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.
The Fat Contractor | 16.10.07 – 11:18 pm |
“Did Saddam actually have any WMD? According to our beloved BBC there weren’t any to be found …”
He had some and destroyed some, buried the rest. The preliminary materials for centrifuges and such were taken apart and buried in various places in Iraq. Much of it went to Syria. The capability was there, waiting for France to end the sanctions every time he kicked out the UN inspectors and Hans “See no evil” Blix.
Tons of sarin and mustard gas have been found, some really old, some not so old. Of course, the term “Weapons of Mass Destruction” came into use because there weren’t going to be any nukes. Otherwise everyone would have said “nukes”. Bush and Co. often pointed out that Saddam used these WMDs against the Kurds and the Yazzidi (then known as Marsh Arabs), as well as a few Kuwaitis, so logically sarin and mustard gas must be WMD.
None of this was supplied by anyone west of the Canary Islands.
As for said WMD, he had them before, they were found afterwards. But the MSM has defined the term back up to mean nukes, in order to ensure a no-win situation. Ergo anything found won’t be described as WMD. The BBC won’t admit that, nor will they admit that the US didn’t give any of it to Saddam. Obviously the writers of this episode were indoctrinated…er…educated by the BBC. And they continue to educate the public.
Oh dear, It’s just a silly tv show. Mustn’t be po-faced. But which bits will get that “it’s just a silly fictional tv show” reaction from the British public, and which bits will get nods of understanding? The Known Facts, bien sûr.
BBC’s website oddities
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/17/nbbc217.xml
Dear BBC: We deserve to work here because . . .
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2671418.ece
Matt Frei’s late edition of BBC World News America Thingy just showed the first installment of a feature on White Horse Village in China. I think it’s something recycled from the mother ship, so maybe others here have seen it.
It was a rather lengthy piece on how all the massive construction and modernization of China affects a rural farm village. We are shown what at first glance appears to be a moral dilemma between modernization and the rural way of life all these villagers have known for generations. A part of China’s history, as it were.
Every time the presenter (didn’t write the name down) describes the Chinese government’s plans for development, the first word out of her mouth is “schools.” As if that’s the main reason for all this activity. Then we hear about office blocks, etc. This is all presented as a reasonable attempt to rectify the curse of rural poverty (as if all farmers are doomed to penury and suffering).
We meet various locals along the way, and get soundbites of their lives. We are taught that one benefit of this kind of rural renewal will keep families from being broken up when one or both parents must go to the big city to seek work and the children are left with grandparents. That’s right, the BBC is concerned about maintaining the heterosexual, nuclear family.
Gosh look at all this construction. Nothing will remain of the farming village. Well, they weren’t doing anything with it anyway, and check out the drawing of this new school!
We next learn about the “boss class”. Only one family in White Horse Village has reached the status of “nouveau riche”. The patriarch quit farming 12 years ago, and couldn’t be happier. They have a wide-screen TV, dress nicely, have a modern home, go to karaoke, etc. Seeing as this is the BBC, you’d think they were about to be rubbished. And so we are told that the prosperity gap between this family and the rest of the village “grates.” They are without exception shown laughing and smoking, looking far too non-working class, and all gathered together for a group sneer. They would obviously be future Tories, if China had a two-party system.
But we keep getting hints of how this is going to improve everyone’s lives. Sure, the reporter utters a couple of obligatory lines about how the past will disappear, but it just seems to be inevitable. And really, everyone is going to benefit. Probably. I mean, it’s Communism, and really bringing prosperity to those who need it.
This footage was taken a year ago, and for the next to nights we will learn what is happening with these same families today.
backwoodsman, take note. This is how the BBC views your English countryside as well. If you see this report, you’ll know what I mean.
And now for the punch line. As soon as the report ends, Frei smirks and tells us to stay tuned for tomorrow night’s installment. Then we break for commercial to….
….a Business and Tourism ad for China. Made and paid for by the Chinese government.
