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 Guardian has written a piece about the Newsnight manipulation of the Obama speech: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2009/jan/27/bbc-tvnews
Deborah | 27.01.09 – 8:37 pm
time tying themselves up in knots to avoid admitting that Hamas broke the ceasefire and Israel retaliated.
So that’s what happened. Thanks.
I watched 3 news bulletins on different channels and never could quite make out what the real story was.
Cassandra | 27.01.09 – 7:20 pm | #
I would have agreed with you, and still no excuse to those who would resort to gutter tactics and language (though noting the author has been uncharacteristically potty-mouthed as well of late. A new version?), but after one too many posts that added nothing more than a personal dig at the site owners, one too many one liners that do no more than conflate ‘what’s in my head’ with ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but’, and one too many presumptions that the author ‘owns’ the rebuttal sequence to the thread and provides no sense of what s/he is replying to, I fear I at last must add another to my ‘life’s too short’ skip list. Plus all those who reply.
A pity. As you say, there was value.
Ryan | 28.01.09 – 9:25 am | #
It would be funny if it were not so worrying.
There are some, often justified (though I am unsure how one can really hope to reshape various diverse, and passionate – if you commit to writing on a blog can you be anything but – individuals’ behaviours by appealing to their better nature) calls to calm things down, but they do seem voices in the no man’s wilderness between extremes.
And this Guardian piece epitomises the sorry state we have come to.
A valid piece on a topical story with, I’d suggest, some legitimate concerns on the part of posters as a consequence.
Yet what do we see? Endless ad hominems with little else but dredging up the very tired old chestnut that if you don’t adore the BBC you must be a Daily Mail-reading Colonel.
Whatever happened to addressing the topic, debating with sincerity, and not defaulting without a second thought to predetermined prejudices? Yes, there are those on this site guilty of this (the site owners and maybe even myself on occasion), but look at the replies in this Guardian piece… to a Guardian journalist-raised piece, and mostly replied to with moderation, and feel the raw, naked hatred at work.
And this from those who in a heartbeat will be ‘defending’ a free press, freedom of speech and resisting censorship.
Not a nice place to be. I find here, on the whole, a much more civilised arena to visit, rich in considered comment and valuable links.
BBC has this:
“White working class ‘losing out'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7843007.stm
BUT, BBC doesn’t relate to this:
“The schools where NO ONE speaks English as a first language” (James Slack)
[Extract]:
“Their locations range from London to Lancashire. One, St Hilda’s in Oldham, is a Church of England school.
“Some schools are in areas with long-established Muslim populations. In others, the high number of non-English speakers is the consequence of large-scale immigration from Eastern Europe.
Labour MP Frank Field and Tory MP Nicholas Soames, co-chairmen of the Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration, said: ‘These figures make a nonsense of the Government’s aim of integration and show the very real strain that uncontrolled large scale immigration is already placing upon our society.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1130077/The-schools-NO-ONE-speaks-English-language.html
It is my experience that complaints to the BBC take a very long time to be answered, and when they do come are almost always of the ‘we don’t agree, and if we were wrong what can you do about it anyway, so muhr’ variety.
But I still send the odd one, if only to build up a cache of the tripe I get back from my paid public ‘service’ as evidence when I get my day in court:)
However, this one has popped back with amazing speed, relatively speaking:
‘We note your disappointment at our decision not to broadcast an appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee to raise funds for Gaza.’
Now, I don’t actually recall making such a complaint, and certainly not in those terms.
May concerns were related to this issue, but in very different terms.
But what’s the betting this cookie cutter reply is logged as a satisfactory response to a totally inaccurate list of the kind of complaints they had.
It’s a box-ticking nightmare at the expense of anything rational.
