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.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
Us? Soft on Brown? Never!
A denial piece in BBC Editors for the Marr soft soap with Brownstuff. Nice link to B-BBC though.
Brown and Marr
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/10/brown_and_mar.html
Telegraph spotlight on BBC excesses.
Analysis: It’s hard to defend the BBC
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/09/nbbc409.xml
“…(the) BBC will continue to churn out trite daytime programmes, BBC2 will offer us nightly cookery programmes, and expensive reality show flops like Castaway.
It should all be consigned to commercial TV. The BBC, with such a huge budget, is an easy target and lays itself open to criticism with the revelation the other day that its daily taxi bill has now topped £50,000.”
Maybe the BBC Trust can save them…
Open letter to BBC Trust
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ADFMSYBO1ZJRZQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/10/10/nbbc210.xml
“We wish to draw to your attention the extremely grave prospects facing the Radio Newsroom which – through a combination of circumstances – is facing a devastating series of cutbacks which will seriously threaten the quality of the service we provide.
…….Is it fair to ask one small news department to suffer such devastating cutbacks in one go?”
Boo hoo.
BBC using scare quotes again…
Gore climate film’s ‘nine errors’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm
Why the ‘scare quotes’?
“Mr Justice Burton told London’s High Court that distributing the film without the guidance to counter its “one-sided” views would breach education laws.
“I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act”, he said.
The nine errors alleged by the judge included:…”
Interesting to see the Judge making allegations. As far as I recall, judges don’t make ‘allegations’. Judges decide whether an action is unlawful or not, after assessing the evidence laid before them.
The judge decided that the distribution of this biased film was unlawful, unless balanced by the facts.
If after trial you are found guilty, you are guilty, that’s it. Not ‘guilty’. Just guilty. It’s now an accepted fact. A judge said so. The BBC don’t report “the judge ‘alleged’ xxxx was a murderer and sentenced him to 10 years” do they?
So why so in this case? I fear because the BBC is biased in favour of MMGW.
[The Moderator: Ritter, These are normal quote marks, not scare quotes, ie. they’re there to indicate these are the judge’s words. A scare quote is something else altogether. But you are right in that the BBC doesn’t always report matters in this way — esp. the use of “alleged” in relation to the judge’s verdict — and that they do so when it suits them.]
Re: Ritter at 12:27 – Open letter to BBC Trust
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/…/10/ nbbc210.xml
“What is the point in Five Live duplicating news being provided by a tight summaries operation already servicing Radio 2, Radio 4 and GNS?”
They forgot to ask: “What is the point in Five Live/Radio 2 duplicating traffic summaries, when both stations could share the same resources”
It’s the same traffic, after all.
…or even “What is the point of Radio Five Live?”. The stuff Five Live does belongs in the commercial world…..
I was amazed to read that there is a One O’Clock news team and a ‘Six’ news team and….
Why?
One team, one newsreader, one tiny wage bill!
(And we wouldn’t have to play that game of ‘What the newsreader who isn’t speaking does to try to avoid looking awkward.’)
Why are reporters live on air from a particular loaction at One O’Clock, and then remain on site so they can be ‘live’ again at Six O’Clock (often adding nothing to the earlier report). The only reason seems to be so they are seen speaking to the new studio presenter.
Why can’t the BBC use overseas crews for reporting? Sky use Fox News and Fox News use Sky News. That must save money.
After 9/11. Sky Relied on Emma Hurd who did a brilliant job reporting from New York. But the BBC sent hundreds of people out there. Why? They sent the whole of BBC Radio 5live with the awful Nikki Campbell to bradcast live from New York. Why? How much did that that little jaunt cost (no doubt at Business class rates)
BBC Chair Lyons tells Paxo and Humphries to keep it shut.
Lyons warns Paxo and Humphrys
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2188893,00.html
“The BBC Trust chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, has called on the corporation’s famous faces, such as John Humphrys and Jeremy Paxman, to “stay out of” the public debate about the cuts at the BBC.
Following criticism of the forthcoming 3%-a-year savings by presenters such as Humphrys and Paxman, Sir Michael said today: “To say it’s untidy is probably an understatement.”
Sir Michael hinted at potential impartiality problems when he highlighted the fact that when he was interviewed recently on the Today programme, the interviewer, Humphrys, had already expressed his views on the cuts.
“It was slightly complicated because John had already expressed a view on these issues,” he added.
Quite. Although I doubt that ‘impartiality problems’ will stop Humphries sounding off – hasn’t stopped him before now anyway.
