Please use this thread for BBC-related comments and analysis. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not (and never has been) an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or use as a chat forum. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
The MontaQuinn managed to interview a Labour backbencher about Brown’s Bottle without once mentioning the words “opinion poll”. Bizarre.
Not exactly bias but then again …
Just watched a clip for ‘Robin Hood’. Now this series is pants, and laughable pants at that, but this just took the biscuit. It seems the Sheriff of Nottingham has set up a casino in Nottingham Castle complete with baise tables and chips (the gambling kind).
Why? Do they really care so little for historical accuracy that they can place such an anachronism in a kids programme and expect it to go un-noticed. Is it just stupidity or is there something else going on?
Is it just too paranoid to think that [The Moderator: Yes, what followed here *was* too paranoid. But thanks for the amusing tidbit about the anachronisms.]
More lazy journalism in the form of a promotional article for a consultancy firm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7025672.stm
“Retailing, on the face of it, tends to be a straightforward business.
But there is the steady 2% or so of sales that drips away each year through what the trade, euphemistically, calls “shrinkage” – and what the rest of us would simply call theft.
In fact, shoplifting only accounts for 40% of the shrinkage problem, according to Philip Payne, director of professional services at loss reduction consultancy Intelliq.
…
This issue can dog retailers who are not quite up to speed with the kind of data mining in which Intelliq specialises. ”
I could forgive that in a newspaper, but the BBC should not be printing blatant promotional material like that
BBC online headline “Brown to hit back at poll critics”, I wonder how they know this? It’s that mind reading thing again. A balanced headline it is not.
From the previous open thread:
It is troubling that Mr Bowen, the BBC’s “Middle East Editor” should be apparently unaware of these events, which are of vital importance for an informed understanding of the Arab-Israel conflict.
davka | 08.10.07 – 9:04 am
The BBC has pushed this line before. In fact, the BBC’s virtual ignoring of the tidal wave of Jewish refugees driven from Arab countries around the time of the establishment of Israel is one of the most damning pieces of evidence of its implacable bias re the Arab-Israeli conflict. The BBC simply will not let any competing narrative interfere with its spin on Palestinian “refugees” or do anything to disturb its cosy relationship with Arab countries.
Come to think of it, if the fact of close to a million Jewish refugees from Arab countries becomes widely known, that would seriously weaken Ahmedinejad’s stance that, failing Israel’s destruction, the Jews should return to Europe, whence they were expelled. What about the right of return to Arab countries?
But the BBC prefers to cuddle up to Iran rather than challenge the sick fantasies of the leader of that brutal theocracy.
In his concern for the Iraqis, Bowen joins Lyse Doucet. The irrepressible Doucet did a report on the World Service on Iraqis experiencing difficulties getting into the US via Jordan. She killed two birds with one stone – expressing her (and the BBC’s) support for the Iraqis at the same time as trashing the US for not allowing an unrestricted flood of refugees into the country. Right at the end of the report, her voice brimming with emotion, Doucet said, “The past is another country.”
And the BBC is full of it.
Interesting that Biased BBC is being linked to from a story on Wikipedia edits by Japanese bureaucrats.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7029685.stm
For once – well done BBC!
Its the clergy’s fault!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7032314.stm
Where apparently vicars and even archbishops invite violent attack and murder upon themselves just for wearing a dog collar.
Strange because if someone is in any way condemned (let alone assaulted) for wearing, say, a veil, it is the veiled one that is entirely innocent and the the attacker entirely guilty.
Must be its just all right to attack vicars then…
[The Moderator: Prodicus, we did a post on this on Saturday.]
BBC on grammar schools again; the dreadful anti-private school article referred to in the last thread now plays second fiddle to an article on grammar school ballot reforms, including the following passage:
“‘Cream off’
A Commons education committee report in 2005 suggested the ballots were so difficult to mount that they wasted public money.
Campaigners opposed to grammar schools say their selective nature can be detrimental to the education of the community as a whole.
This is because they tend to cream off the brighter pupils, leaving non-selective state schools with a higher proportion of slower pupils.
But supporters of grammar schools say they give bright, working class pupils a better chance to succeed.”