What are the odds?
will | 16.10.07 – 10:17 pm | #
Has the BBC noticed that they actually recycle the same plotline for all these rubbish dramas. Is it a new green drive to re-use old scripts? The real twist would be if the people who seem to be the terrorists really are the terrorists (but we can’t have that can we – might be seen as islamophobic….)
David Preiser; “Tonnes of Mustard Gas were found” ? Really? I mean really? That would certainly be a Weapon of Mass Destruction. It would be a huge story. Why is everyone covering this up?
As for Spooks. Oh dear. It’s a drama not a documentary. You could do Muslims of the week but it would all get a bit samey as the creators have said. Even 24 don’t do that.
Good to see bbc union of journo types squealing about cuts, trying to justify their numbers by saying they need different types of news for different audiences. (Presumably that means dumb salacious stories for radio 1 etc ?).
They haven’t unfortunately yet admitted that the reason they have to go, is that they act as a £3 billion a year propaganda unit for nulab !
“You could do Muslims of the week but it would all get a bit samey as the creators have said.”
Having the Americans as the bad guys almost every week gets a bit samey after a while, dearie.
Backwoodsman said: “They haven’t unfortunately yet admitted that the reason they have to go, is that they act as a £3 billion a year propaganda unit for nulab!”
That’s why they should go, but it’s not why they are going.
(This may have been picked up before but if it hasn’t: From the Ofcom website – )
British Sky Broadcasting Ltd (Sky) have applied to remove the three free to air (FTA) channels that Sky currently provides on the digital terrestrial television (DTT) platform and replace them with five pay TV channels. Sky currently provides Sky News, Sky Sports News and Sky Three on a FTA basis…. Sky’s proposed pay TV service would not be compatible with any existing set-top boxes. .
Why’s this of interest to BBBC readers? Well, removing Sky News 24 from the Free-to-air channels would be a serious blow to consumer choice. We’ve already lost ITV News 24 on Freeview, but this would result in the BBC24 providing the ONLY news outside the scheduled bulletins.
Anyway, the summary is here:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/dtv/summary/
And from here you can respond. You DON’T have to answer all the questions.
Ali P
David Preiser | 17.10.07 – 1:47 am |
Yup, I know, sarcasm often doesn’t come across on the web does it?
I get fed up constantly having to correct people about the UK contributions to Saddams arsenal, one hunting rifle, as the BBC are constantly allowing people to state that we supplied him with arms to fight Iran. Not true and never challenged AFAICR.
As to the US, it is unlikely that they did supply biological or chemical weapons or even delivery systems. Why should the Iraqis want expensive US equipment when they could get it cheap from the USSR or the French?
David Gregory (BBC) | 17.10.07 – 10:06 am |
You say you are a journalist David so why don’t you journal a bit and find out the ‘truth’ – and I don’t mean the BBCs subjective truth. It doesn’t take much research to find that the US/UK did not arm Saddam. just watch your own TV news – all the small arms & tanks are ex-USSR or has the US started selling AK47s and SU72s recently?
The BBC, China and dodgy reporting on Tibet,
Tibet leader to get top US award
The Dalai Lama is set to receive a Congressional Gold Medal, the top US civilian honour, later on Wednesday – a move which has infuriated China. George W Bush will attend the ceremony in Washington, becoming the first sitting US president to appear in public with the exiled Tibetan leader. Chinese state media warned it would “cast a shadow” over ties with the US. Beijing has been accused of human rights abuses in Tibet, which its communist troops occupied in 1951.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7048284.stm
Nice cover-up from the BBC about how Tibet was invaded and has been occupied by China since 1951. (1951 BBC? silly me I was taught at school that China invaded in 1950) Strange how the BBC can vent its spleen over the invasion of Iraq and before that Afghanistan as wrong and promote the so called freedom fighters as just warriors. (Terrorists in everything bar name to the rest of the world) But when it comes to writing up the history of a communist country which stamped down on its people with tanks and guns and is now bitching because the leader of a country it has occupied since 1950 is getting a medal for his anti-violence stance and the BBC paints the impression that they only held that country for a year. Strange how the China which harvests its prisoners organs, which censors the web and which forbids dissent is promoted by the BBC as been accused of human rights unlike the Americans, British and Israelis who are always guilty. Yup the BBC is a joke.
