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.
Typical BBC ‘Dubbleya is a nasty moron’ headline:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/default.stm
“George Bush urges US lawmakers not to declare the killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks a genocide. ”
Given that most people won’t know anything about it, it clearly implies that (a) the Turks did commit genocide on the Armenians (what else does killing mean), and (b) Bush doesn’t care about genocide.
Compare it with this Fox News headline:
“President strongly urges Congress to reject legislation that would declare WWI-era killings of Armenians a ‘genocide'”
Which implies that there is more to matters – the mention of a World War means that the headline is far more ambiguous – maybe it was genocide, maybe it was part of war.
Best thing is that it’s not just Bush, it’s the US administration:
Version 1 shows: http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/71654/diff/1/2
Originally not “Bush warns against Armenia bill
” but “Rice warns against Armenia bill”. The speeches by Rice and Robert Gates are excised in favour of the ‘Evil Bush’ line.
And what the BBC etc forget to tell you is that the whole thing is a ploy by Nancy Pelosi to get a DEMOCRAT re-elected who relies on the Armenian-American vote. This bloc kicked out the previous Republican as the White House vetoed a previous attempt to criticise Turkey. Also as with slavery etc where do we draw the line? There have been massacres all over the world many of which were far worse. Do we declare all of them genocide, bearing in mind Jimmy Carter the BBC’s favourite Democrat after Hilary just turned round last week and said Dafur is NOT a genocide! Huh?
The Dems can afford to do this sort of petty political thing because they are not in power despite what Sneerboy Frei might think. They do not dictate the foreign and military policy of the US – the President does! If Turkey gets really annoyed then the USA loses a valuable ally and the Turkish airfields.
Then again, Nancy Pelosi visited Syria and said the Mad Eye Doctor Assad was a nice guy…if the Dems ever get a Prez in power again then watch how quickly their tune changes once they realise, like Robin Cook that an ethical foreign policy is impossible. The see how the BBC and others rewrite history! Double Plus Ungood?
Oh dear oh dear Roger Harrabin is very upset with Mr Justice Burton for sewing doubt in the public mind about Gore’s “truth”. Harrabin (almost in tears on the 10:00 News) denied that there was any scientific doubt about MMGW. Well no agenda there then. But Harrabin had a bit of good news: the government (which has already distributed thousands of copies of the Gore myth to schools) has not actually been stopped from continuing to distribute the film: new “guidelines” are sufficient to enable this money-tree for Gore to continue sprouting.
Anyone else see this crap on the BBC news? They don’t even list all the 9 points as to why fat boy Al Bore’s film is a load of crap.
Note as well if you saw the BBC 10Pm news the leftie loser that did the interview with Bore still claimed that Al Bore’s film was factual?
So where did that come from then? His backside?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm
So,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A14322926
“An Inconvenient Truth”
“A feature film that basically consists of the man who “used to be the next president of the United States of America” giving a PowerPoint presentation really shouldn’t make for good viewing, especially given the grim topic: global warming. However, An Inconvenient Truth manages to be informative, compelling and even entertaining, after a fashion. ”
So after today court case, I expect ALL references on the BBC websites to be updated.
I’ll wait till hell freezes.
“Gore climate film’s ‘nine errors'”
This is the BBC’s heading to its website report –
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm
Strangely, space on te web is at such a premium that the Beeb can find space for only 3 of the 9 errors identified by the Judge.
The rest are not news?!
For a different opinion expressed by the BBC that every Sicentist thinks Al Bore’s movie is the truth.
No, you BBC muppets you only give airtime to those grubby scientists that work for the UN or pick up a government cheque
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
PS : Indeed, but did you think they would list all nine? god no! that would look far to bad.
As I said before – I’m waiting on the updates to their info sites…
Rather odd selection by the BBC. One of the errors is the claim that the Gulf Stream would stop – a profound change that would plunge Britain into a virtual ice age.
Yet they don’t bother publishing this one and stick to drowning polar bears?!?
