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.
BBC left wing sympathies, slants running order….
Main headline on BBC News website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Post workers start 48-hour strike
The news that royal mail posties will be on strike for 48 hours (yet again) has been the biggest news story on the BBC News website all day. Can it really be that slow a news day? Or is it something else…..?
Both Sky News and ITN News lead with Diana inquest. Neither Sky nor ITN feature the postal strike in their top five stories. About right in my book.
Sky News
http://news.sky.com/skynews/home
ITN News
http://itn.co.uk/
Another example of left wing card holding union member journalists at the BBC being blinded by their union ‘comrades’?
The public seem to agree.
How will the postal strike affect you?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=3629&edition=1&ttl=20071004175428&#paginator#
No.1 Recommended
“This strike is best compared to the action of child whose just been told he can’t have any sweeties because his parents can’t afford to buy them. Its a tantrum, for no good reason.
The post office is not a government monopoly anymore it has to compete in the private sector, to do this it has to modernise. If the workers don’t like the changes being made then they should go and get another job, just like all the rest of us have to.”
Stephen Mortimer, Reading, United Kingdom
Recommended by 142 people
Rachel Miller | 04.10.07 – 4:53 pm
If BBC News Online is indeed a constantly changing news service, why do the time-stamps on the articles fail to reflect this fact?
This was explained some time ago by the editor of the news website. (see link below). In short • the date/time stamp is only changed if the story itself has ‘moved’, i.e. there has been a significant development. Small factual revisions etc are inserted without changing the stamp. This makes sense. Imagine if a minor fact were changed 3 days later (e.g. the colour of the car featured in a story were to be changed from grey to silver) …would you really want the whole story to be re-written so that all the todays, yesterdays etc. were altered to reflect a 3 days post facto perspective? This would cause chaos. People looking back in 5 years time would be totally confused about why the BBC was reporting so long after the event.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/sniffing_out_edits.html
My vague recollection of the sequence of events re this story is as follows (I’m doing this from memory so I don’t vouch for every detail):
The original story said that 3 black MPs had come out accusing Boris of being borderline racist ‘cos he once used the word piccaninny.
The advantage of this version was that the fact they were black at least had something to do with the thrust of the story.
Then commenters here and elsewhere in the blogosphere starting howling ‘bias’ and pointing out (legitimately) that the story did not mention they were Labour MPs.
Someone then panicked and changed it to ‘Labour MPs’.
This was silly. It invites the Mandy Rice-Davies riposte…… worse, by taking out the race angle they made it a dog-bites-man story.
‘Labour MPs Don’t think Boris should be Mayor’ isn’t news.
“Black MPs claim to be outraged at racial insult” can be news, however synthetic one suspects their indignation to be. Though, as I think I said at the time, I believe media should be more resistant to obviously contrived/orchestrated stories like this.
Sadly, this was a case where B-BBC pressure made an already fairly ropey story worse.
Hey look, another unbiased article from our old friend Matt Frei telling us that cowboy/monkey Bush has ‘evolved’ into something a lot more acceptable (to the lefties at BBC News):
Washington diary: Farewell cowboy?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7027166.stm
[lengthy quote deleted]
The whole article is based on the assumption that behaving in a more ‘left wing’ way (multilateralism, compromise) is better than behaving in a ‘right wing’ way. ‘Evolution’ equals the ideas of the left/liberals.
Says who?
Ritter, the Frei story was blogged on its own thread at 4.55pm.
thomaskust: “In the interests of balance (and therefore to avoid accusations of political campaigning) how about starting a biased-ITV or irrelevant-ITV site in parallel?”
Feel free to Thomas – I don’t have enough time to cover all that needs to be said about the BBC (good and bad), nor do my comrades I expect. Even if time and resources permitted, there are two other issues: ITV is not funded by a compulsory tax; ITV is not nearly as dominant as the BBC (and therefore not nearly as well placed to shape or mis-shape the national agenda). Let us know the URL and we’ll post a link once you get if successfully off the ground though! 🙂
Sadly, this was a case where B-BBC pressure made an already fairly ropey story worse.
