of anyone faking themselves into an interview as Yentob has clearly done many times. That’s not just “noddies” which are done by the actual interviewer immediately after the interview to provide cutaways – it’s a conceited lie, far worse than the phone-in cat vote. No bona fide journalist would ever such a thing and expect to keep their job. That Yentob keeps his is further evidence of the scale of corruption and favoritism by the BBC mandarins.
Dear moderator,
Just had a couple of posts go AWOL with a reply by David(BBC) did I do something wrong? I think it was OT if not Ill try to get it right next time.
Stephanie.
[The Moderator: You were claiming that David Bellamy has been blacklisted by the BBC for his claims on global warming. You need to to provide some supporting evidence for this, because I’m not sure it’s true, and we don’t want to provide the Beeb’s defenders with an open goal.
(Although Bellamy has certainly suffered at the hands of many wildlife and conservation groups for his GW opinions, he himself has said — check his Wikipedia entry — that it was his standing as an anti-EU candidate in 1997 that saw him drop off the TV radar).]
“Despite a hysterical campaign against inheritance tax in some quarters of the media, HMRC figures show it is not as onerous.”
HMRC? Would that be the impartial Revenue and Customs i.e the tax collectors? No bias there then!
[The Moderator: Allan, I decided to cut those earlier comments of yours where you were goading someone to take court action against the BBC because it looked ungallant, and also because it was legally dubious. That doesn’t mean that we don’t want to hear you railing against the BBC, and urging action in the future. But we certainly don’t want to hear you insulting us as you did today when your comments were moderated.]
Dear moderator,
I take your point BUT the fact is that I am happy to proved wrong IF the BBC can provide any facts to the contrary! My point to David Gregory was to hear his side and I didnt want to score points or things like that. I worked for the BBC at the time that David was subject to the witch hunt and it was common knowledge that his views did not fit with the BBC narrative on climate change! BUT as you wish I will attempt to contact David for any confirmation he can provide BUT as you must know the terms the BBC dictated to David consisted of his silence on this issue OR his income from repeat fees on his programmes would be affected as the BBC would withdraw his work from being sold or repeated! This as you may already know is a common clause to keep BBC people in line and it works for the most part! Think of the Goodies for instance! BUT I will bow to your advice and I will not post on this line again without documentary proof(very hard to get).
[The Moderator: If you think there is a case here, or if you have inside knowledge, then by all means go ahead with your claims. It’s just that we’re not keen on people throwing up rumours — or what look like rumours from our limited viewpoint — in the heat of battle which Beeboids then knock down, making us all look foolish. For the same reason we’re not happy with the attitude of “repeat a rumour, if the BBC knocks it down then so be it”. Most rumours (though of course not all) turn out to be false and *can* be knocked down, which does none of us any good.
But as Andrew says, a rumour that was going around the BBC itself has a lot more credence than a man-in-a-pub rumour.
Anyway, I have been searching for some more info on this — if you come across anything solid please post it here.
Secondly, it’s not clear from what you say whether whether Bellamy was singled out, or whether he was subject to the same conditions that all BBC people get (not that I expect the BBC to be very consistent on this).]
Stephanie, one thing worth remembering is the difference between posing a question vs. stating something as a fact. Speaking of things within your personal knowledge and experience, e.g. from when you worked for the Beeb, is also an improvement over stating third hand opinion as fact – not that I wish to get involved in a contretemps with Mr. Moderator – his sadly necessary, but nonetheless thankless, task treads a difficult line at times on an open blog with as many readers and contributors as Biased BBC has.
BBC Oxbridge snobs stop radio star presenting Today programme ‘because he is an Essex boy’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484768&in_page_id=1770
I listeneing to BBC Radio Manchester today for the football news, and someone called in to ask why all the local matches were not covered any more. The presenter said it was due to budgetary constraints! £3 billion per year, money wasted on didital channels nobody watches, £6 million per year to pay a chat show host, £600,000 per year for disc jockeys on a pop music station, shiny new headquarters in Salford for the a few less fashionable and influential BBC departments, lavish amounts spent on hospitality at Wimbledon, £12 million per year on taxi fares, £1.2 million on new idents for the TV channels, hugely overstaffed expeditions to glamorous overseas events such as the world cup, but no reporter at at the Oldham or Macclefield matches any more because of money shortages. What a joke
The 5 lite attack dogs at work on the Tories already. Attacking a Tory for comments that some BNP supporters might have legitimate points. (what that our Country is being over run and turned into an Islamic state?)
