Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.
The online BBC News (Saturday, 27 October 2007, 06:37 GMT) reports:
“Biofuels ‘crime against humanity’: A United Nations expert has
condemned the growing use of crops to produce biofuels as a replacement
for petrol as a crime against humanity.” As the only example of a
country producing biofuels, they give the US. Not a word about EU
policies. The piece is, in fact, in the ‘Americas’ section, as if the
problem did not affect Europe.
Re. Pro-abortion bias on Today:
Steven Edwards, I think you are a little unfair.
As far as I heard the point that abortion is the killing of a human being wasn’t explicitly stated. However, it was stated that abortion is something that has been hotly debated for 40 years and I think its fair to say ‘Today’ listeners are aware of what abortion is.
Dr Steven Trammers of the Christian Medical Fellowship, one of those involved in organising the rally was interviewed. Its true he was cut off a bit at the end but I think its fair to say that this is often the nature of interviews with limited time and cant be attributed to a personal bias by the interviewer.
Its also true that the abortion doctor was given a monologue without questions. This seemed to be pre-recorded however, he therefore couldnt be challenged etc as you suggest.
When he was introduced, it was stated that the programme has heard from a number of experts in recent days , I presume there was at least 1 monolouge in recent days from an expert with a different view, or that there will be in the next couple of days. I know some complained about ‘Thought For The Day’ on Thursday being pro-abortion.
The woman did have an abortion for medical reasons but talked about the experience of friends etc that also had abortions. I don’t think her views can necessarily be classed simply as pro-choice , her main points seemed to be that abortions dont usually fall into the stereotypical ‘feckless woman making a lifestyle choice’.
It is a controversial subject though, opinions are quite often strongly held, not every point or question is going to be covered in a relatively short piece, its unfair to suggest the BBC is biased in favour of abortion because your 2 specific questions weren’t asked.
Also, there is a significant difference between the general debate about abortion and the debate about whether or not to reduce the legal limit.
You can read the report here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7064964.stm
You can make up your own mind by listening to the item here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/
Bryan | 26.10.07 – 11:01 pm
Bryan | 27.10.07 – 1:17 pm
Bryan | 27.10.07 – 2:27 pm
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Bryan, you comment about Darfur so frequently and take such a critical view of the BBC’s coverage of it that I had always assumed you knew something about the subject.
Silly me.
Your most recent posts show that you are shockingly ignorant even of the basics. For example:
Because Arab Muslims trump black Muslims in the BBC’s despicable game..
If it were an American-backed, white Christian government killing its own black civilians…
describing Janjaweed attacks on black villages…..
….obliged to bury the fact of Arab genocide of Africans
You will, as usual, wriggle and squirm and try to deny it, but it is transparently clear to any reasonable person from the above quotations that you think that the Janjaweed are brown people of the same general racial and ethnic type as Palestinian Arabs and their victims are a wholly different racial group of black Africans.
Rubbish. Most of the Janjaweed are as black as the Ace of Spades • they are of the same race as the people they are killing.
Here are some pictures of Janjaweed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Darfur_report_-_Page_4_Image_1.jpg
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1017&p=2
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=2499
The word ‘Arab’ in Darfur does NOT mean that someone is a semite • or even distant kin to one. The word was traditionally used to indicate that someone was a nomadic herdsmen as opposed to a settled farmer. It retains that meaning today • but there’s an additional meaning • associated with a set of political ideas peddled by Gadaffi in the 80s when he was causing trouble in Chad.
As for your pathetic slurs against the BBC • the corporation’s Darfur coverage is recognized as having been the best in the world. A point I shall return to later.
Even though the pro-life movement is about all manner of issues from euthanasia to embryonic vivisection to the death penalty, the BBC refers to pro-lifers as “anti-abortion”. And even though “pro-choice” is a absurd self applied euphemism for only one “choice” i.e the choice to have a legal abortion, (as opposed to have a cup of tea or ride a bike), the BBC refer to pro-abortionists as “pro-choice”. Does that not betray bias?
John, I’m not interested in the BBC’s views about Darfur or anything else. Why should I pay for them just because you think they are broadly correct and well researched?
That’s the problem with you and other BBC types. You genuinely believe that because you regard your product as of good quality that everyone should be required to pay for it. What an outdated, elitist and authoritarian idea.