The BBC, China and dodgy reporting on Tibet,
Can anyone recall who it was on the BBC a few weeks ago that suggested a recession might be a good thing? I wonder if losing their job in the near future might give them pause to reconsider that one, especially if they have a mortgage and kids to feed?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7047060.stm
…. of course they could always move from their flat in Crouch End to inner-city Manchester. It’s a rich, vibrant culture over there.
Backwoodsman:
“….”is that they act as a £3 billion a year propaganda unit for nulab !”
And a £3 billion a year appeaser of terrorists and murderers.
As for Spooks. Oh dear. It’s a drama not a documentary. You could do Muslims of the week but it would all get a bit samey as the creators have said. Even 24 don’t do that.
David Gregory (BBC) | 17.10.07 – 10:06 am | #
David – haven’t you noticed, it already is ‘a bit samey’ as you put it? The BBC is recycling the same old plot line from the same old script. Muslims always do feature – they are the wronged victims, set up to look like the ‘bad guys’ and the Americans are always the baddies masquerading as the good guys. It’s as predictable as the chimes of Big Ben (rather like your kneejerk response). And by the way – fiction is one of the most powerful ways to instil ideological belief. From Homer to Shakespeare to cowboys and indians the power of a good story to impress a myth on people is unparalleled. Unfortunately the myth that the BBC is concocting is that America is always to be mistrusted and Islam is never to be blamed. Insiduous and dangerous indeed. Fiction is a very powerful vehicle for this kind of propaganda and the BBC knows it.
Yet again the BBC’s top news story is what the average weight of British people might be in 43 years time. Clearly a pressing concern even though most of those people have yet to be born.
How could anyone think these absurd dreamed up stats are news?
Can we not just have a section at the end of the news entitled:-
‘The Government Wishes You to Consider’
The news reader could even put on a special government peaked cap.
Oscar;
Rubbish!
http://www.tv.com/spooks/show/10812/episode_guide.html
Ha Ha Thanks David Gregory, reading the plots to those Spooks story lines was a bit of comedy I wasn’t expecting today.
From http://www.tv.com/spooks/show/ 10…sode_guide.html
David Gregory (BBC) | 17.10.07 – 3:13 pm | #
The identificaion of baddies
Season 1
An abortion doctor is executed by an American pro-life terrorist; Mary Kane.
Season 2
a Serbian Warlord has been seen entering the U.K. vowing revenge for the death of his sons in a N.A.T.O. bombing raid.
Season 3
With the peace process derailed MI5 start to investigate a newspaper mogul and renowned Israeli extremist. Can MI5 prevent an assassination attempt on a pro-Palestinian British MP?
Season 4
MP William Sampson sparks civil unrest and racist attacks in his constituency when he defects to the far right-wing british way party.
Season 5
Zaf goes deep undercover to infiltrate an Al Qaeda cell
but
The terrorists start to execute hostages in pursuit of their demand for the release of Al Qaeda prisoners held in Saudi Arabia, but suspicion arises as to the true identity of the terrorists.
The Fat Contractor,
Yes, I got the sarcasm. Sorry, I was already in angry pub philosopher mode due to something else entirely, and forgot to turn on the filter.
I’ve deleted two off-topic comments. If you wish to discuss moderation policy or decisions or address questions to the Moderator please do it by email – I will forward anything you send. Thank you.
Not sure if this is so much “bias” as something else…
In the report about smoking on Top Gear:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7046498.stm
BBC Spokeswoman: “There were no complaints from members of the audience present during the filming,” she added.
Not once during the coverage of the ban on smoking in “public” places was such an argument suggested by a BBC journo, that maybe smoking in pubs was a private matter for those concerned.
But, oh no, when the BBC are facing getting a fine and public humiliation for it, they change their tune.
Anon | Homepage | 17.10.07 – 9:11 pm |
Not once during the coverage of the ban on smoking in “public” places was such an argument suggested by a BBC journo,
unless of course you smoke shisha..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6498099.stm
“Schools ‘not closing social gap'” says the BBC News website’s education page today, quoting Ofsted’s latest annual report.