Noticed that they didn’t mention that Margaret Hodge had made similar comments not that long ago.
THIS IS JUST THE START OF THE BBC ATTACK ON THE TORIES
3 billion a year?? It’s actually about 3.5 billion. But what’s 500 million to the BBC? (A years salary for Ross and Wogan?)
Just think, NASA runs on 7.5 billion a year and look what value the American economy gets from that?
3.5 billion would give us a brilliant space programme, although we wouldn’t need thousands of arts educated Guardian readers though.
You guys have got to check out Andrew (Nu Labour luvvie) Marr’s interview with Cameron.
Endless question about Green Taxes and how they don’t work. Don’t seem to remember him asking LAbour or Lib Dems about that?
Oh and as usual he’s asking Cameron to justiy every spending pledge. Yet last week Brown went down a huge list of spending pledges yet NOT a single question from the BBC as how to fund them.
Why not Andrew Marr?
Martin – agree with every word. The contrast with Marr’s interview last week when Brown was treated like royalty, and his attempt to humiliate Cameron this week couldn’t have been greater. Marr even stooped to rustling around with the newspapers while Cameron was speaking. Why is a party that isn’t in power (and on present polls is not likely to be in power) subjected to the third degree while the government gets away with fantasy plans for spending sprees with no questions asked. When policies that were dubbed as nasty right wing filth when Michael Howard produced them are suddenly hailed as wonderful when Brown spouts them, and when the BBC entirely jettison their green agenda in the interests of getting at the Tories, it shows the depths of their sheer unprincipled partisanship. When it comes to NuLab they’ve gone from being the feral press to the fawning press at a single brownite stroke.
The MALDIVES.
The Maldives bomb could not possibly have been set off by Islamic jihadists, according to Al Beeb’s report online. The only reference, in Al Beeb’s long report, that the Maldives is a Muslim society is in the very last sentence where the phrases ” the Muslim country” and “reputation for tranquility” are placed together.
“Two arrested over Maldives bomb”
http://news.bbc.co.uk
The ‘Sunday Telegraph tells it differently. For example, an adviser to Maldives president is quoted thus:
” This has been threatening to rear its head, Islamic groups have complained that tourists have imported Western values and undermined traditional Islamic culture.” And the emphasis of the ‘Sunday Telegraph’ title is quite different to that of Al Beeb’s:
“Has Islamic terrorism arrived on Maldives?”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news
Agree with Martin as well. Marr even brought up the phrase “Lurch to the right”.
C4 yet again putting the BBC to shame:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484761&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490
“The programme, entitled Immigrants: The Inconvenient Truth, focuses on foreign-born groups living in the UK, including Americans and Australians.
It confirms the popular stereotype of the hard-working but cheap Polish tradesman. Poles work almost the longest hours of almost any ethnic group • they are second only to the Americans • and earn the lowest hourly wage, just £7.30.
Only a tiny fraction of Polish people burden the state by claiming benefits. Wonder why the BBC felt they had to do an article last week claiming without proof that the Poles were screwing the UK for child benefit..? More lies to undermine the truth?
The league tables were drawn up for Channel 4 by the Left-leaning think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). Funny how this hasn’t appeared on the BBC website yet given it is a left wing think tank!
The organisation mainly used data from the Government’s own quarterly Labour Force Survey. The IPPR ignores black and Asian people born in Britain in its analysis of the 25 most common countries of origin. The survey reveals that 37 per cent of foreign-born Indians own their own homes • higher than the national figure.
It also shows how some ethnic groups are more likely to work in the public services than others. One in two Filipinos, Jamaicans and Nigerians work in the NHS and social services, highlighting just how much our hospitals and care homes rely on immigrants. ”
So a more balanced programme than the BBC seem capable of. Doubtless they will obey their Labour masters and spin the “BNP will use these figures to hurt our immigrants” angle without mentioning that it was a left wing think tank using Labour government figures to provide the original information!
On the BBC HYS on BBC radio memories yesterday, there was a post by a Tim Allen, stating his disappointment at how BBC radio has become so biased (left leaning) in recent years, particularly Radio 4. His post was the most recommended one on Saturday. Today (Sunday), on clicking on the thread his post has mysteriously disappeared. The BBC moderating out free speech yet again.