John Reith | 04.10.07 – 6:08 pm | #
No – it was a case where B-BBC turned a cheap bit of biassed reporting/editing into the non-story any real journalist would have recognised it as being in the first place.
“Sadly, this was a case where B-BBC pressure made an already fairly ropey story worse.
John Reith | 04.10.07 – 6:08 pm”
Nope. It was an exposure [by B-BBC] of the BBC colluding with Labour in a truly nasty bit of racial politics. And few people buy the ‘honest mistake’ excuse trotted out with increasing regularity by the Beeb.
Trumpeter Lanfried:
Interested to hear that Brian Redhead voted Tory, remembering how furious he was when he was asked about it.
Admitting the truth would have meant sitting by himself in the BBC canteen for the rest of his days.
Trumpeter Lanfried | 04.10.07 – 4:58 pm | #
It does strike me from time to time that some contributors to this blog need to take a step back from their anger at the BBC and apply some of the objectivity they say they expect to their own views.
Having listened to and read Brian Redhead from well before he joined Today. He was a superb journalist. I certainly never thought of him as a Tory and certainly felt he was clearly antipathetic to Mrs Thatcher’s politics, but I never thought he fell into any obvious political camp and quite easily believe (i) that he voted for an individualistic and impressive MP like Nicholas Winterton and (ii) that he was sincere in his angry reaction to the view of (was it Lawson?) that he “knew” who Redhead supported.
For myself I’m a tory but have in the past chosen to vote for my local Labour MP, for whose personal qualities and performance I have a high respect.
Dearie me. More Labour press releases regurgitated as news.
BBC website, front page, the headline proclaims;
“A healthy future”
Polyclinics are the next big thing in the NHS, but how do they work?
Note: Not ‘do’ they work, but ‘how do they work’. There follows a fawning article, about our ‘healthy future’. Any opposition from hospital consultants is portrayed as pure selfishness. In fact, the article makes clear that if the proposed ‘polyclinics’ fail, it will only be due to the action of the nasty hopital doctors.
Anonymous: “Does Jonathan Boyd Hunt still post at this site?”
No. He was one of a dozen (or two) who flounced off with much fanfare at the beginning of June when we took back control of our comments facility from a few vocal loudmouths who had come to treat Biased BBC’s comment facility as their personal outlet for whatever annoyed them at any given moment. Needless to say, Biased BBC is more effective and popular than ever.
Anonymous: “Any info would be much appreciated.”
Have you considered Googling for him?
Kevin Marsh, editor of the BBC College of Journalism, posted an article in March posing the question of why some murders are regarded by the media as more newsworthy than others. If he really didn’t know then, he should know now after the comments he received:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/not_making_the_news.html
Today the stepfather of murder victim Jason Spencer commented that the court case will be on October 8th in Nottingham. (Comment no. 45)
I wonder if the BBC will be there. Probably not. The poor kid was white.
interesting little post from dizzy thinks..
http://dizzythinks.net/2007/10/bbc-hack-to-work-as-mili-spad.html
“Dr Reith:
Interesting to find David Gregory (the Midlands Environment Correspondent) defending his generous (and publicly funded) employer. I hope this touching show of loyalty advances your career, but if it does, I guess it meands you’ll be leaving Birmingham. Why? Wel, perhaps David would like to explain the BBC’s virtual desertion of Birmingham where broadcasting has been reduced to a laughable “news programe” (fronted by none other than Nick “Smiley” Owen of Daytime TV fame and a couple of other presenters, one of whom cannot read more than three words but has a cute ethnic smile) and a couple of slightly more high profile radio shows and abysmal, cheap dramas. Perhaps David would also like to tell us why the Divine BBC regards Birmingham as being incapable of producing serious programes, and also why the BBC has squandered millions of pounds of public money in relocating to The Mailbox, the most expensive bit of real estate in the city. I guess they think footbalers wives are their main audience (hell, they may be right). Come one David, I await your answers with much interest.”
Hi DR: Thank you so much for your questions. While I guess one would expect an employee to defend a company he is proud to work for, I do try and restrict myself to answering questions where I have some knowledge as I’ve explained before. I don’t make blanket defences of BBC decisions because I’m sure BBC staff directly concerned can speak for themselves. So that’s why I post, nothing to do with my career (such as it is)
But correcting the mistakes and misapprehensions of B-BBC is a useful thing to do. IMHO
Right onto BBC Birmingham. Well we’ve already gone into BBC property in some depth. But let me shorthand it for you.