Bryan | 26.10.07 – 11:01 pm
Bryan | 27.10.07 – 1:17 pm
Bryan | 27.10.07 – 2:27 pm
Bryan • Darfur contd.
Now I haven’t got long, so let’s just brisk through the major points of your nonsense.
with the world doing nothing and the BBC doing its shameful best to hide the truth
The BBC has done more • and better • reporting on Darfur than any other broadcasting outfit on Earth. During 2004. More than 25 BBC News teams filed despatches from Darfur and the refugee camps in neighbouring eastern Chad. That’s why the BBC News was awarded a Peabody for its Darfur coverage.
What’s a Peabody?
The Peabody Awards are generally regarded as the most prestigious awards honouring distinction and achievement within the fields of broadcast journalism, documentary making….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peabody_Award
BBC News also received a News Event award from Britain’s Royal Television Society for its coverage of the Darfur story in February 2005.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/04_april/13/peabody.shtml
And what were the other major broadcasters doing the while?
In 2004 the ABC, CBS, and NBC network nightly newscasts aired a total of only 26 minutes on genocide and fighting in Sudan. ABC devoted 18 minutes to Darfur coverage, NBC five and CBS only three.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=bbc+darfur++peabody&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
Ah • but I forgot, you don’t care much about TV and radio. You obsess about the BBC News Website.
According to a study undertaken by the School of Journalism at the University of Colorado • in the first 26 months of the conflict, the BBC News website published 398 articles on Darfur. A sample 175 of these was examined and categorized as: 67 per cent hard news; 28 per cent in-depth features.
http://www.colorado.edu/journalism/
The Colorado study also looked at whether coverage ascribed ‘blame’ in its reporting.
It found that 86 per cent of BBC reports pointed an accusing finger at the Janjaweed, the Sudanese Government or both.
So your point that the BBC is coy about naming the guilty men is demonstrably false.
No-one of course covers Darfur more than the BBC World Service • with broadcasts in various languages every day.
The BBC World Service Trust also set up Lifeline Radio • a station broadcasting to the refugees in their camps in their own tongue(s).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/trust/mediadevelopment/story/2005/11/051124_sudan-lifeline.shtml
I shall return to other inaccuracies in your posts tomorrow, with luck.
John, you really are clutching at straws if you need to mention awards from the Royal Television Society.
Pete | 27.10.07 – 6:59 pm
Fair cop.:)
…but just a passing mention….
John Reith,
Twenty five news teams? How was that justified? How much did that cost then? A news team consists of five? people with a team of bodyguards foe each team? You lot at the BBC certainly know how to spend other peoples money!
Link to those US Network stats.
http://www.beawitness.org/methodology
Why does the BBC devote so much more time to news stories like Darfur than other TV news stations? The fact that it does shows exactly how out of touch the BBC is with its audience and why the licence fee is a bad thing. The BBC thinks everyone should be interested in Darfur. They aren’t, but the BBC still give it extensive coverage. This is elitist, authoritarian and can only happen where people have to pay for stuff they don’t want. Other TV news providers can give their audience what it wants better than the BBC is able to because they depend on voluntary contributions of cash.
The BBC covers Darfur extensively. Hardly anyone cares about Darfur. The BBC is a tax funded political broadcaster.
John Reith | 27.10.07 – 5:31 pm and 6:57 pm
Ah – but I forgot, you don’t care much about TV and radio. You obsess about the BBC News Website.
You are all mixed up. Don’t you recall that I’m a frequent listener to the World Service? And didn’t you notice that my first comment on Darfur on this thread stemmed from what I’d heard on the World Service yesterday morning? Most of my comments on this site relate to the bias I get fed from that quarter.
You will, as usual, wriggle and squirm and try to deny it, but it is transparently clear to any reasonable person from the above quotations that you think that the Janjaweed are brown people of the same general racial and ethnic type as Palestinian Arabs and their victims are a wholly different racial group of black Africans.
Rubbish. Most of the Janjaweed are as black as the Ace of Spades – they are of the same race as the people they are killing.
You are such a funny old thing, John Reith, and the wriggling and squirming are all yours. I never said anything about brown and I’m well aware that the racial divide in Darfur is not totally cut and dried. The point remains that the Janjaweed are being used to carry out the Arab Sudanese government inspired genocide of black Sudanese.