A couple of comments on extracts from the IPPR’s report:
“It confirms the popular stereotype of the hard-working but cheap Polish tradesman. Poles work almost the longest hours of almost any ethnic group • they are second only to the Americans …….”
Ethnic group – Americans, Poles?? Surely ‘nationality’ would have been appropriate here.
“The survey reveals that 37 per cent of foreign-born Indians own their own homes • higher than the national figure. ”
That’s because they’re not muslims.
“The figures on council housing, for example, risk being exploited by BNP extremists who stir up trouble by claiming that new immigrants go to the front of the local authority queue ahead of white families.”
I don’t think that the BNP claim this as so – it is actual fact!
Now, I expect that the BBC will go hell-for-leather to rubbish the findings of the IPPR, even though it is one of their favoured organisations.
Meanwhile on an article about rising immigration numbers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7017525.stm
which is only linked on the POLITICS page and hasn’t appeared on the front page so far as I can remember the Beeboids use this quote:
“Danny Sriskandarajah, from think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), said: “The challenge is to ensure we can continue to reap the benefits of migration at the same time as building cohesive communities.”
forgetting to add ‘left wing’ and also that Danny also known as Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah is in fact one of the authors of the report used by Channel 4 as mentioned above! Funny that – you would have thought they’d mention it….
Please don’t use this Open Thread as a venue for general discussions about political issues, such as immigration, where it doesn’t involve the BBC in some direct way.
dave t: “Meanwhile on an article about rising immigration numbers … which is only linked on the POLITICS page”
Are you complaining about the BBC trying to ‘bury’ this by only linking it on the politics page?
If so, I think this is a little unfair as immigration (and specifically the problems it causes) has been a recurrent theme of BBC news coverage for at least the past several months. Please don’t judge this in isolation.
William Hague gave a barnstorming performance to open the Conservative Conference packed with good one liners leaving the BBC spoilt for choice for their coverage. What did the World at One do instead? They didn’t mention Hague’s speech at all but spent ages playing inaudible sounds from Blackpool to show up some sound problems the conference had experienced. It was just ridiculous and petty and reveals what we all know – the BBC are openly campaigning for the Labour party in the run up to a possible GE.
And as a postscript – the R4 5 o’clock bulletin actually headlined (I paraphrase) ‘On top of the bad news in the opinion polls the conservative party conference has had another setback’ What setback could that be? Yup – the earthshattering information that there’ve been technical problems with the sound system. And they call it news.
It looks like the BBC has their ‘narrative’ for the Tory party conference all sorted out. There is a crisis in the polls, Cameron is struggling, there is a huge challenge ahead, there are appeals for unity, and some Tory ministers have made “extremely controversial” comments about immigration. Expect lots more references to “a lurch to the right”, rumours of leadership challenges etc etc. Pretty much every report looks like it’s going to be a negative one.
I expect that even sound Tory proposals will be headlined with the Labour reaction, i.e.; ” the government has criticised the latest Tory proposals to…” – just as they did with John Redwood’s proposals to cut red tape a few weeks ago.
Still, I expect the BBC reporters are looking forward to getting their teeth into some politicians, especially after the fawning and totally uncritical and unquestioning coverage that the Labour Party conference got last week.
So now we know…Andrew Gilligan is “part of a long list of people on the left”:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_gilligan/2007/09/get_a_life_ally.html
BBC’s Toady employing a leftie? Well I never.
Mr Minit
“Are you complaining about the BBC trying to ‘bury’ this by only linking it on the politics page?”
Err no but the fact that when immigration is seen to be good or a LABOUR minister comments it hits the front page. When it appears to be bad news (ie more resources used on people who are not even part of what used to be our Empire ie Somalia!) or something that confirms what the Tories have been saying it gets buried pretty damm quick. That is why I pointed it out as yet another example of the way the BBC twist the facts or try to drive the debate their way instead of being impartial. It also comes to something when yet again C4 lead the way on a topic (not just immigration) and the BBC are shown for what they are – an overbloated waste of money.
“For many years now, the most popular poet in America has been a 13th-century mystical Muslim scholar. Translations of Mawlana Jalaluddin Rumi’s – better known as Rumi – verse are hugely popular…” says BBC Views Online in the 4th most emailed story list on their front page.