Nobody said “cream off”. The BBC invented that phrase for themselves and put it in their own inverted commas. As for “tending” to “cream off” said “brighter pupils”, that’s the whole idea – put the brighter pupils in one school.
The third above paragraph is not an explanation for the second.
And they can’t bring themselves even to refer to “less able” pupils, so they refer to them simply as “slower”. As if they would all catch up the grammar school pupils in time, if they were at the same school.
Taking note of quoting links – RE:
Oscar:
John Reith | 08.10.07 – 10:57 am | #
Oscar | 08.10.07 – 11:47 am | #
Bryan | 08.10.07 – 11:51 am | #
Haversack | 08.10.07 – 12:02 pm | #
It’s inconceivable that they would have praised George Bush for not falling into the ‘green trap’ Oscar | 08.10.07 – 12:40 pm | #
This whole thing does suggest a rather odd left/right… hand disconnect at best, and rather leaves the BBC in terms of policy open to the charge of wanting ‘it’ all ways.
Whatever his leanings, Mr. Lomborg (who by my understanding is less definitive on the man-made aspect of the causality, and more keen to see money expended on efforts of mitigation on the ground in areas where climate is imposing significant negative effects already as opposed to, say, high capital expenditure ‘re’-projects closer to home) is seldom cited favourably by those of a MMCC advocacy bent (which one presumes the BBC to fall under by virtue of much that is promoted that it subscribes to or supports that view – as do I, though with much more caution on reporting, attribution and caveats as to what is forwarded as fact vs. best guesses or what those with targets and agendas think it best the public gets right now. Green ‘anything’ need not be automatically default as good).
So it does seem odd at best to find such as BL being bandied about in here in what does seem an effort to diminish the Conservative green efforts. And if the words ‘green trap’ were used to ‘support’ Mr. Brown’s ‘wisdom’ in comparison, all the more so.
Hence I have to say Oscar’s observation has much to reflect upon in the worthy comparison it makes.
I find this duality of message (even if promoted by those invited/chosen to speak) very worrying, more because it does undermine the efforts I do think the BBC could and (within remit) should take to offer as balanced a view as possible on the climate ‘situation’ and even ‘debate’.
To play party selective politics with the green card in such an overt manner does the cause of a greener, safer future little good, I’d say.
Forgive trying to bring the discussion over here, but as the thread had been moved I thought I’d come with it.
It would be interesting to hear any informed viewpoints from within the BBC to this topic:)
Mad Mel lays into the BBC in characteristic style.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=486295&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=256
Wasn’t on The Editors page.
‘Campaigners opposed to grammar schools say their selective nature can be detrimental to the education of the community as a whole.’
Campaigners in support of grammar schools say that their selective nature can be beneficial to the education of the community as a whole.
This is because separating out the brighter and the less bright benefits both groups by providing schooling which is most appropriate for them.
Mods, apologies, I know this is slightly off-topic, but I was trying to show how the BBC line could be countered, but isn’t. It’s just accepted that grammar schools are de facto a bad thing because they rely on selection.
[Comment on Che moved to the Che thread by the Moderator.]
Some textbook bias by the BBC here, with the usual themes of terrorist apologia and deliberate use of misleading terms.
‘Boy in court on terror charges’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7030096.stm
A mere boy of unknown background is arrested purely for the possession of a book.
‘Second teenager faces terror charges after arrests in town’
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Second-teenager-faces-terror-charges.3262242.jp
From the local newspaper article it turns out that the waif was also in possession of a substantial amount of potassium nitrate and had recently been on one of those infamous ‘trips to Pakistan’.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7028619.stm
Back in the USA with our old friend Julian Webb who tells of the way people raise money for Hilary Clinton and are quite open about wanting an ambassadorship as a result if she wins. However nowhere in the article is anything about Norman Hsu the guy who raised MILLIONS for Hilary and turned out to be a crook. Hilary at first wouldn’t return the money then had to as it became apparent that Hsu had broken election finance law. Funny how Webb and Sneerboy Frei always forget to mention anything that might reflect badly on their Democrat friends…..
Ryan Roberts, that was already covered on Friday’s open thread.
I have moved some comments on the BBC’s coverage of Che Guevara to the thread we have going on Che. Please post any further Che comments there. Thanks.