I guess some solace is to be had from the fact that the vile, grasping, extorting and increasingly desperate BBC feels the need to promote itself at every and any opportunity. This ranges from the ludicrous ubiquitous trails (often, as on the propagandist “flagship” Today Programme, with hilarious incongruity) to the ridiculously egotistic ways it describes its pisspoor offerings (“… here with the BBC news….” yeah, like we thought it was Afghan TV) to the choices of its “guests” (today’s Woman’s Hour featured that Graham Norton who has gone Beeboid).
But now, not content with wiping out legitimate competition via the extorting license tax – they feel the need to invade cinemas too. I was outraged to be forced to watch two extremely long and dreary adverts instructing us to listen to Radios 3 and 4. Of course we have to pay for this privilege.
Of course I have complained to the BBC (03700 100 222) but I intend also to complain to Ofcom and my MP. Do other posters here feel this is an invasion of privacy?
‘Telegraph’
‘BBC accused of fakery over Barack Obama inauguration speech’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/4370081/BBC-accused-of-fakery-over-Barack-Obama-inauguration-speech.html
Peter:
Ryan | 28.01.09 – 9:25 am | #
It would be funny if it were not so worrying.
There are some, often justified (though I am unsure how one can really hope to reshape various diverse, and passionate – if you commit to writing on a blog can you be anything but – individuals’ behaviours by appealing to their better nature) calls to calm things down, but they do seem voices in the no man’s wilderness between extremes.
————————————
A suitable candidate for the skip I keep hearing about? Heh. You can’t beat a good plain English sentence.
Millie Tant | 28.01.09 – 11:10 am | #
Indeed and, on reflection, in this case perhaps a fair point. Feel free.
But if not my ‘pithy communications’ ability, I hope none will doubt my sincerity and desire to engage in reasoned debate. Unlike some.
For the record, BBC’s chum, Ms. Y. ALIBHAI-BROWN and her recent comments, re- Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch’-
‘Migrationwatch’ has:
‘The Independent – Another Apology
January, 23 2009
“For a second time The Independent has been obliged to apologise and pay damages and costs to Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch. This is despite the fact that on the first occasion, in February 2008, their apology recognised explicitly that ‘Sir Andrew Green and Migrationwatch, the think-tank he founded, are entitled to put forward an approach to immigration which differs from view put forward in this newspaper. We accept that language on this subject should be temperate and appropriate on all sides and apologise to Sir Andrew Green’.
“On this second occasion, their apology read as follows;
‘In her column, “These bigots imperil our nation’s future” (29 September 2008) Yasmin Alibhai-Brown referred to Sir Andrew Green, of Migrationwatch, in discussing the British Council’s report on British and Italian young people’s views on National Identity and Europe. She alleged that Sir Andrew Green is “gleeful” that the result showed that one in four Britains is fearful of migrants and that this outcome is the result of his campaigning. These allegations are untrue and we apologise to Sir Andrew’.
“Commenting, Sir Andrew Green repeated that it was particularly important in this debate to use measured language.”
http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/
No doubt, meanwhile, the BBC and other Leftists will continue to pretend the Daily Mail is the sole source of frothing lunacy in the British media.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown referred to Sir Andrew Green, of Migrationwatch, in discussing the British Council’s report on British and Italian young people’s views on National Identity and Europe. She alleged that Sir Andrew Green is “gleeful” that the result showed that one in four Britains is fearful
Anyone with such dreadful English should hide her head under a pillow (and preferably suffocate), rather than screech her vile hatred publicly.
Nearly Oxfordian | 28.01.09 – 1:22 pm
Worse still, she can’t even spell ‘alibi’.
Hmm
It may be Migrationwatch who mis-spelled. The apology on the Independent site spells Britons correctly. Or has been edited.
With the BBC currently promulgating its impartiality credentials, why did it report on this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7806780.stm
But not this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1130066/They-say-old-care-grandchildren-Social-workers-hand-siblings-gay-men-adoption.html
Question: anti-Taliban demonstrations to be held by UMMAH-SWP,
including BBC’s Lyse ‘the humanity of the Taliban’ Doucet?:
MEMRI –
‘Pakistani Daily: “More People Have Been Killed in [Taliban-Led] Violence… In the [Swat] Valley Than In The Israeli Onslaught on Gaza”‘
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD221009
Well, scoping around the most recent threads, it’s nice to see the new ‘what people say or omit (like a debatable point) isn’t important; it’s who they are, which ‘tribal group’ they may be part of and, for a few purists, how slick their sentence structure, grammar and/or spelling is’ policy seems to be working well.