Is he really “the most popular poet in America”?
I’ve never heard of Rumi, but then I’m not American. Perhaps someone more into poetry and American popular culture can check out this claim please.
dave t – In recent weeks we’ve had C4 documentaries on Islamic extremism iin the UK, our corrupt politicians, andnow one examining the costs of immigration. Plus, a while ago, an expose of organised abuse of white children by Asian men in some northern towns. It is simply inconceivable to me that the BBC would make documentaries on any of these topics.
Another reason to question the licence fee.
“Despite a hysterical campaign against inheritance tax in some quarters of the media, HMRC figures show it is not as onerous.
In 2006-07 it brought the government £3.5bn, up a relatively modest 50% during the previous five years.”
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7018253.stm
Not very balanced if you ask me…
Here’s my entry for ‘Most Incompetent Headline of the Week’:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7021021.stm
Rumi?
Methinks Robert Frost and Emily Dickinson as well as Walt Whitman would be far far more popular to name but three off the top of my head! They certainly sold millions of books and are studied in depth by American students. Longfellow? Twain?
Then again the BBC site links to a site about Rumi which claimed he wrote the most spiritual text in the history of the world. Hmm the Bible and the Koran might be regarded as a wee bit better than an obscure Afghan poet….
One wonders if the BBC writer ever did English at school……
The cuurent number 1 recommended comment on Have Your Say – “Tory Party Conference: Your views” is this:
“Added: Sunday, 30 September, 2007, 08:45 GMT 09:45 UK
the BBC interviewed david cameron this sunday morning, asked clearly “you are behind in the polls! how are you going to change this?”
david cameron replied “polls go up and down, you should ask a polster about this, im here to present a real change for the british voter.”
he then went on to list policies and answer questions on the individual points.
at the end of the interview, the program went to latest news headlines, the first headline was read out, “david cameron has said he is worried and faces a big challenge to reverse his party’s poor showing in the polls!”
come on BBC, disgraceful reporting!
how can you tell us you are not pro labour biased when you report like this?
[denzil69] ”
The BBC biased against the Conservative leader, who would have thought it…
http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2001/10/12/barks/index.html
THIS article from 2001 seems to be the source of the BBC’s claim. Six years old and written by a guy who ‘had a vision’ a la David Icke!
“Barks deals very little with the original Farsi: He starts by comparing existing English translations, which he then rephrases into his own. Often this means giving up the rhyme and tempo of Rumi’s original Farsi, but it allows Barks to bring the poetry a jauntiness and modernity. Rumi’s jokes become funnier with Barks behind the wheel. ”
So this guy (who still doesn’t speak Farsi) changes the originals as well! Still no evidence that Rumi or rather Barks’s translations are the best selling poems in America. We turn to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalal_ad-Din_Muhammad_Rumi
“The English interpretations of Rumi’s poetry by Coleman Barks have sold more than a half million copies worldwide”
A mere half a million WORLDWIDE? Then we find that the claim that Rumi is most popular in the US comes from:
^ Curiel,J onathan, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer, Islamic verses: The influence of Muslim literature in the United States has grown stronger since the Sept. 11 attacks (February 6, 2005),
Article below which also claims 1/2 million worldwide but still cannot confirm he is top selling in the US, it does not mention that the half million sales are WORLDWIDE sales:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/06/INGH7B3FM31.DTL
I have checked 6 different sites with Top Ten American or Best selling poets and every one has Frost Hughes Waltman Cummings or Dickinson and no mention in the top 100 of Rumi! Frost is a four times Pulitzer winner and is not the most popular? Yeah right….
Wonder if this is the BBC trying to help Trevor Philips along with his ‘Muslims saved the UK during the Armada’, and the ‘invited everything apart from spaceships’ meme…..and why rely on stuff from years ago to try and continue the meme?
NB Latest: Billy Collins (current Poet Laureate in the USA) is apparently second behind the best selling book of poetry in the US written by Jayne Hirshfield called ‘After’. The New York Times book lists show no mention of Rumi at all. I know it is the 800th anniversary of his birthday but given that it only seems to be the likes of Madonna and nutty professors that like him (or have even HEARD of him) this is one poet who won’t be on my list for the kids during international poetry week in a fortnight. 😎