Try your semantics out on the dispossed black relatives of the dead. No doubt they’ll be unimpressed. As I mentioned, your very own precious BBC buried the single most important factor in the Darfur “conflict” as deeply as it could in this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7063331.stm
Having got my magnifying glass out again, I’ve just found it:
Khaled: The main cause of this problem is the government and the marginalisation of the people of Darfur. And the lack of services and development. The Darfuris have no voice in the government. I think the government had an idea to help the people close to them – the Arab tribes – but I am not sure if they want to completely eradicate all the African tribes.
And I found another tiny sliver of evidence:
Mohammed: Before, the people were living peacefully as one tribe but unfortunately the government had its own agenda – they wanted to create these problems because they believe that they have to make space for all the Arab communities in the north of Africa to help them take over Darfur. Then all the Arab nomads from other countries can come to live in Darfur. It all started in 1916, when they started to remove Darfuris from power.
Don’t get so hot under the collar, old chap. Rather turn your energies towards getting the BBC to stop obfuscating and start telling the truth, not only about the vile programme of the Sudanese government, but about other conflicts driven by the Arab Muslim obsession with worldwide domination at the point of the sword.
And I should add, I’m unimpressed with PC awards.
A true public service broadcaster would take the trouble to find out what its audience wanted before it broadcast. If the BBC had taken this approach about Darfur, its Darfur coverage would have been about the same as those broadcasters that John Reith criticises.
John’s attitude seems to be that if a broadcaster doesn’t do what the BBC does it isn’t doing what is good for the public. Creepy!
John Reith
Compare and contrast your “world renowned” coverage of Darfur with the almost non-existant coverage of the Khartoum regimes attempted gencide of the south of the country – could this be due to the fact that unlike the Darfuris the south Sundanese are not only Black but largely Christian
“Compare and contrast your “world renowned” coverage of Darfur with the almost non-existent coverage of the Khartoum regimes attempted genocide of the south of the country”
You could delete Dafur and insert Thailand, Indonesia or anywhere else where Christians or non Muslims are being murdered daily and still wouldn’t see as much reporting by the BBC as they do on Dafur…. wonder why?
Geoff Sturdy | 27.10.07 – 9:07 pm and dave t | Homepage | 27.10.07 – 9:22 pm,
This is, of course, a good point. It’s one we keep on coming back to here and it’s never answered by the BBC apologists who pop in to assure us that all is fine and dandy with their employer.
Whether it’s the steady reduction in the number of Christians in Lebanon and the Palestinian areas (I wonder why) or the mindless violence in Egypt against Coptic Christians or Christians being attacked and killed in Nigeria or Sudan or Indonesia, we always get the same obfuscation from the BBC. “Violence flared,” the BBC tried to tell us as it twisted and turned to avoid naming the particular religious group responsible for initiating the mob violence against the Copts in which a nun was stabbed and churches destroyed.
We see this pattern over and over again until the inescapable conclusion is that the BBC is doing everthing it possibly can to cover up or minimise the stark reality of worldwide Islamic terror.
The only question is why the BBC is behaving in this despicable fashion.
I had to chuckle while checking out this article on Darfur
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7063331.stm
and finding this question:
Q: Some world leaders have said that the root cause of the crisis in Darfur is global warming and the ensuing competition for scare resources in the region. Others have described the situation as a civil war due to long-standing tribal tensions. Do you feel that either of these analyses accurately explain the reasons behind the conflict in Darfur?
The BBC has done its work really well.
John Reith: Awards or reprimands?
You mention a number of “awards” to the BBC. I won’t comment on your specific examples, but I will make this general point: In the United States, at least, it is best to think of the big journalism “awards”, such as the Pulitzers, as reprimands, since they nearly always go to someone who has behaved badly. (The most famous example, of course, is Walter Duranty, who helped Stalin cover up an immense famine.)
So, if I were you, I would be careful about citing such prizes as evidence of achievement.
(Similarly, the Nobel prizes in peace and literature are also best taken as reprimands.
In recent years, the peace prizes have generally gone to someone who has damaged the cause of peace. (This year was something of an exception; the committee instead chose to make a joke out of the whole thing.)