Pebble Mill = asbestos riddled box + falling down + built for broadcasting in 70s.
Cost of refurbishment = cost of moving to Mailbox.
The advantage of The Mailbox is that we are right in the city centre. We encourage our Licence payers to come and pay us a visit. Pop in I’d be delighted to give you a tour. Feel free to email me direct david dot gregory at bbc dot co dot uk.
Well I work for the “laughable” news programme. It’s one of the most popular in the country, I hope most of our audience is turning in for reasons other than a good laugh. Tonight I was looking at the important work done at Aston University using yeast to understand the structure of proteins and develop new medicines.
I hate it when we dumb down.
Nick’s a great broadcaster and a cracking journalist (once again IMHO). There’s real craft at work there.
When you come in you must point out the “ethnic” you are talking about. But since I know my colleagues by their names I’m unsure who you mean at the moment.
As for the programmes. Well Birmingham is the center of production for daytime, so that’s what we make the most of. Obviously not to your taste, but we aim to innovate and craft and produce value for money stuff. But you could also throw in Coast, Countryfile, Dalziel & Pascoe and Doctors (though I’m guessing you don’t watch that) We produce about a third of Radio 2s output, there’s the Asian Network and of course The Archers.
Isn’t The Bullring the most expensive piece of real estate in the city? Still I do think there are downsides to the Mailbox, a lack of a major studio between London and Glasgow for example. But studios seem to be out of fashion.
I don’t think I’ve ever met a FWAG in the Mailbox! Still the BBC can’t win, it’s too socialist or too capitalist… slap bang in the middle of a shopping mall. But I like the Mailbox, I can walk to work (I am the Environment Correspondent after all) and those restaurants and bars at the back are really popular so plenty of people visiting them do pop in to see us, which was one of the main reasons for moving back into the city centre (where we started out of of course)
And that just leaves me to extend my invitation to come in an pay us a visit. Do drop me a line.
Cheers
Dave
PS I really enjoy working and living in Birmingham. I have worked in London but at the moment I’m very happy here and would prefer to stay. And I can’t see posting here advancing or stymieing that aim.
PPS All those comments about a regular round up of BBC Bias… well that would be very interesting. The Telegraph used to run BeebWatch of course. They don’t run it any more. I wonder why?
Yes in all the spin and waffle today over Nu Labours plans for the NHS not a single mention from the BBC about what Brown has been up to for the last 10 years? Just who has been funding the NHS? In fact if we are to be believed Brown had more to do with that than Blair.
Yet all we get is spin from the BBC about how Gordon Brown is going ot getGP’s to open up much more. So why has it taken 10 years to sort that out then?
Having tried over the course of a few days to post something mildly critical of Jane Garvey on The Editors blog
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/09/goodbye_jane.html
and being confronted with a brick wall, I made one last attempt a few minutes ago:
You appear to be showing great reluctance to post anything even slightly controversial about Jane Garvey. Or perhaps my attempts to post have simply got lost in the system. So before your article falls off the bottom of the page, I’ll try one last time:
Jane let slip that the supposedly impartial BBC is an enthusiastic supporter of Labour as she recalled the 1997 election:
“So, I had to get a bit of sleep, and I do remember I walked back into, we were broadcasting then from Broadcasting House in the centre of London, all very upmarket in those days, and the corridors of, er, Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles.”
Realising her gaffe, she tried to do some damage control, then saw it was hopeless and gave up with, “Wish I hadn’t started this now.”
Though Jane did not go the whole hog and admit to bias, she was obviously uncomfortable in the role of covering up the bias. It is extremely rare to see this degree of honesty from BBC staff.
So we look forward to the inclusion of this very revealing clip in the compilation you are preparing.
This reminds me of the way the BBC closed ranks during Alan Johnston’s kidnapping and in time would not allow even the faintest whiff of criticism of Johnston to dirty its snowy white web pages or distort its crystal clear air waves.