And…
“He (Lyons) added that there would have been “difficult choices” to make, no matter how big the licence fee had been.
The BBC Trust chairman said that the important thing for the BBC was to focus on audiences and programmes, despite the “pain” staff might feel when Mr Thompson makes an announcement about the future shape of the corporation next week.
Although he said he had sympathy with staff who would be affected, he said: “The job of the BBC is not to protect the job of everyone who works for it.”
Exactly. I’m beginning to like this guy…..
There’s a leetle bit of a Freudian slip on the current trailer for podcasting running on Radio 4 at the moment.
It features an excerpt of Sandi Toksvig on the News Quiz.
“The government’s becoming slightly camp” she says. “Only the other day on the Today programme, John Humphries turned the the Chancellor of the Exchequer and said “Alistair, Darling””.
Yes, that’s right. John Humphries is part of the government. According to Sandi Toksvig, at least.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2636117.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7038992.stm
read both,and spot the difference.
It features an excerpt of Sandi Toksvig on the News Quiz.
“The government’s becoming slightly camp” she says. “Only the other day on the Today programme, John Humphries turned the the Chancellor of the Exchequer and said “Alistair, Darling””.
Cutting-edge comedy from Sandi, the non-thinking woman’s Mark Steele. With stunning jokes like this, no wonder she is on just about every BBC panel-show.
Some sort of bias I wonder?
Archive Trial as of 11/10/07
India & Pakistan programmes: 374
All Other programmes: 558
Of coarse I don’t mind some India & Pakistan programmes but this is a bit much.
littledevil:
The BBC version IS a bit of a love-in, as expected, but I think the Times take is unfairly negatively biased. Their comparison with “He that is not with me is against me” is absurd.
Sproggett, the worst of it is, it’s a very old Blackadder joke. Sad to see the shambling Fry these days.
Check out the BBC’s outragously biased analysis of the Inconvenient Truth ruling:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7040370.stm
Why did Gore misrepresent the science? It was all the fault of the (Exxon-funded) sceptics, of course!
ThinAndBritish | 11.10.07 – 6:50 pm |
The BBC version IS a bit of a love-in, as expected, but I think the Times take is unfairly negatively biased.
more like pounce’s the bbc and half a story if you ask me.also you could just as easily say the bbc are unfairly positivly biased.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7040370.stm
“This leaves the film open to attack by the ever-dwindling band of sceptics who do not want to accept that climate change is anything to do with humans…”
The BBC’s arrogance on this subject is simply astounding.
Oh, even better…. (from the same article)….
“He responded, accurately, that scientists believe that CO2 is now driving climate change – but that was not what his misleading historical graph showed.”
I like the combination “Accurately” and “Believe”…. as opposed to “vague belief”. What nonsesne.
As for CO2, CO2 has ALWAYS driven the climate, as have all the other gases, without it the Earth would freeze and boil. Pure ignorance.
I am very confused:
“Muslim soldier’s death ‘unlawful’ ”
Reading that, you would take it that the fact that he was Muslim is relevant.
But looking at the article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7040219.stm
it is not made clear why the death was unlawful, nor is it clear why the fact that he was Muslim makes him more important, than the casually mentioned as an aside, non-Muslim, who also died
“The same verdict was also returned on his colleague, Cpl Peter Thorpe, 27, from Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria.”
In fact amid all the excitement about the fact that he is Muslim, the fact is that the actual cause of death is murder by the Taleban, something the BBC strangely fail to explain properly.
It is unclear why they are headlining that a Muslim soldier was unlawfully killed (which anyone would take to mean by the army, friendly fire), when in fact he was killed by enemy action, by enemies who follow no laws.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7040370.stm
‘Remember that Al Gore, an environmental science graduate, has been trying to alert the public to climate change for a quarter of a century.’
He’s not an environmental science graduate; in fact he has no scientific training at all.
From his wiki entry:
‘In 1965, Gore enrolled at Harvard College, the only university to which he applied. His roommate (in Dunster House) was actor Tommy Lee Jones. He scored in the lower fifth of the class for two years in a row[11] and, after finding himself bored with his classes in his declared English major, Gore switched majors and found a passion for government and graduated with honors from Harvard in June 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government. [10] After returning from the military he took religious studies courses at Vanderbilt and then entered the university’s law school. He left Vanderbilt without a degree when he left to run for an open seat in Tennessee’s 3rd Congressional District in 1976.’