Well, call me a grumpy old backwoodsman if you wish, but why should schools be closing any kind of gap, apart from the one between being ignorant and being educated?
It’s amazing the way everyone goes along with this creepy idea that schools are first and foremost a means of social engineering.
Roger “Dwindling” Harrabin has been mentioned in the comments of this blog.
I was wondering if anyone can enlighten me as to what subject he studied at university? It is mentioned here…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/about/meet/reps.shtml?harrabin
…that he went to St Catharine’s College Cambridge, but the subject is overlooked – oversight I’m sure.
However, when I go to their website I can that this institution offers no degree in climate science:
http://www.caths.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/subjects
So, has St Catherine’s College Cambridge recently dropped a climate science subject? How exactly did Mr Harrabin acquire his expertise on the environment? From what I can see, he’s about as qualified to talk about this issue as I am.
According to this link Harrabin’s qualifications are that he has a degree in English.
I’m sure there must be a module there on the Physics of Climate Change.
It also list out the qualifications of other BBC presenters that comment on the environment. Not muxh in the way of Science.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/
I have an idea how the BBC could save a lot of money; it’s an idea you’ll never hear on their main bulletins though.
Get rid of the national news presenters, studio, etc.. and expand the REGIONAL news broadcasts appropriately, having the regional news presenters read the national headlines and present ‘pooled’ journalist reports when necessary.
I don’t think the BBC is ready for such a radical idea though.
Cryptocommunist pressure group on Monday – first item in the News at Ten on Wednesday.
I caught the tail-end of the execrable Newsnight Scotland tonight. They had some woman on pontificating about the obesity problem facing us in 43 years time, as highlighted by Mystic Meg I assume.
Her final comment was ‘well, there is hope if the solution to the obesity crisis is the same as the solution to climate change’, per what some doctor had suggested earlier (presumably he meant we’d all be busy tending to our subsistence-level turnip crops).
And she said it with a straight face.
Woodentop
That would be quangocrat Professor John Wilding who earlier today said that obesity was like if you increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, people will have to just breath more. I’m no medic but….
He made me so angry I tried to think that I had just imagined him.
nelson:
Much as I’d love to expand regional news (and that’s happening with the new 8 o clock bulletin) the truth is it’s very expensive simply because you 13 or so regions who all need camera crews, reporters, presenters etc etc.
That’s one reason why ITV want to cut back.
bit of topic, so sorry, Newsnight last night the bloke from BBC3 claimed to have 12 million viewers per week. I find this staggering any ideas how this statistic is made up?
David Gregory (BBC) Much as I’d love to expand regional news
How many hours a day can you devote to lost puppy stories? Look North serving 5 million people has less hard news then my local evening paper, serving 200,000.
TV viewing figures are made up just like Government spending. 12 million works out as the TOTAL viewed in a week. That means BBC 3 gets less than 2 million viewers per evening.
Regional news to some people is important and I’m sure the BBC is obliged to cover it.
I think some people on here are being seduced into thinking that cuts to essential services are, well, essential. This is a common tactic for public services who don’t get as much money as they want – threaten to scrap the vital services.
The Beeb would hardly garner any sympathy were it to say, “right we need to make cuts so we’ll close BBC3 and replace Ross and Norton with much cheaper alternatives” because that would be a sensible thing that the public would approve of. Nor would the public be up in arms if the Beeb said “We know we’ve got far too many middle managers and people with non-jobs such as diversity officers. We know we spend far too much on taxis and flights. So here is where we can make cutbacks” because that would be an eminently sensible suggestion.
Much better to try and prick the public conscience by threatening cuts in some front line programmes and services that the public approve of. “Well you know we’re feeling the squeeze so Today and Newsnight won’t be what they were”
As Jeff Randall pointed out the figures on this don’t stack up, but the BBC will feel that the public will side with them, agreeing that the new package is insufficient.
It is, of course, bullsh**, so let’s not write as if these sort of cuts are necessary.