Speaking of Johnston, he is about to make a reappearance:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
(This information is only for the benefit of those with very strong stomachs indeed.)
David Gregory
Thank you so much for your reply. The perfect Beeboid response – smug, arrogant and contemptuous of criticism.
But let’s analyse some of your more ridiculous responses.
For a start, please tell me the viewing figures for your ridiculous “news” show. Are these published? And while you’re at it, tell me how much it costs us to fund it (you do realise we pay your wages, don’t you?). Oh, and you and I both know which presenter I was referring to, so stop being such a tit.
Yes I know Birmingham has been graced with the “Daytime” mission. Why is that? Why is “serious” programming the preserve of London (with titbits thrown to Bristol and Manchester)? Do you not feel this disparity and status has wider cultural and economic implications? No? Missed that as well, did you?
Yes, I agree with the move out of Pebble Mill. Not only was it asbestos ridden and ugly but it also had a prominence that you simply did not deserve. And if you don’t understand that the Mailbox is the most expensive place in Brum, then you shouldn’t be a journalist, even for the BBC.
Let me spell it out for you David. I think the citizens of Birmingham are hugely sort-changed by the BBC. Not just by the bias, the nepotism, the casual prejudices and he in-house contempt for your public, but by the quality of your piss-poor service, so well exemplified by the patrician tone of your ludicrous response.
I resent paying your wages. You (the BBC) simpy ain’t worth it.
Still the BBC can’t win, it’s too socialist or too capitalist
David Gregory (BBC) | 04.10.07 – 8:12 pm
Mr. Gregory, the point about the BBC and finances is that it uses typical socialist filching of people’s hard-earned money through the licence tax to fund a lifestyle reminiscent of the excesses of capitalism. As one example, you might recall the excessive numbers of BBC staff that hopped onto the bandwagon for last year’s Football World Cup.
Now if the BBC had produced some decent reporting and commentating as a result of this bandwagon-hopping, one might say there was some justification for it. But the reporting and commentating was abysmal, especially the subversive fawning over every opponent of England while spurning the national side.
You should make more of an effort to understand why the BBC is held in such contempt by so many. We see you as free-loaders, gorging yourselves at the public trough with extorted funds while producing one-sided, biased output that much of the public finds objectionable at best and reprehensible at worst.
“free-loaders, gorging yourselves at the public trough” – BBC Director General Mark Thompson said something very similar, when he was head of C4.
[I’ve looked for the exact quote with no joy – anyone?]
Bodo: It was jacuzzi of cash if I remember rightly!
Bryan: I post here because I want to engage. I’m well aware of the contempt many people have for me because I work for the BBC. I’ve said before that often B-BBC has made some important points and effected change. But it also seeks to reduce the BBC and it’s staff through name calling and cliche. I like posting because I’m trying to show the BBC isn’t what you think it is. At least not all the time.
Dr R: I’m sorry if I sounded smug, I was just trying to answer your question politely and with good humour.
In return you call me a tit. Fair enough. But once again please email me and I’ll set up a visit.
Of course the viewing figures are published. The BBC’s regional news shows are the most popular news programme in the country. I’m pretty proud of that. Midlands Today gets around 750,000 a night though it varies between as low as 300,000 and up to just shy of a million. Please don’t take this as gospel but I believe Midlands Today costs around £20M a year so that’s around 8 pence a day per viewer.
Interestingly that’s too much for the market to provide and ITV have asked to close down many of their regions.
And I’m sorry I’m still unclear which “ethnic” you are so concerned about. We have one or two working on the show. Like I say they have names.
Dr. R., I was about to delete your most recent comment, but I see that David Gregory has done you the courtesy of responding. You appear to be new here (having commented for the first time today). Profanity, abuse and animosity are not appreciated – particularly when directed at fellow commenters, whether from the BBC or not. People participate here voluntarily – not because they wish to be picked on by you. Your earlier description of a particular BBC presenter does not impress either. In other words, please calm down. Thank you.
[Deleted]
Just watched the BBC news. It had an article about a Holocaust archive that has been opened to the public. It had two ‘holocaust victims’ both sons of people who had died in the camps. One of the victims was a communist and his son wanted a to find a picture of him as he didn’t have any. Cue moving picture of him finding a picture and disolving into tears. Genuinely moving.