The literature prizes generally go to some writer, with no great achievements, but impeccable leftist credentials. I am not sure whether Lessing quite fits that description, but most of her recent predecessors do.)
Bryan: “We see this pattern over and over again until the inescapable conclusion is that the BBC is doing everthing it possibly can to cover up or minimise the stark reality of worldwide Islamic terror.
The only question is why the BBC is behaving in this despicable fashion.”
I wonder if this may have something to do with BBC World being a commercial enterprise and therefore an important source of income for the BBC. It would be interesting to know if BBC News in the UK ever use footage originating in its commercial BBC World.
BBC Arabic Television, which lived for about 2 years around 1994-6 (see here http://www.richardsonmedia.co.uk/arabic.html ), was financed by Saudis. To what extent this affected BBC coverage of the Middle East also on other BBC subsidiaries? How representative was it of other BBC commercial enterprises? Is there anything parallel on BBC radio?
I should think that BBC finances and their impact on BBC content is a subject worth investigating, but I wouldn’t know where to start.
Addendum: Here is an old link on television news finances. I don’t know to what extent it is relevant for the BBC.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22055_LGF_Exclusive-_How_Much_Does_It_Cost_to_Buy_Global_TV_News&only
Alan Johnston’s pre-abduction view of being held captive by the Palestinian people: “…one of the dangers of being abducted here must be that you could get fed to death”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6459521.stm
Simply pathetic and one of the most egregious pieces spouted by any BBC correspondent. But nonetheless the sort of drivel we’ve come to expect from al-Beeb and their poor-lickle-oppressed-Palestinian mindset.
A 114-day dose of reality later, Johnston says: “There was, though, never quite enough food, and I eventually lost 10kg (22lb)”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7048652.stm
I wonder if there has been the slightest reconsideration on his part or on the part of his colleagues about the conduct of the Palestinians and whether Israel is really the bad guy?
Anat | 28.10.07 – 5:10 am,
I don’t currently have access to BBC World and I don’t know about the finances, but I was tuned in to it in 2003 when it showed the vile anti-Israel “documentary” Israel’s Secret Weapon, which was also shown on BBC 2.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Israel%27s+Secret+Weapon&btnG=Google+Search
I see that there is a link to a video of it on the Google page. The Israeli government was outraged by it and stopped cooperation with the BBC as a result.
John Reith had a look at the transcript and decided that it was fine. He would. And the “editor” responsible for it at the time also defended it.
Other considerations aside, the BBC is simply pro-Arab, and my guess is it always has been.
Anonymous | 28.10.07 – 5:27 am,
Israel is still the bad guy. and I don’t think Johnston has retracted any of the anti-West statements he made on video, apparently while under duress.
[The Moderator: If you wish to discuss moderation policy, e-mail us at biasedbbc@googlemail.com. But in short, don’t presume that all your comments will be deemed interesting enough to stay up.]
[The Moderator: The same applies to you, Bryan.]
More on abortion…
Front page of BBC News Website. “Right to choose”… “Forty years after the Abortion Act, what should the limits be?”.
Not “Right to choose?”, or “Right to life”. Or “Should abortion be legal”?
Then, the article itself. Not “pro-choice” and “pro-life”, as different sides of the debate, but “anti-abortion” and “pro-choice”.
Bryan | 28.10.07 – 7:51 am
I don’t think Johnston has retracted any of the anti-West statements he made on video, apparently while under duress.
Why do you tell such lies? Everyone who watched Panorama this week knows exactly what he said about the video.
John Reith | 28.10.07 – 9:26 am,
I said “I don’t think,” i.e. I’m open to correction about it. Lies I’ll leave up to you guys at the BBC.
So do tell us, what did Johnston say? Did he make a partial retraction or a complete retraction? Did he equivocate, as BBC hacks are so good at doing? As someone who didn’t watch Panorama, I don’t know. I was speculating based on his past record of gross bias. There is a limit to how much one can stomach of Johnston.
That one said I thought the pro-abortion consultant who gave a monologue spoke with such relish that he wound up influencing me in the opposite direction, and just conceivably the programme had spotted this tendency in advance and given him enough rope to hang himself.
I think you give the BBC too much credit. Would you apply the same argument in respect of author Ken Follett appearing on the Andrew Marx show, when he claimed that his household saw none of the £200,000 pa pay & rations received by his Labour mp wife?