Also missing is the error that the claim that the graphs of CO2 against temperature match exactly, the claim that global warming caused the destruction of New Orleans, and more.
Why can they not bring themselves to let people know the truth. Is it because the BBC themselves are devout climate change fanatics?
One of the current HYS asks the question who is winning the policy debate?, as normal even though they have 600+ posts in the mods queue, the BBC have left a pro-labour anti-Conservative post as the last post for the day, which of course gives the Labour supporting posters a post to all vote for.
This seems to happen everyday, I am surprised that this website does not have an area devoted to this obvious area of bias.
On another matter the BBC is now showing breaking news about the vote on the Armenia genocide which has just been passed in the US, the BBC are using this vote to attack the Republicans rather then presenting the reasons behind the vote correctly.
….the BBC have left a pro-labour anti-Conservative post as the last post for the day…
I’ve noticed that tactic. They use it often. From time to time we do go in depth on this blog into BBC bias as revealed in the manipulation of HYS. But in fairness, HYS has improved quite a bit over a year or so. But The Editors blog is now seriously clamping down on comments when it used to have a fairly relaxed policy on them.
Anyone see Newsnight? They were talking about Al Bore’s crap movie and the Court ruling today. Did we get a balanced view? Not we got Roger Dickman from Friends of the Earth sticking up for fat boy’s crap movie making all sorts of excuses that it’s OK to twist the truth to get a mesage over. What even if the message is incorrect?
Where was the balance?
Would we allow Kelly’s Heroes to be shwon in schools as a factual example of fighting in WW2?
This is just more example of the crap pumped out by the BBC and their leftie mates.
Be warned. Expect to see the BBC line up leftie enviro campaigner after campaigner tomorrow arcoss their networks to prevent people from thinking that they were right all the time and that climate Change is just an excuse for seriously overweight corrupt lying politicians to screw us for more money.
Just a note – there are updates on:-
http://members.lycos.co.uk/bbcpioneers/
Martin | 10.10.07 – 11:29 pm
Where was the balance?
In the tone and substance of Paxo’s robust inquisition.
No normal person could come away from that Newsnight item thinking the Gore crowd came out on top!
Harrabin was a disgrace on the news tonight. Complete climate change propaganda. According to him, the real danger of the Judge’s judgment is that the ignorant British public might get all confused about climate change and won’t swallow the line peddled by Gore and the BBC ad nauseum.
Actually Paxman was quite robust tonight but what choice do you have when you’re up against two AGW sock puppets?
Have to say, Paxo gave the Friend of the Earth a good seeing-to; and the ranting delivery and ill-fitting suit did the bloke no favours either.
Paxman did his best on Newsnight which is to be commended, he is no scientist but he can smell mendacity.
Harrabin however was lamentable.
The claimant’s barrister in this case accepted, for the sake of argument, that the IPCC IV report is the scientific concensus. Gore’s film was then assessed against that concensus. The result being that the film is wrong about:-
1. Sea level rises.
2. Pacific Islanders being forced to leave their home.
3. The Atlantic conveyor being affected by global warming.
4. CO2 historically driving global temperature.
5. Kilimanjaro glacial decline being linked to global warming.
6. Lake Chad drying up being linked to global warming.
7. Hurricane Katrina being linked to global warming.
8. Polar bears drowning being linked to global warming.
9. Coral reefs suffering as a result of global warming.
For Harriban to hawk the line that the Judge supported the general theme of the film is disingenuous and irrelevant as no contrary evidence, to the general theme was presented to him.
The chosen ‘expert’ from Friends of the Earth was a laugh though. He was at pains to point out that he hadn’t read the science upon which the judgement was made (the IPCC IV report).
JR – If the BBC’s pet hobby horse is being attacked by a Judge, shouldn’t the BBC at least find a representative of the contrary view to give the impression of impartiality?
this story dosnt seem to be getting any coverage on bbc breakfast although they are covering how science is misrepresented to sell ugly women beauty products
Perhaps the best moment in the 10 o’clock news last night was Harrabins interview of Gore, when someone forgot to switch on the microphone during one of his questions. Is this a response to the noddy Yentob saga?