But hold on what’s this. The other person was a Jew. Was he looking for a keepsake or a remindder of his parents. No the grubby little Jew was out for compo.
Un-fcuking-believable. Thank you BBC for perpetuating the myth that all we Jews require from life is more cash. Bastards.
Well remembered David – a great quote that I hadn’t heard before. One for our sidebar perhaps!
Thompson pulls plug on BBC ‘jacuzzi culture’, The Scotsman, 08 Dec 2004:
When Mr Thompson was, briefly, chief executive of Channel 4, he accused the BBC of “basking in a Jacuzzi of spare public cash”. Yesterday, he took on the onerous task of pulling out the Jacuzzi’s plug, while insisting the end result would be a stronger BBC which “spent less on process and more on content”.
Anonymous. He’s a colleague and a friend. He has a name. He’s not an “ethnic” Whatever I think of his autocue skills I find that deeply offensive. But I’m trying to be polite
Do you have a name? If you did I’d use that too.
I’m nice like that.
(And thanks, Andrew. I appreciate your post)
Bryan, I too have posted quite a few times my recollections of Jane Garvey – I also have yet to see my article or receive a reply.
After weeks of listening to BBC reporters telling us how huge the difference in support between Labour and the Conservatives was (11% according to a YOUGOV poll), I see that according to the Guardians poll it is down to zero.
Yet the BBC website under UK news cannot bear to highlight this fact, amazing, after all the so called expert pundits talking up Browns possible early election strategy due to his huge lead what do we hear from the BBC?, nothing.
The BBC’s obvious bias towards Labour and the way it has under-reported the Conservative party conference whilst giving Gordon maximum exposure with his sick stunt with British troops has backfired, I cannot wait to listen to the BBC world service this morning totally ignoring the results of the survey!.
Luckily Dutch TV has already had a 5 min news report on the Conservative reducing the gap, and mentioned that Labour seem to be concerned about some economic downturn?.
Might be time for the BBC to start attempting to be less biased if they wish to keep the license fee!.
The simplest explanation is usually the most accurate. The reason why the BBC is rabidly pro-marxist is, it wouldn’t stay afloat 1 week without the tax payers’ handouts. America and capitalism frighten the hell out the BBC because its henchmen know that capitalism relies on hard work and effort, something the BBC brats no nothing about. Socialism are the lazy man’s life preserve. For those of us who can think on our own and be self sufficient, we are an affront to lazy spoon fed brats of the Western world. Socialism provides handouts, and thus the lazy trust fund brats at the BBC can sip their mocha lattes in their pradas in style, without soiling their finely manicured hands. And to think Lefties still insist they are champions of the common man. The Left is comprised of the wealthiest people on the planet. They seek to garner all the power and riches for themselves and control the rest of us. Socialims is devised by greedy despots. Never in socialism’s history has a working stiff ever organized a socialist revolt. Pol Pot, Karl Marx, Che Guevera, all trust fund brats with way too much time on their hands. There is nothing that rots the brain more than having wealth without earning it. In the USA, 85% of millionaires earned their money, having started with nothing. In Europe, it’s the opposite, 85% inhereted their wealth, hence the love affair in europe with socialism. Take a poll and find out how many BBC reporters have trust funds….
TFC,
You’re absolutely right. That didn’t really register with me when I saw it on the BBC World News America this evening. I was too focused on waiting for them to say that public access to the vast amount of meticulous records the Nazis kept would finally shut the Holocaust deniers up once and for all. Didn’t happen, but since the records were at least presented as incontrovertible facts, I let it go.
But damn. The BBC would have taken much more care with how they portrayed a Mohammedan.
David Gregory (BBC) | 04.10.07 – 10:34 pm,
To be clear, I didn’t say that I (or anyone else) hold you personally in contempt. I said the BBC is held in contempt by many. On the contrary, I appreciate your polite style of communication – though I do think you should try to engage more directly with arguments presented here rather than cheerfully gliding past them with a smile and a wave. I suspect this is what got Dr R hot under the collar – though I concur with Andrew that his vitriol directed at you was inappropriate.