I, for one, am learning all sorts of new phrases.
While other news outlets are leading with the “breaking news” that, according to the IMF, Britain’s economy will shrink the most of all developed nation this year. The BBC prefer the much wider picture of the “global economy”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7856020.stm
Not a single mention that Britain will be hardest hit. All e get are the weasel words
“”And it now projects that the UK, which recently entered recession, will see its economy contract by 2.8% next year. “”
Grant | 27.01.09 – 10:20 pm |
It is the simplistic “Table d’hote”, as opposed to “A la carte” view of the World which characterises the left/liberal view.
Because they all have identikit opinions, they assume that those of us who disagree with them also have identikit opinions.
Totally agree, well put. Although I usually tell them, “Just because you share a common enemy doesn’t mean they think like you do”.
It only ever makes them pause for a split-second, then it’s back to focusing on the enemy, and ignoring – or rationalizing – the unpleasant things GCooper is talking about.
And what you’re saying is proven almost every time a new defender of the indefensible pops his head above the parapet here. “Yer all extreme right BNPers!”, etc., ad nauseum.
Are there now two Martins here: one “M”, and one “m”? I can’t tell anymore.
Jon 12:15
Thank you so much for that link to the YouTube video. 47 minutes long, but worth every minute. A superb demolition of the left/liberals, and funny as well.
David 3:13
Yes, it is all back to the “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”.
Don’t know if you have seen the video clip posted by Jon above, but I was really impressed.
If they have identikit and contradictory views, e.g. pro fundamentalist Islamists and pro homosexual rights, what does that mean about their views on those two things?
Not sure about ‘if’. To me it suggests that they simply don’t think, that they can’t analyse abstract concepts, that they can’t look at two concepts simultaneously and discern whether or not they contradict each other. They can look at only one thing at a time. It’s the classic ‘1984’ syndrome: How can Oceania ‘always to have been at war with Eurasia’, when I know full well that yesterday they were allies? These people simply don’t make the connection. Their thinking is that of a 2-year old who still hasn’t grasped that an object re-appearing from behind a screen may be the same one that disappeared behind it a moment ago.
How else to explain the failure to learn anything from the disaster called Marxism?
Justin Webb on this morning’s Today:
“Mr Obama knows that the Republicans are weak and there are those who say that their opposition to spending contained in this bill, on infrastructure projects around the nation, is for form’s sake rather than anything else.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7855000/7855244.stm
More pro-Obama, anti-Republican spin from Webb. Spending on infrastructure projects is a small fraction of the stimulus boondoggle. No snarky mention from Webb about Democrat unhappiness, either. The Washington Post reports:
For some House Democrats, the problem is less a matter of balancing the short and long term than a shortage of focus and will on the part of the administration. Their disappointment centers on the relatively small amount devoted to long-lasting infrastructure investments in favor of spending on a long list of government programs. While each serves a purpose, the critics say, they add up to less than the sum of their parts, and fall far short of the transformative New Deal-like vision many of them had entertained.
The bill to be voted on today includes $30 billion for roads and bridges, $9 billion for public transit and $1 billion for inter-city rail — less than 5 percent of the package’s total spending.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/27/AR2009012703655.html?hpid=topnews
Michelle Malkin is keeping tabs on some of the other projects – unreported by the Obama-lovin’ BBC – at which vast amounts of money are being thrown:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/28/stimulus-stupidity-alert-460000coast-guard-job-15-bil-carbon-capturing-contest-more/
According to a poster on Guido’s the media are making Brown’s economic crisis worse.
http://www.order-order.com/2009/01/can-you-hear-this-imf-warning-gordon.html?showComment=1233163500001#c8701158600090956917
Not surprising they should take that tack. I heard them giving unchallenged airtime to some Labour supporting union drone that it’s really all the fault of Ronald Reagan.