Mr. Reith,
would you care to comment on the fact that your Farming Today dolly bird just demonstrated a startling ignorance of sheep farming, one of the mainstays of British agriculture and a fundamental component in maintaining the ecology of our upland areas.
Did you pick her name out of a hat to present a farming programme, or did she get it the way staff are allocated to defra, too stupid to work at the dvla ?
The net result of your efforts to put the boot into rural people , is MP’s from rural constituencies commited to ending the bbc’s existence.
Backwoodsman: I was listening to Farming Today. I think it was Anna Hill this morning. I presume you are talking about the interview with Jack Freestone?
I am unclear how Anna was showing any ignorance at all. This was a short report (following on from other stories about the crash in lamb prices) simply and clearly picking through what’s involved in raising sheep and the factors that have caused this price rise.
While I’m sure a sheep farmer would know all this Farming Today has a general audience too who certainly do need this kind of explanation these days.
Anna is no “dolly bird”, she is an excellent broadcaster and you shouldn’t mistake asking simple questions to elicit an informative interview for a general audience with not knowing what she is talking about.
Later on today I will be off to film a very similar piece with a sheep farmer in our patch who’s decided to sell the lot. There is a real crisis here and the BBC is doing it’s best to explain what is going on to our audience.
Here’s typical BBC headline-making:
Det Sgt Gurpal Virdi has accused the Metropolitan Police of racism. He lost his claim, although did win the rather unsurprising claim that ‘he had been “treated less favourably” than someone who did not have a history of litigation with the Met.’
And what is the BBC’s choice of headline?
“Ethnic minorities warned off Met ”
Starting
“An Asian officer has told ethnic minorities not to join the Metropolitan Police (Met) after winning a claim of victimisation against the force. ”
A man who was found NOT to have been racially discriminated against is given free rein to spout his (carefully excerpted from a longer set of comments by the BBC) claims of racism.
So it’s the same old ‘the pigs are racist’ rhetoric from the BBC – they have set this agenda, even though a court of law has explicitly found otherwise, they’d much rather report this guy’s claims because it fits what they want to hear.
Sorry, the link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7038729.stm
And the exact same story with a different headline to rub it in:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7037787.stm
“‘For us, the Met is like Life on Mars’
…
An Asian police officer has won a claim of victimisation against the Metropolitan Police after he was turned down for promotion.
Observers say the case highlights the struggle faced by ethnic minority officers to rise through the ranks.
And a third version of the story, also with a wrong headline designed to support the BBC’s biased line:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7037369.stm
The headline is: “Officer wins discrimination case ”
But in fact he LOST his discrimination case, but won the victimisation case, which had nothing to do with his race.
And on every page of the site related to London currently, the page says:
TOP LONDON STORIES
Man dies in motorway fog pile-up
Postal staff join wildcat strikes
Ethnic minorities warned off Met
It’s subtle and subconscious, but it’s there – “POLICE ARE RACIST”. You don’t even need to read the story – most people won’t – but they will notice it, and it will have an effect.
Diogenes | 11.10.07 – 7:16 am
JR – If the BBC’s pet hobby horse is being attacked by a Judge, shouldn’t the BBC at least find a representative of the contrary view to give the impression of impartiality?
No, far better to find friends of Gore and hold them to account.
As for the ‘BBC’s pet hobby-horse’ – you might have noticed signs of disagreement within the BBC non-monolith on this one.
Most obviously there was Paxo’s acerbic one-liner about abandoning all pretence of impartiality. Then there was Messrs Barron and Horrocks’s stand at Edinburgh, designed to kill off the misconceived Planet Relief thingy. Then, in lots of small ways, there’s been a shift in tone and emphasis.
Paxo, Barron and Horrocks are pretty big fish – so I wouldn’t put money on the mmgw zealots prevailing.
The 7:15 slot on Toady this morning was filled by a Professor Gregor Gall of the University of Hertfordshire (?) arguing that the management/government ought to give ground in the Royal Mail dispute. There was no balancing piece.