NotaSheep | Homepage | 04.10.07 – 11:27 pm
Up to now I have found The Editors blog quite fair re the amount of negative comment they allow through. But it really does seem that they are tightening the screws now. The 12 comments they have condescended to post on Garvey all have nothing but praise for her.
Andrew’s article above provides more evidence of a change in attitude at their blog.
Bryan: “though I do think you should try to engage more directly with arguments presented here rather than cheerfully gliding past them with a smile and a wave”
I appreciate your comments but I do think the above one is a bit unfair. I’ve explained the ground rules. I’m posting under my own name and discussing my employer. What I say here could easily be taken out of context by someone. I always make it clear I can really only discuss points that I actually know something about. I’m sure in the pub or at a dinner party we could all have a much more natural and forthright discussion!
Mario: Plenty of BBC staff have run or do run business’. Once again I issue an invitation to come and see me at work. Trust me I know what hard work is.
The Fat Contractor | 04.10.07 – 10:51 pm,
Can one access that particular BBC News clip as an infidel from outside of the island?
David Gregory (BBC) | 05.10.07 – 8:43 am,
OK, fair enough.
Mario, you were doing so well up until you said “the reason why the BBC is rabidly pro-marxist is…”. After that it was difficult to take you seriously.
As for the holocaust related clip from last night’s Ten O’Clock News, I don’t think it was so bad – and not part of a conspiracy to stereotype jewish people. I will watch it again though just to be sure.
Bryan | 05.10.07 – 9:42 am |
Can one access that particular BBC News clip as an infidel from outside of the island?
I think this may be it. Unfortunately I can’t get it to play to check. The date & subject indicate it may well be the one. I found it from here.
SWMBO reckons I’m being too sensitive (for a change) but this made me really, really angry yesterday and I don’t feel any better today!
Dear Mr. Reith,
“Black MPs claim to be outraged at racial insult” can be news, however synthetic one suspects their indignation to be.
John Reith | 04.10.07 – 6:08 pm | #
———————————–
That is absolutely true. However, the original story made no attempt to suggest that the MPs’ indignation was ‘synthetic’, or that they were ‘claiming’ to be outraged – in fact quite the reverse.
By leaving out the fact that both MPs involved were Labour party members, and hence had a *political* motive to ‘spurn’ Boris Johnson, the article implied that the *only possible* reason for the two black women’s dislike of Mr. Johnson was that he had made ‘racist’ statements.
In addition, I don’t think it is too great a stretch to add that referring to ‘Black MPs’ being offended by Boris Johnson suggests that Ms. Abbot and Ms. Butler are in some way representatives of London’s black community (as opposed to being representatives of the Labour party), which in turn leads to the suggestion that black Londoners *in general* should be offended and should likewise ‘spurn’ Mr. Johnson’s campaign.
I agree with you whole-heartedly that this story in its original form was ‘ropey’. However, I disagree that the protests from B-BBC among others did anything other than force the editing staff of News Online to provide a *complete* picture, where previously it had been partial.
(After all, isn’t looking for the complete picture what journalism is all about?)
The Fat Contractor | 05.10.07 – 10:16 am,
Thanks for the link. I had no problem playing the clip. A few observations:
The presenter, Steve Rosenberg, is Jewish. That doesn’t mean, of course, that he can’t be biased against his fellow Jews, but it puts an unusual slant on bias in this instance, if it can be shown to exist.
Why did Rosenberg choose the Israeli and the German to illustrate his piece? Was it difficult to find people to appear on camera or was the choice more deliberate, in order to paint a certain picture? And if he felt obliged to follow journalistic instincts and go with the moving story of the German finding the photo of his grandfather, why did he not come back to the Israeli to indicate whether or not he had been successful in finding information on his mother’s stolen property – or was that perhaps an editorial decision?
No doubt there is no shortage of left-wing Jews working for the BBC. Put another way, how long would a right-wing Jew last at the BBC, providing he/she could get past the interview? I can’t judge Rosenberg, though I felt distinctly uncomfortable reading this article of his
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/europe/europetoday/letters/020409_srosenberg.shtml
and finding this observation: Israel’s claim that it’s fighting a war on terrorism strikes a chord with many here in Russia.