BBC report of stop the war demo today talks of thousands as if it was a massive march. There were no more than 5000 max. in comparison to previous turnouts this was incredibly small.
A Labour-dominated House of Commons select committee finds that the entire Cabinet are being economical with the truth when they say the EU ‘reform treaty’ is not the same as the constitution rejected in 2005 by the French and the Dutch- and where does it appear on BBC Breakfast News? Half way down the running order (way behind acres of material about how beneficient Alastair Darling is going to be), with barely three sentences of explanation.
Here’s more proof of the ignorance and laziness of al-beeb. No one questioned the recent Tory proposal to tax foreign residents gargantuan sums of money. Beeboids, not to mention the uninformed Tories, didn’t take the trouble to school themselves about Dual Taxation Treaties the UK has with about 100 countries. It’s all here:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cnr/app_dtt.htm
Today
It’s clear that Humphreys has his mind made up on who’s to blame for the Royal Mail dispute. Clue: it’s not the workers.
Listen to him have a go at Crozier on the 8.10 interview this morning. I wouldn’t mind if he meted out the same to the union, who, in the year 2007, still support the practise of paying workers for not working.
Oh and the hypocrisy of Humphreys having a go at Crozier for his large salary! How much do you earn John?
And following that at 8.20 we had this:
“Was Gordon Brown’s decision not to call a general election a case of hubris?”
If you listened to that, please could you explain to me what it was about? ‘Cos it had precious little to do with our Dear Leader at all, but seemed to concentrate on Blair and Bush and Agghanistan and Iraq.
And then at 9am on Radio 4 we move seamlessly from one hotbed of liberal nonsense to another: Jonathan Freedland and prisons. And how does Jon boy introduce his article?
Paraphrased:
“British prisons are becoming more and more overcrowded. We put more people in prison than….etcetc”
You get the drift.
From the Guardian:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2186797,00.html
The BBC is set to axe more than 2,000 jobs – at least 12% of its workforce – with the bulk of the losses in factual programming, according to a report today.
Surely that should say
The BBC is set to axe more than 2,000 jobs – at least 12% of its workforce – with the bulk of the losses in “factual” programming, according to a report today.
I don’t know if anyone caught Sarah Montague’s treatment of the issue of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in the UK this morning.
Apparently, more than 15,000 girls IN THE UK are at risk of FGM.
“Surely that’s an overstatement”, laughed Sarah dismissively, her “Oops this might be a fact to challenge my BBC multicultural worldview” receptors tingling.
“Actually”, replied the interviewee in an African accent and thus undeniable correctly “This is probably an underestimate, given that this is only based on the people we know are here, and we know there are a lot more”.
And that was that. “Thanks very much”.
How long before the BBC seriously challenges the doctrine of multiculturalism? How long before it becomes obvious that 7th Century and 21 Century people are never going to see eye to eye?
Further to the subject of the select commitee of MPs who have concluded that the EU treaty is rather more similar to the constitution than the Europhiles will admit.The BBC did the usual thing on Today of making sure the story was run well outside the peak hour of the program.This is a regular habit with a news story they find “difficult”.The story was run at 6:45 and 8:55.I thought it was worth a peak hour debate seeing as this select commitee is domminated by Labour MPs and it accuses the government of telling lies,although in parliamentory language
I looked back to add to the relevant thread, but it was so long ago it has dropped into archive.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/4379675358219086261/#370752
But I thought this might still be of note:
CAT PEOPLE: The suggestion in Cookie cracked (News, September 23) that “Cookie” was rejected as a name for the new Blue Peter cat because “producers realised Cookie was American slang for either an intimate part of the female anatomy or crack cocaine” is without foundation. Our investigation into how the name of the new Blue Peter cat (chosen by viewers in an online poll) came to be disregarded, found no evidence whatsoever that the poll was rigged, suffered technical problems nor had a late surge of votes. Indeed all five names had been shortlisted from children’s suggestions.
Richard Deverell
Controller, BBC Children’s
London W12
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article2603961.ece
Does this mean the poor guy I thought had been fingered gets an apology?
I don’t know if this link has been posted already, but here goes: BBC Pioneers
Michael Calwell, they do at least have a decent article up about it on their website.