Al Gore said NOTHING about climate change until he was dumped by the American people, whinged about it and then decided that becoming the world leader in climate change panic was a better route to get back in the public eye. This guy uses more energy than a small town, has three HUGE monitors on his desk at home (see TIME mag) and is constantly travelling in private jets! Oh and his bouncers stop reporters asking him pertinent questions at the seminars he holds! But hey, Al Gore invented the Internet or so he claims!
Nelson – just sent this in to their complaints page.
This is neither analysis nor objective reporting. It is subjective personal opinion and has no place in an ‘impartial’ news organisation. I suggest Mr Harabin would feel more comfortable working for Greenpeace.
If anyone’s interested -the BBC Young Pioneers Handbook has been updated tonight:-
http://members.lycos.co.uk/bbcpioneers/
“..all the world’s major scientific institutions believe the man-made climate change theory” – Roger Harrabin
This is verbal sleight of hand. He must know there are many scientists who contest the causes of the change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
. . . . and Roger harrabin is an ENGLISH graduate. Not that it stops him taking a rather assured position on anthropogenic climate change.
Thanks David G….Honestly, any scientist worth their salt would be open to opinions from both sides of the spectrum, and would re-evaluate their knowledge as new evidence is uncovered.
What i find incredulous about the BBC is that their “scientists” have consistently taken and argued one ‘opinion’ as gospel. To claim impartiality is a clearly a joke.
(First time post) In another touching BBC article – apparently 10% of the prison population are Muslims.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7040519.stm
However, the article does go on to point out that there is a support group outside of prison who are providing gifts to these criminals. One of these volunteers is quoted about the thank you letters he receives: “They were quite touching messages about how just these little gifts really meant a lot to them” he says. “I might take for granted the latest phone or MP3 player, but for them it was just that someone cared for them; that’s what struck me most.”
Errr, phone? Not having been to prison, I thought phone calls were restricted? Or has it really degenerated into a holiday camp.
The BBC article makes mention of the fact that 10% of the prison being Muslim is disproportionate to the overall 1.6m Muslim population in the UK (total pop. 58m). The, broadly sympathetic, article states most are in jail for cimes such as drug dealing, theft, or street violence (funny, I always called that assault).
One of the volunteers: “It’s the reality of some of the prisoners – they couldn’t find a job, they couldn’t find the support that they needed from the government or the family so they found it in another area which is on the street and in the gangs”.
So, it’s actually gang members that are being jailed. Again, good news for the ordinary citizen I’d say. It’s a shame there are no figures as to how many of these (and other) criminals found/renewed their faith once jailed.
I’m looking forward to the following articles about how the Church of England have outreach programs for CoE criminals, and of course, how the Jewish, Catholic, Sikh, and Buddhists do similar good works… I won’t hold my breath.
The thumbnail of the prison looks suspiciously like Belmarsh to me – perhaps someone else can confirm? (Yet the story has nothing to do with Belmarsh prisoners directly)
I just walked away from the 10PM repeat of Matt Frei’s BBC News America thing. He just told us how US President Bush has to look elsewhere for support for serious international issues (which ones are not important) since Blair is gone. He is now looking to his friend Down Under, Australian Prime Minister John Howard.
Then we get a video montage of the two of them at various functions, not much narration. Shots of them holding hands, grinning together, slow motion, etc. Very much in the foreground is a musical track:
“Why do birds suddenly appear…” – Close To You, a very sappy Carpenters song. Not just the opening line, but a good chunk of the song, right through to the chorus. Pace any Carpenters fans out there, but this tune was not used out of respect to the song, either.
Ah, but his is clearly presented as humorous, mustn’t be po-faced. Or, at least, that’s how my complaint will be dismissed by Beeboids. I say it’s pathetic. This kind of thing belongs on The Daily Show, or Not the Nine O’Clock News.
I say it’s the end of any chance that Frei’s little show can be taken as any kind of serious news program(me). And more evidence of a BBC plot to influence public affairs in my country.
Hi ritter,
Gore climate film’s ‘nine errors’
The quotes are not issue; as Richy concisely points out above, the original BBC headline for the article was Judge backs Gore film in schools!
Overseas Expat:
(First time post) In another touching BBC article – apparently 10% of the prison population are Muslims.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7040519.stm
Well, well…so that’s what the BBC have done with Frances Harrison, ex-Iran correspondent. I look forward to her articles on religious affairs that do not just centre on the RoP!
I read the “poor ickle muslim in jail” story with growing bemusement.