When Rosenberg wrote this, Israel was right in the middle of the brutal Second Intifada. By the end of it, the toll was close to a thousand Israeli men, women and children slaughtered by terrorists from Hamas and other groups on buses and in clubs and restaurants. Rosenberg’s statement is so very typical of the BBC: Never accept anything as fact that comes from the Israeli side of the conflict. Always distance yourself from it, even if it is an indisputable fact.
Given this background, it could well be that Rosenberg felt obliged to prove his credentials as a BBC man first and a Jew a very distant second by concentrating most of his attention on the moving story of a relative of a non-Jewish Holocaust victim while giving a nod to the less dramatic story (perhaps, as you indicated, with the implication of a mercenary angle to it) of a Jew wanting to reclaim property. Problem is, people who go down that road almost always overcompensate so that it becomes an unwritten rule that you can’t portray a member of your own race or religion in a positive light first in the queue before others in case (hell, the skies would fall) you’ll be accused of favouring your own.
But I guess I’ll have to conclude that the allegation of bias is unproven, reluctant as I am to come to such a conclusion since this is the BBC we’re talking about here.
The Fat Contractor,
The link you provide above is the exact same segment I saw last night on BBC America. You’re still right that they shouldn’t have shown a Jew looking for compo.
Andrew and Bryan,
There’s no conspiracy going on to make Jews look bad, but this seems to be pretty good evidence – despite the particulars of the presenter’s Y chromosome – of an endemic bias against looking out for Jews in the same way they look out for Mohammedans. They don’t realize they’re doing it, but the result is similar.
I believe this raises the legitimate question of how the two interview subjects were chosen. Rosenberg wasn’t working in a vacuum; he had BBC segment producers, etc. working with him, and an editor supervising him (though not on site). Obviously the BBC knew they couldn’t show Jews only. We all know why, don’t we? This decision was made before Rosenberg left White City for the airport. He’s a BBC employee, and has to ago along with it. I couldn’t say what he thought of it privately. But it’s fair to ask, since there was only time for one Jew, why didn’t they at least find someone who was looking for lost relatives, full stop?
I’m betting the guy they featured was the first person they ran into looking for subjects who agreed to appear on camera. It would be disingenuous of me to pretend that only a tiny fraction of Jews searching Holocaust records are looking to recover homes, business, and other property. I’m not going to flap my pinny crying “what are the odds.” But the fact remains that it didn’t occur to anyone in the entire process that maybe they ought not to do something that might perpetuate a stereotype.
The BBC most certainly would have engaged in a bit of self-censorship if the situation involved the other kind of Semite. I won’t go so far as to say that the piece would turn someone against Jews. Although, I have to wonder about a subliminal effect. But it definitely will serve to reinforce negative opinions anyone might already hold. This segment seems to indicate that BBC producers do not give the same consideration to Jews as they constantly do to Muslims.
To be honest, I was just so relieved that they presented it all as incontrovertible fact, and didn’t bend over backwards trying to make the Holocaust multiculturally inclusive, that I didn’t even notice the first guy wasn’t a Jew. I’ve been following the story about the archives on my own for years, and I can’t wait for the world to rub the noses of Holocaust deniers in this stuff. That’s why the second guy didn’t register with me as being a problem. Looking at it again, I began to question the “balance”.
I’m also being a grown-up and not objecting to the German scholar’s insistence on using the term “disappeared” rather than “killed”. The former term is standard practice over here when referring to the thousands of people killed by various nasty South American dictators, so I’m dealing with it.
In any event, The Fat Contractor raises a legitimate point.
Bryan | 05.10.07 – 3:08 pm |
I had no idea who the presenter was, he didn’t register. What got me fuming was the inference. It is a slight inference, and if one did not associate Jews with being grasping misers then one might not see the fault.
Of course it’s easy to be paranoid and it’s not as if they were smashing up graves or vandalising synagogues. But it’s like chinese water torture. Drip after drip after tiny drip. On their own they are of little consequence. But each drip accumlates in the minds of the public reinforcing a stereotype.
Anyway, whatever – I’m off to count me shekels.