BBC busy attacking the [distinguished scientist/evil racist] discoverer of DNA.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7050020.stm
They choose to represent him as being anti-gay as well, saying
“The scientist has courted controversy in the past, saying that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. ”
whereas in fact:
http://www.knittingcircle.org.uk/pressgene.html
‘The Sunday Telegraph’s interview quoted Professor Watson as saying: ‘If you could find the gene which determines sexuality, and a woman decides she doesn’t want a homosexual child, well, let her [terminate the pregnancy]’.” “The famous biologist Richard Dawkins (author of the selfish gene) wrote to The Independent that Dr Watson was being misrepresented: ‘A woman might passionately desire a homosexual child and elect to abort a foetus with heterosexual genes. Indeed, I have not the slightest doubt that Dr Watson would be happy to add heterosexuality to his hypothetical reasons for aborting’.” “Dr Watson says that his reputation and career has been ‘damaged’ by The Sunday Telegraph’s spin on what he said (and, indeed it was the reporter James Langton who raised the topic of the gay gene, not Dr Watson) . . . ” ‘
This is very different from what the BBC has reported, in its eagerness to tar him as a bigot.
The Beeb’s US correspondent Matt Frei has obviously heard about the pending job cuts!
He’s got a full page self promoting hagiography on the website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7049986.stm
Quote – “No politics this week, just pure self-indulgence. I apologise but, if you can’t deal with that, stop reading now” (- and remember suckers you’re still paying for it anyway)
dr:
bit of topic, so sorry, Newsnight last night the bloke from BBC3 claimed to have 12 million viewers per week. I find this staggering any ideas how this statistic is made up?
dr | 18.10.07 – 8:42 am | #
Wiki says
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Three
that Barb says they have 2.6% of the audience during the hours that they are on. I think this is not terrible, actually for a newish channel.
Heron, you are spot on. The tactics being used by BBC Management are identical to any public service facing a reduction in its forward budget expectations, i.e. make the savings in areas that are popular thus generating vast publicity about the iniquities of the so called “cut” and putting pressure on the government to find more money.
The most telling information is not the large fees paid to Ross, but the 12 person team that covered the Lib Dem story compared to the other channels. There will be a lot of fat in any public service that has never been under commercial financial control and this should go before any impact on essential services, that is what any customer focussed organisation would do, since its survival depends on sevice delivery to customers.
Compare & contrast…..
The BBC “short (on detail) story”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4997354.stm
and a more revealing (but not on message) piece by the NYT of all outlets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/us/politics/18cnd-milberg.html?ei=5124&en=f9e49ba36850e828&ex=1350360000&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1192719621-yC9XL9HJgAQWfgK1LCW76w
“Democrats” seem to be missing from the BBC half story.
The BBC, historically, has been very good at fostering and discovering talent talent.
Yet these days it spends vast sums on aquiring talent from outside such as Woss and Norton.
Talent which you have discovered tends to be more loyal, and less expensive. Nurture that talent and the BBC will have in-house performers who will not bust its piggy-bank.
The BBC should rely on its own very rich talent pool, and focus on making its own stars (it has very much discovered comedians such as Dara O’Brainn, actors such as Lacey Turner, presenters such as Adam Hart-Davis, Cruickshank, etc), so it does not need to spend fortunes on buying Channel 4 alumni Ross and Norton.
Switching from BBC News 24 TV coverage of the Karachi suicide bombing, to that of Al Jazeera (English) based in London, there is little difference in accent, tone of voice or political correctness.
There are the ex-BBC ‘journalists’ at Al Jazeera who, without comment, transmit remarks from a ‘reporter’ in Karachi saying that the mass killings were merely ‘a reaction to elite politics’. (Stated tonight on that TV channel.)
I just wonder how many newly redundant BBC news staff would be happy to be employed at Al Jazeera.
All day and now in position 3 on the World News Bulletin following the bomb attack on Mrs. Bhutto and reports on a new EU Treaty.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his wife Cecilia have divorced!!!!!!!
❓ Is there any consequence to this essentially private matter that made this a lead story?
❓ Did nothing else happen all day of greater consequence?