That Sackur guy interviewed Saeb Erekat, chief Palestinian complainer and blamer of the West and Israel for all his woes, on Hardtalk:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/4145331.stm
Click on Watch latest programme
A little way into the interview it was evident that Sackur regards Erekat
as an Uncle Tom, as a Bishop Abel Muzorewa to Robert Mugabe or a chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi to Nelson Mandela.
Sackur complains that Erekat has arrested hundreds of Hamas “activists ” in the West Bank and closed down their offices at the same time as he talks peace with the Israelis and Americans and then says, “Palestinians see you as a puppet in the pockets of Washington and Jerusalem.”
(That was an interesting slip. No doubt the BBC will be inundated with outraged complaints from Palestinians at the suggestion that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.) But to return to my point, OK, Mr. Sackur, we get it: Fatah does not have a mandate from over a million Gazans and Erekat should rather be talking peace with Hamas first before gallivanting off to talk to his Israeli and American puppet masters.
Sackur also made the claim that it was ordinary Palestinians, unaffiliated to either Hamas or Fatah, who see Erekat as a sellout. I wonder how he knows.
Whatever the case, here the BBC snaps back to its default position: always sympathise with the most radical of the terrorists, in this case Hamas. I thought that the BBC, with its roots in Judaeo-Christian civilization, would have some sympathy with the idea of sidelining the most vicious and unrepentant of Islamic terrorists. Guess I was feeling overly optimistic.
Further re the Marx show, they really are taking the p***. Today’s guests
Alan Johnston
Esther Rantzen
Ken Follett
Alex Salmond
Robert Redford
Harriet Harman
Johnston is joining the Gareth Pierce/Vanessa Redgrave high anxiety, hand wringing club.
Harman was allowed the preposterous argument that English votes for English laws is an argument for only London Mps voting on Crossrail, only Grimsby voting on Fishing Laws.
The vital “you can vote on my area if I can vote on yours” aspect was completely ignored by both Harman & Marx.
I would say the BBC’s willingness to act as a sort of publicity agent for Islam stems from three different reasons:
1) The corporation’s financial dealings in the middle east.
2) Pressure from the UK government to promote the official party line on Islam – that it’s a religion of peace.
3) A shared contempt towards Britain, America, Israel and the west in general.
It will explain why news that may cast Islam in a poor light is deliberately kept as vague as possible, buried, or simply ignored.
Or why programs made about Islam at the Beeb inevitably end up as either glossy, superficial puff pieces, or whines about supposed Muslim victimhood.
Far from treating Islam as a religion like Christianity and producing programs that analyse and criticise it, the BBC cannot even bring itself to mention those aspects of Islamic dogma that directly contravene British law and basic human rights, such as the death penalty for apostasy.
At the BBC, Islam is very much a protected ideology.
Although I am myself pro choice/pro-abortion rights, I have to agree with Steve Edwards. The BBC is emphatically on my side on this question. Pro life / anti abortion rights folk are sometimes called pro life, but more usually called anti-abortion. My side is always called pro choice. On the Today programme slot that Steve was referring to, even if you accept the medical contributions as balancing (though as Steve says, the anti got the short end of the lollipop) the interview with the woman who had had an abortion, and was content with her choice, was completely unanswered. The natural answer would be say from a woman who had considered having an abortion and was glad she hadn’t, having produced a child who now gave her joy. Not only was there no such interview, but it is quite inconceivable that they would ever have such an interview, unanswered by a woman with the opposite view. How wicked is this ? Well, abortion rights are supported by a significant majority, so perhaps you’d expect more coverage for the pro side. But on that basis you might then expect more coverage for the pro longer prison sentences, pro EU referendum, etc sides. But you don’t get it. In fact BBC covergae of abortion is more balanced than it is on many subjects dear to progressives, because some progressives (and hence some BBC employees) are anti-abortion. Hence unlike say the question of grammar schools, you will actually find a dissident pro life minority among BBC journalists.
Now they’re just making things up:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/danielhannan/october/bbc.htm
Last Updated: Sunday, 28 October 2007, 10:33 GMT
Vatican honours Spanish war dead
Last para:
While atrocities were carried out on both sides, it is thought the right-wing Nationalists killed more people.
We all know what ‘thought’ did, don’t we?