We see little coverage of social problems from Muslim communities on the BBC, e.g., Pakistani cousin marriage (which causes massive levels of birth defects), etc.
Michael Calwell | Homepage | 09.10.07 – 10:40 am
Your account of Sarah Montague’s interview with Efua Dorkenoo about female genital mutilation is false in almost every particular.
It was Sarah herself who spelled out the number of people FORWARD says are at risk, in her introduction to the item.
The number she gave was 20,000, not 15, 000.
Her first question to Efua Dorkenoo was about how the research had been conducted. Dorkenoo said it was a paper statistical study rather than field research, producing an estimate calculated by counting the number of people in UK who hail from countries where FGM is practised and applying to each national group a percentage consistent with that practising FGM in the old country.
Surely that’s an overstatement”, laughed Sarah dismissively…
Oh no she didn’t. What she actually said was:
“That’s a surprisingly high estimate, isn’t it?” in a level, no- laughing-matter tone.
her “Oops this might be a fact to challenge my BBC multicultural worldview” receptors tingling…..
‘fraid not. That suggests she was learning this for the first time from Dorkenoo. Not so. Her introduction had already summarized the report, with whose contents she was clearly familiar.
And that was that. “Thanks very much”.
Wrong again. There were two further questions and answers after that, accounting for something like a third to a half of the running time of the item by my guesstimate. The follow up questions were:
Q. Your concern is it won’t be picked up here…..?
Q. What can be done?
At no point does Sarah Montague so much as breathe the slightest hint that she takes any culturally relativist position on this issue, nor does her demeanour suggest anything other than she finds FGM as appalling as most people do.
You have simply made up a bogus allegation.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against Today programme presenters.
Now go and sin no more.
I challenge anyone to listen to that interview again and not detect in it a streak of denial or at best indifference. This is the UK, for heaven’s sake, a post enlightenment, Christian country. What on earth is happening when a large town’s worth of women are at risk from having their genitals mutilated? I didn’t get much of that vibe from the Today programme.
“Your concern…. YOUR CONCERN…. is that IT WON’T BE PICKED UP”
“IT WON’T BE PICKED UP”! Like FGM is akin to littering, or parking fines, or pilfering.
You’re clutching at straws Sir.
Peter | Homepage | 09.10.07 – 10:54 am
Does this mean the poor guy I thought had been fingered gets an apology?
How bizarre. The BBC say there were no technical problems, obvious vote rigging or concerns about an American slang meaning to the word ‘cookie’ then why on Earth reject the name?
Humphrys -> Crozier interview
As soon as I heard he was going to talk to Crozier I knew Humphrys would inevitably go on his left-wing crusade against high executive salaries (whilst not mentioning his own, naturally, for comparison as a good use of public funds).
And he did.
On The Daily Politics we just had a man claim, quite confidently, that the public at large actually love it when Gordon steals Tory policies and don’t see it as cynical at all.
After that, we get a special report on all the extra money that has gone into the NHS, thanks to lovely Gordon.
Michael Calwell | Homepage | 09.10.07 – 11:56 am
FGM is already a criminal offence in this country.
Sarah Montague’s ‘your concern is that it won’t be picked up’ was by way of clarification that what the good lady was asking for was not further legislation but a more alert posture on the part of the child protection teams in local authority social services departments.
What on earth is happening when a large town’s worth of women are at risk from having their genitals mutilated?
This ‘at risk’ thing is becoming ever more common. Have a glass of wine and you join the ‘at risk of alcoholism’ statistics. That’s why Sarah’s question on methodology was pertinent.
So how many cases of actual FGM are reported?
Since the 1985 Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act it has been against the law for anyone to perform female genital mutilation in the UK. However, through a legal loophole young girls could still be taken out of the country to have this procedure performed overseas. This loophole was closed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2004 and in Scotland in 2005, when it became a criminal offence to take or arrange for a girl child to be taken out of the UK for this purpose. The penalty on conviction was also extended from five to 14 years; though to date {2006} there have been no prosecutions in the UK.
http://www.rcn.org.uk/news/congress/2006/8.php
The fact that there have been no prosecutions doesn’t, of course, mean that there have been no offences committed. But it does suggest the practice isn’t as common as you fear and that not all the pillars of Chritendom have been pulled down by the rampaging heathen.