Gregor Gall is a noted Troskyite and was, until it collapsed, a leading light in the Scottish Socialist Party, the Sheridan and shagging tendency of what used to be Militant.
Quite why Toady has to interview an infra-red Trot about the Royal Mail dispute is beyond me.
Currently headlines on the news front page:
“Muslim leaders reach out to the Pope”
Remind me again which religion was founded by a pacifist and which one was founded by a man who frequently led armies into battle?
Rueful Red | 11.10.07 – 9:51 am
The 7:15 slot on Toady this morning was filled by a Professor Gregor Gall of the University of Hertfordshire ….
Since the doctrine of radical impartiality ( and indeed the charter) requires the BBC to leave no significant perspective out of its coverage, then the appearance of a Trotskyite (? are you sure….he writes for the Morning Star?) professor of industrial relations is a kind of inevitability, isn’t it?
In any case, 7.15 seems an appropriate time to air him.
There was no balancing piece.
Perhaps this was a kind of ‘balancing piece’ itself. I seem to remember the chief exec of Royal Mail getting quite a long squawk on old spanish practices earlier in the week.
Sorry guys, but Roger dickman should have been torn apart last night by one of the many (and there are many) scientists that think man made global warming is over hyped.
AS usual these lefties don’t understand science (neither does Paxo) and that Dickman could have been made to look an even bigger dick than he already is if someone could have gotten to him.
However, this is nothing new for the BBC, where Friends of the Earth get to spout rubbisgh and lies for hours on end with only some arts educated BBC journalist nodding like a dog in support.
What we want to see on the BBC is not Madonna shouting crap like “jump up and down in you want to save the planet” or more pointless green nose days, but a proper investigation and debate into the science of climate change and that BBC losers menas having people who don’t think the case is proven given airtime.
Perhaps this was a kind of ‘balancing piece’ itself. I seem to remember the chief exec of Royal Mail getting quite a long squawk on old spanish practices earlier in the week.
John Reith | 11.10.07 – 10:25 am | #
Says it all. The BBC think ‘balance’ is when a CEO explaining Company strategy needs to be countered by an anti-capitalist. No wonder Jeff Randal lost the plot with them.
Ritter | 11.10.07 – 12:17 pm
So, the BBC should reflect only the employer’s side in an industrial dispute?
And you complain about ‘bias’?
To be fair to John Reith on the question of climate change. There clearly are one or two in the BBC who now recognise the BBC’s inherent bias (Paxman etc) partly due to pressure from Biased BBC and some mainstream news. However, it is no answer to an allegation of explicit bias on the part of particular journalists to say that some in the BBC recognise the bias and are trying to do something about it.
Rather like someone in the police saying its okay for individual officers to be racist because Ian Blair recognises the problem and is trying to do something about it.
David Gregory,
Thank you for confirming my point, the Farming Today person is a ‘broadcaster’. We want a COUNTRY PERSON, you know, someone who understands the green bits and understands what nulab is trying to do to it. Surely thats not too much to ask for a programme on air at 05.45 AM.
JR, the BBC habitually skew business debates in favour of the anti-business side. For example, as was pointed out here recently, in an item on News 24 (I think it was) there was a debate on age discrimation laws between a representative of business and Youth Council type. But while this seemed neutral, a totally one-sided film segment was shown before it. And this is the sort of thing the BBC does over and over.
Backwoodsman; But what didn’t she understand? I’m still unclear what your problem with the report actually is.
A Trotskyite professor of industrial relations.
Tell us, JR: where and how exactly does one find one of those? There must have been some deep research done by somebody at the BBC to dig up that ‘professor’.
Allan@Oslo | 11.10.07 – 9:19 pm
A Trotskyite professor of industrial relations. Where and how exactly does one find one of those?
In the Guardian, of course. Where else?
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/gregor_gall/2007/10/rogue_mail.html
JR, of course it would be The Guardian. Where else would the BBC look!