They must have tried very, very hard to be balanced with such ‘difficult’ subject matter.
But I guess they just couldn’t help themselves right at the end there!
Boy Blue:
I personally wouldn’t attribute the Beeb with such complex reasons for supporting Islam so passionately. They have only one:
Cowardice.
The militant arm of Islam has a reputation for being just a little bit violent and not very discerning so your Al Beeb journos don’t want to be looking over their backs all the time.
Much easier to support aggressors than become a potential victim of one.
Andrew Marr’s interview with Robert Redford this am majored on what a fab thing it was for Hollywood to be challenging Bush. But …
A series of recent box-office flops involving some of the film industry’s biggest names is worrying bankers and producers alike.
Part of the problem, some insiders argue, is the increasing political activism of many Hollywood stars and the recent flood of “message” movies about the war in Iraq and the broader war on terror
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2753574.ece
This ..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7065984.stm
is an interesting story. It appears NATO sources have said there has been a fairly major battle in Helmand province. It seems to have started with a Taleban ambush but the NATO forces (the Beeb doesn’t even tell us which country they belong to but I’m guessing British or American) returned fire called in an air strike and must have cut off the Taleban to prevent them retreating. There has then been a 6 hour battle in which NATO says 80 Taleban were killed. Now to me this is good news and shows they are doing a good job. But just read the rest of the Beeb article which goes on to question how the military can know so many Taleban died and mentions a “report” from an unnamed village which says 15 to 20 locals died. The village isn’t named and the article mentions there is no independent confirmation of this. In fact the entire aim of the article appears to be to trash a piece of good news from Afghanistan.
Oh and it would be nice if they even linked to the original coalition press release so we could read the story without the BBC “interpretation”.
I see the BBC news 24, BBC Parliament & Sky News are overdosing on the SNP conference. Scotland 8.5% of the UK population, SNP a minority governing party in the Scottish Parish Parliament. This is not national news.
But Scotland provides NuLab with the votes and MPs which enable it to rule over England so the political happenings in Scotland are disproportionately important. No Scotland: no Nulab government in England, and then how would ‘racism’ and ‘fascism’ be controlled?
Allan@Oslo – utter bollocks.
Labour had a majority of 43 MPs in England alone at the last general election (Scotland has 59 MPs, compared to England’s 591). England has the Labour government that England voted for – nothing to do with how Scotland voted.
Some little Englander’s desperately clutch at the Conservatives getting 60,000 more votes in England than Labour did as if that matters under our electoral system – but they conveniently forget that under their implied proportional representation there’d be even less chance of getting rid of our awful Labour government – an awful Labour government that was mostly elected in England.
P.S. By rights both of your comments should be deleted for being off-topic, but we’ll let them stand for the sake of the opportunity to correct such apparently widespread ignorance about who’s to blame for our Labour government.
BBC2 Clash of the Worlds has just started, sets out its bias from the off. Islamic “actions” are all the fault of the British Empire, apparently, the opening 2 minutes tell me.
Brilliant, almost as wrong headed as the Power of Nightmares.
I’ll stick it out and you tube it later.
I”ve given up on Clash of the Worlds, its a cheap, badly made boring programme. The interviewees are dull, one is even a journalist, they seem to have little weight and are just driving the narrative not providing any evidence.
The editing is crap too.
One thing I did learn, apart from the fact that India was a peaceful place of multicultural harmony before those evil Christians arrived, was that Jihadist terrorists have been in action since the 1850’s I think operating from the Afgan borders.
Surprisingly the word Jihad isn’t being whitewashed and is being used in its aggressive sense.
BBC 2’s ‘Clash of the Worlds’ is biased, pro-Islamic, anti-British propaganda history.
The Indian Mutiny episode (tonight) described the British men, women and child victims of the initial, mainly Islamic jihad, massacre as being ‘dispatched’; but in the British reprisals, Indians were ‘murdered’.
There is no mention of the path in history whereby India was invaded over centuries by violent Islamic jihad. The main apologist for Islam on the programme was William Dalrymple; no counterview to his Pollyanna view of Islam was allowed to be heard. In contrast, one Indian historian gives us some perspective about Islamic invasion and conquest in India, K.S.Lal says: “Naturally India, known to early Arabs as Hind va Sind, too could not escape Muslim expansionist designs, and they send their armies into India both by land and sea.” (from ‘Muslims invade India’, in ‘The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India’ (Delhi 1992).