The Fat Contractor | 07.10.07 – 5:56 pm,
Yes, I take your point about the drip, drip, drip and I can see why it got to you, but I think the BBC is basically fair-minded about the Holocaust. I have heard moving accounts on the World Service of Jews who were separated during the Holocaust being reunited and there was also this scathing report by Frances Harrison on Iran’s Holocaust denial fest:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6183061.stm
That took guts. And I believe it was the only time the BBC has stood up and criticised the brutal Iranian regime, rather than fawning over it, as it usually does.
What we are seeing from Rosenberg, as I indicated above, is probably the standard mindless left-wing distancing of onesself from one’s roots. And it may not even be fully conscious. I don’t know if it will precipitate anti-Semitism but it certainly has the potential to reinforce existing prejudice.
Bryan,
Very interesting point. The logical consequence would be the distancing of oneself from the self. Next step, the BBC’s beloved Collectivism.
David Preiser,
Yes, you could be onto something there. Those who shape policy at the BBC must at some level understand that the indoctrination of people into embracing the false ideal of a multiculti society is an effective way to get them to turn away from their roots or at least put their roots second. Once that has been achieved, individual thought can be more easily subjected to collectivist groupthink with its paralysing PC rules. Then everyone walks around with glazed eyes repeating what the BBC has fed them, voting the way the BBC wants them to vote and handing over the licence tax without a murmur.
How the BBC must hate individual dissent. And how it must hate this site!
I came across a very nasty childrens’ book recently.
I was laughing at a BBC comedy for children:”Horrible History”, with my seven year old niece, recently, when she proucly showed me a book based on the series, & written by the program’s producer, one Terry Deary.
It is 93 pages of murder, rape, war, treachery & cannibalism.
Only 2 pages contain any praise: for China, which in it’s 5000+ year history has never managed to produce a just society, much less a democratic one.
Go to your local library & check out “The Horrible History of the World”. You will find it surrounded by works on global warming, which hasn’t been happening for ~16-17 years, on the childrens’ shelves.
Aimed at 7-13 year olds, it’s purpose is to sow confusion in young minds.
“We learn nothing from history” George Hegel (1770-1830) is the opening line.
“We cannot escape history” Abraham Lincoln (1809- 1865) is on the next page.
“…this is not a book about ‘history’, it’s a book about ‘people’ – the most disgusting, evil, cruel and HORRIBLE creatures on Earth.” is a comment between the 2 statements on History.
God is denigrated, & all religions.
The rule of Law is belittled, & it’s evolution from 2350BC in Mesopotamia, through Hammurabi, & Moses 10 commandments, to the 12 tablets of Roman Law
Children are taught to distrust their own family members.
Is the BBC conditioning our children for a post democratic society?
When our debt-laden & thoroughly corrupt financial system finally implodes?
First published in 1993 (page 83), have they been doing this for 20 years?
A year earlier, in 1992, George Bush Snr signed UN Agenda 21, at the Rio Earth Summit, hailing it as “A New World Order”
Agenda 21 plans a reduction in world population of 80% – 90%, the abolition of the family, the abolition of the family & the abolition of private land ownership. They want everything you’ve got, including your kids. They also want one world govt, for which the EU is seen as the forerunner.
The film:”The Hunger Games” is a vision of the future the banksters, big corporations, the socialist govts of the developed world, & the bureaucrats of the EU, the UN, the US EPA have in mind for us.
Bill Clinton signed UN Agenda 21 in 1993.
Neither President brought it before Congress, making it unconstitutional.
Alabama banned this creeping socialism in June 2012: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11999-sustainable-freedom-surging-opposition-to-agenda-21-“sustainable-development”
& many other states, cities & counties are following suit.
The fightback has begun.
If we do not protect our kiddies minds from the likes of the insidious communist control freaks at the BBC, we do not deserve to survive.
Check this book out, & involve your MPs, your vicars, your parish priests, your womens institutes. Find out which of them are bought & paid for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40iHXAOjJ3U is the bullying EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) in it’s march to grab all land for the govt.
Here is an EPA administrator comparing his tactics of intimidation to the Romans crucifying people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze3GB_b7Nuo