Sarah Montague was not in the slightest indifferent. But she does have a sense of proportion.
With a little effort you might develop one too.
A curious apathy strikes the raging lefty activists at the BBC when it comes to exposing medieval Muslim practices. The habitually chatty become mute.
Bryan | 09.10.07 – 12:32 pm
How do you explain the large number of articles on the subject on the BBC News Website, let alone the countless Woman’s Hour features on what the prosecution figures seem to suggest is a relatively small – though revolting – problem?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=female+genital+mutilation&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=news.bbc.co.uk&as_rights=&safe=images
Here we have the politically correct, multicultural Al- Beeb reporting on the politically correct, multicultural Met police.
Note the Met’s pandering to the “Muslim community” by offering it special explanations why the Met police needs more time to process the terror suspects, omitting to mention that the terror suspects may well be Islamic jihadists.
And note how the Al-Beeb report does not mention that non-Muslim communities are excluded from any special explanations by the Met.
“Met chief warns over terror plots”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7035388.stm
BBC News on the Cult of Che
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122858.html
Ten Questions for Mark Thompson
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/neilmidgley/october07/questions-mark-thompson-must-answer.htm
……..and some good news
BBC industrial action ‘inevitable’
http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/story/0,,2186869,00.html
Dear Mr Reith,
Of course FGM is a criminal offence in this country. Why do you feel the need to state it? Are we going to have to restate what is patently criminal ad nauseam until enough people decide that it isn’t? FGM, polygamy, murder. Why do we have to have laws preventing people taking our own citizens abroad to have their genitals mutilated?
The problem is, at no point is the fact that this is a self-made, domestic problem brought into view. At no point are the ideologies that have brought this situation upon us questioned.
John Reith
Do you work for the BBC?
I just spat my coffee out in disgust looking at bbc.com
On the top, “An Icon Lives on” regarding Che.
Can they please change this to “Lefties icon killer remembered, especially at the B*tds Broadcasting Communism”.
Dr R, yes, he does, JR is a real life Beeboid – sufficiently high profile it seems to require anonymity.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article2603961.ece
Peter: “Does this mean the poor guy I thought had been fingered gets an apology?”
No Peter – as with many things BBC, you need to read with care lest you miss the sleight of hand between what is said and what is apparently implied:
Our investigation into how the name of the new Blue Peter cat (chosen by viewers in an online poll) came to be disregarded, found no evidence whatsoever that the poll was rigged, suffered technical problems nor had a late surge of votes. Indeed all five names had been shortlisted from children’s suggestions.
I’ve put the key bit in bold. The answer is that they did change/fake/disregard* the winning cat name, just not because of technical problems or vote rigging (internal or external). i.e. straightforward dishonesty (for an as yet unexplained reason), rather than anything more sophisticated.
* spin to taste.
Listening to Radio 5 this afternoon they were discussing the new proposal to outlaw homophobic language. Needless to say they didn’t bother to get an Islamic preacher on to discuss the religious issues about not preaching against homosexuality, but a Christian group instead.
Hmm. Now which religion goes around hanging homosexuals?
http://towleroad.typepad.com/towleroad/2005/07/report_gay_yout.html
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/09/24/ahmadinejad_iran_is_homosexualfree.php
Normally the BBC can’t wait to get the “Muslim view”
Strange no?
Check this BBC article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7034525.stm
Timeline: Democracy’s rocky road
This “indepth” article is a biased article.
1. No Abraham Lincoln whose quotes are popular and used while discussing Democracy.
2. On USA – Democracy : BBC says :-
The US constitution, arguably the oldest written democratic constitution, establishes a federal system of government. Separating the powers, of president, Congress and judiciary is intended to stop the abuse of power. Slaves and women cannot vote.
Interesting article from BBC:
Iran president faces rare protest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7033634.stm
The BBC’s Jon Leyne in Tehran says all gates to the university were locked and journalists were prevented from entering.
I guess this BBC journalist Jon Leyne is allowed to the meeting??
During the British soldiers hostage crisis, I saw a BBC woman journalist with a scarf around her head translating every word of Iran Prez in the Press Conference and she is very close to the dias.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6502805.stm