Several points stuck out:
1) Do we really need more product placement for this religion?
2) Is Frances H a muslim – and can she report objectively on this story ?
3) “They break for prayer, and then the laughter and hubbub of chitter-chatter starts again.” (6th para) – this is not english – its someonefrom India or Pqakistan saying that. What is going on ? Did Frances H visit the place – or just copy someone else’s words ?
Today programme
0840 Is there a global problem of avoidable deaths among pregnant women?
How many times have the BBC implied that we must not impose our degenerate Western moral values on other sovereign countries or peoples?
So why do they, on certain issues, feel able to do a very large amount of moralising? Take the anti-abortion laws in Nicaragua – you may well think that this country is very wrong on this issue, but the BBC manages to make Nicaragua sound like a cross between Nazi Germany, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. In shamelessly biased reporting, which of course also blackened the Catholic Church, they leave us in no doubt about how Nicaraguan women are suffering as a result.
What typified the BBC mindset was their reporting of the case of the Nicaraguan woman with the ectopic pregnancy. The BBC reporter went to great lengths to describe the suffering and death of this woman – but forgot to mention the fate of the embryo? fetus? baby? child? BBC political football?
Of course I presume the baby died, but it didn’t even cross the minds of the BBC to mention this. But then again, if you regard abortion as a non-negotiable human right and the baby has none, then this is what you get.
Today programme
“0740 In our series of interviews with authors on the Man Booker shortlist, we speak to Mohsin Hamid about his book “the Reluctant Fundamentalist.”
In his book, he mentions how the character smiles when he hears about 9/11. The author then goes on to describe how this happened in real life with people he knows (and maybe even himself?).
The amazing thing was the (lack of) reaction from the interviewer to this rather unpleasant idea. But then again, in Beeboid land, regrettable as these deaths were, a bully with a bloody nose is still a bully.
“3) “They break for prayer, and then the laughter and hubbub of chitter-chatter starts again.” (6th para) – this is not english – its someonefrom India or Pqakistan saying that. What is going on ? Did Frances H visit the place – or just copy someone else’s words ?”
Pot calling the kettle black, mate.
Today programme
0730. We hear from the most senior officer in the British military, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup.
“Why is it that the general public are becoming dislocated from our military?” rages Humphreys (paraphrased)
Look in the mirror John.
Year upon year of the BBC undermining our military is going to have certain predictable effects.
Sickening comment from Humphries this morning re F A M and BT , ‘ well its all over isn’t it’ , or words to that effect. Even the woman environmental correspondent sounded startled by his ignorance.
I don’t want to hear crap about foreign women with ectoscopic pregnancies, I want that utterly useless individual hilarious benn brought in and crucified over the failings of defra.
The bbc exists on a seperate planet from a large section of the countryside. They seem unable to make the link between nulabs attitude to the countryside and the problems it faces.
Backwoodsman; Hello BW. I’m still keen to hear what your actual problem was with Farming Today yesterday. I’m none the wiser.
Just so you know I spent yesterday on a sheep/cattle farm and today on a pig farm. I’m well aware of what’s going on and in the past I’ve put together reports which expressly made that point that New Labour simply didn’t/don’t understand the problems of the countryside.
And I had several emails accusing me of the “usual BBC bias towards to Tories and against Labour”
As I’ve said before I can’t really defend individual bits of the BBC if i didn’t hear what was said, but I really do object to sweeping statements like yours that aren’t true.
The criticism here of Frances Harrison, now BBC religious affairs correspondent for Muslims, by
‘Overseas Expat'(3.16am),’Anonymous'(4.45am) and Jack Hughes (8.52am), are well made; Frances Harrison, she of Iran, adopts a classic politically correct, multicultural stance on Muslim criminals in UK prisons; is it this attitude at the BBC which means it does not report the following prominently today?:
“Terror camp boss sang to children: ‘Hey Mr. Taliban, come bomb England”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk
Abandon ship…
I think the subject of abortion typifies the BBC’s worldview. Marr talked about “liberal assumptions”. Whenever the subject of abortion comes up, the BBC commentator proceeds on the assumption that the listener considers the ability to destroy your own child a basic human right.
I’ve touched on it here…
http://powercut.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-very-very-dare-they.html
…
but I will document the grotesque abuses of the BBC’s position on abortion at another point.
AbandonShip.