Bias –
The page is entitled: “No plan, no peace in Iraq”.
The BBC are also doing a documentary with this title.
The URL is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7064475.stm
Evening Ally
Even more astonishing is that this was actually one of the two or three top headlines in the main television news this evening ! I heard the newsreader say something like “There was no adequate plan for post war Iraq….” and was expecting her to continue with something like “…a leading US general said tonight” or “…according to a report from the US Senate” or something like that. But, no, she continued with “…according to a BBC documentary ” !
I think we’ve got used to the BBC’s talent for finding comments from people with views that stick close to the party line, but leading the news with the opinions of the BBC’s own documentary makers seems to take the confusion of news and comment to a new level.
The BBC, returning troops and a third of the story.
Emotional homecoming for soldiers
Soldiers from one of the most battle-scarred units fighting in Afghanistan have returned to their London barracks. Families and friends greeted more than 100 members of the 2nd Battalion, the Mercian Regiment, at the Cavalry Barracks in Hounslow, west London. The men from C Company spent six months involved in intense fighting against the Taliban in Helmand province. The battalion lost a total of nine men during fighting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7066475.stm
Question how big is a Battalion?
100 men? Well the BBC informs the reader that, that is around the figure. They then inform the reader that the Battalion lost 9 men during their tour.
Which is strange as a Battalion consists of around 5 companies. 3 Infantry, 1support and 1RHQ. Granted the latter 2 aren’t as big as the former ones. But you are talking between 450- 500 men. (Ok the rear party didn’t go, but how many men constitutes a rear party? 10,20?)
So why does the BBC give the impression that the Woofers lost around 5% of their troops in Afghanistan.
Oh and BBC
A coy
http://www.army.mod.uk/mercian/2mercian/a_coy.htm
B coy
http://www.army.mod.uk/mercian/2mercian/b_coy.htm
C coy
http://www.army.mod.uk/mercian/2mercian/c_coy.htm
I did like this snippet at the end.
The soldiers have 48 hours’ leave before returning to the barracks for a period of “normalisation”.
Only 48 hours BBC, how ungrateful of the MOD. Maybe you could have added that B coy were given the weekend off before returning for duty in which to sort out their kit for at most a fortnight before going fully on leave. That time includes watching the soldier for any signs of PTSD which is what the Army has been being doing for a while now. But instead the BBC paints a negative picture as usual of our armed forces. What next from the BBC a Muslim Blind dating marriage show in which to express their loyalty to Allah? Silly me for having to ask..
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article2759341.ece
The BBC, returning troops and a third of the story.
BBC News just on in Japan saw a report on recent Conservative Party plans for Scottish voting rights in the Houses of Parliament.
The report wasn’t a mere introduction to the policy, the outline or rationale but was framed from the perspective pretty much of the Labour party itself. That is, Tory plans for Scotland have been attacked by the Labour party as threatening the break up of the United Kingdom. The rest of the report simply followed that line of argument.
The BBC were effectively doing Labour’s job in the approach taken.
The next but one story after that was about child labour and its use by GAP. I suppose it’s a news story, but considering the source, I couldn’t help but be suspicious.
(For the record: not or never have been a Conservative voter – just like my news without a preordained angle)
BBC’s Clash of the Worlds confused me.I always thought the majority of Indians were Hindu.It seems I am wrong.India was and is a Muslim country.Now I know the real facts I can consign the Muslim invasions to the illusions of history.Those dreadful British-the only invaders India has had this last 1000 years are solely reponsible for every bad thing that has ever happened in India.Thanks again BBc for rewriting history in such an entertaining way.I look forward to a revised account of the Norman Conquest.Peace loving Normans bringing feudalism and devastation to a bunch of English savages for their own good perhaps.
Richy, they’ve been running that slant to the story all day then. I turned off radio 2 at 9am this morning when that story was run as “Harriet Harman condemns a Tory plan” blah blah.
It really is staggering that they get away with it. They’ve probably stealth edited the website story now to something that might at least mention what the Tory plans are that Harriet (and the BBC) condemn so the so-called John Reith can come on here on behalf of the BBC and go no bias here, nothing to see, move along.