Not sure the ectopic preganancy example was a good one. Of course the foetus died, it was an ectopic preganancy. Sadly that is the fate of the foetus in all ectopic pregnancies (save for a very tiny number of abdominal ectopic pregnancies and even that is with massive medial intervention). Even the most pro-life medic would not oppose abortion of an ectopic pregancy to save the mother’s life.
For the first time in some considerable period I attempted to post on the (D)HYS site.
I had remarked on the tiny fraction of my posts that were being posted but that when I used another e-mail address with a different name I got published far more often.
Needless to say yesterday’s post is ‘still in moderation’ (i.e rejected but under another name).
As an experiment I intend to post an almost identical item using a different name and e-mail.
If only one gets posted anyone care to bet which one it will be?
No, I thought not.
Some BBC bias never seems to change at all.
Times are indeed tough….
BBC’s ‘lavish’ India bash defended
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5ikPhfCwzynj8V4AaelHyiSEChkBg
“The BBC has defended director-general Mark Thompson’s decision to attend a cocktail party in India as he finalises plans to cut up to 2,800 jobs.
Mr Thompson and three fellow executives have jetted off to Mumbai for a lavish bash to celebrate the BBC’s success in India.
The trip is costing a reported £12,000.”
When Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973, the distinguished musical satirist Tom Lehrer declared “It was at that moment that satire died”. If that was so then now it has been well and truly buried. I read on the BBC news site that “Climate change campaigner Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
I note that the BBC report does not mention Mr Justice Burton’s recent court verdict on the film, who pointed out the “nine significant errors” and said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.
Probbaly a mistake by the BBC to omit a reference to that case?
Commentary on the BBC gravy train….
How did the BBC end up like this?
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/display.var.1755126.0.0.php
“These days the corporation is an out-of-control monster.
Expensive satellite channels that no one watches; a multiplicity of websites with a readership of one; a magazine publishing division that abuses its access to free publicity and resources at the expense of those companies exposed to harsh commercial realities; digital radio stations listened to by a teenager in his bedroom in Derby; the madness of BBC Worldwide, an arm of the corporation that should be selling The Office to Saudi Arabia and Teletubby dolls to the Yanks, but instead has just bought the Lonely Planet book company for an undisclosed sum the lunacy goes on.”
Fancy getting the Nobel Peace Prize for getting beaten at the polls by a dumb monkey! Not Hartlepool this time.
The BBC, bien sur, do not share this view:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7041082.stm
But BBC commenters are out for blood:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=3671&edition=1&ttl=20071012130833&#paginator
Not that the Beeboid community will take the slightest notice of these rantings. Although there may be one or two “economies with the truth” in the film, it no doubt “depicts a wider truth”.
From the article Ritter has posted:
“The small matter of £18 million over three years for Jonathan Ross, the 400 staff at the Athens Olympics to cover the exploits of 259 athletes, the £11.8 million spent by BBC staff on taxis in 2005 I’ll say that again the £11.8 million spent by BBC staff on taxis in 2005.”
The £11.8 millions spent is just on pre-booked vehicles. They actually spent £14.3 million in 2004-05.(Link is to a PDF file)
For 2005-06 the costs of taxis came to £14.4 million, plus an additional £5.4 million on private car hire.
The BBC’s own Freedom of Information section is fascinating.
from guido fawkes..
There was a veritable tax parasites ball at Westminster’s fancy Atrium
restaurant on Wednesday. The BBC spent some £5,000 pouring booze down MPs throats. Perhaps they were celebrating the expected 2,000 jobs being cut at the BBC? Maybe not, but Guido is celebrating – it is a good start…
http://www.order-order.com/2007/10/drinks-all-round-taxpayer-is-paying.html
The HYS forum on Gore is a rare Reactively Moderated one. So comments go through and are only deleted if they touch a raw PC nerve or whatever.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&forumID=3671&edition=1&ttl=20071012130833&#paginator
But it wont stay RM for long, so I guess I’ll pop over there.
http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2007/10/al-gore-wins-nobel-for-lying-while.html
This internal memo from the BBC, published by CCNet, explains how the BBC is going to spin it
From Roger Harrabin
BBC Environment Analyst
In any future reporting of Gore we should be careful not to suggest that
the High Court says Gore was wrong on climate…….
We might say something like: “Al Gore whose film was judged by the High
Court to have used some debatable science” or “Al Gore whose film was
judged in the High Court to be controversial in parts”.
The key is to avoid suggesting that the judge disagreed with the main
climate change thesis.
got from devils kitchen…
http://devilskitchen.blogspot.com/