TPO | 28.01.09 – 6:54 pm |
I really ought to read what I write before I post it. The above should read:
According to a poster on Guido’s the BBC’s PM programme are claiming that the media are making Brown’s economic crisis worse.
guest on R5’s Mayo programme today circa 15.00 GMT was Prof Bryan Stevenson, US lawyer & human rights promoter. He talked about the huge growth in US prison pop’n since 1970, ‘Three Strikes’ policy, intractability of dealing with illegal drugs’ social effects and more.
At no point did I hear Mayo do anything more than cue the bloke up to talk about the next bit of his schtick. He didn’t seem to question ANY of the assertions made, just let them unfold as statements of completely obvious common sense (eg that the social pathologies attendant upon drug-addiction should be treated as a healthcare matter rather than as a subject for the criminal justice system). The man’s apparent blaming of Whites in Alabama for Black nihilism there similarly elicited no reservations from Mr Mayo (Confederate flags being flown and the non-specific legacy of segregation, in case you’re wondering), despite the contentiousness of the thesis advanced that the attitudes of Whitey had to be changed to effect a reduction in crime.
R
The Darwin season on the Beeb has got me looking forward to concomitant anniversary celebrations of those two other secular Gods, Mr Karl Marx and Dr Sigmund Fraud.
Social-Darwinism on an “enriched” Sarf London estate, anyone?
R
Jon | 28.01.09 – 12:15 am | #
Thanks for the link to the Evan Sayet video.
Jonah Goldberg on Liberal Fascism makes for similarly entertaining viewing, though sadly without Sayet’s skilled delivery:
Jonah Goldberg discusses his provocative and well-researched book, “Liberal Fascism”, exposing the origins, history & current state of modern Liberalism — the polar opposite of classical liberalism. He dispels the Liberal mythology that socialism is somehow the opposite of national socialism (fascism), and walks us through the close knit relationships amongst Leftists; including FDR’s administration, Communism, Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Green, Progressivism and other such regressive, mystic-based beliefs.
It is interesting to compare Bishop’s reinstatement prompts Holocaust row
with BBC Archive WITNESSING THE HOLOCAUST | Personal accounts of a crime against humanity not least because for some unexplained reason the BBC links its UK Homepage but not its International Homepage to this site. Perhaps not surprisingly the new Persian service of the BBC doesn’t provide translations.
The early story has Israel’s senior Jewish leadership(?) condemning a Catholic Holocaust denier and a short clip of the Pope saying don’t forget the Holocaust (using the Hebrew word Shoah) was a crime against all men.
Why when a story comes up about Holocaust denial Bishop Richard Williamson or Ahmadinijad doesn’t the BBC come out with a statement that Holocaust denial is nonsense? By foregrounding the Jewish objection rather than evidence in the BBC’s own hands it becomes a matter of contention – impartiality?
Why doesn’t the BBC provide links from stories of this nature to its own archives?
No doubt the BBC will rationalise this U-turn in as ‘convincing’ terms as the BBC justified the original exorbitant licence-payer subsidised salaries:
‘Mail’
“Smug Ross hit by 25% pay cut: BBC plan to slash deals of its top presenters”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1131054/Smug-Ross-hit-25-pay-cut-BBC-plan-slash-deals-presenters.html
BBC report:
“‘Too many’ cannot read and write”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7856001.stm
No reference to impact of Labour’s continuing mass immigration and this:
“The schools where NO pupils speak English as a first language”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1130077/The-schools-NO-pupils-speak-English-language.html
DB | 28.01.09 – 5:31 pm |
DB –
I also noted that Webb described the Republicans in the Senate who might support Obama’s proposal as “moderates”.
Does this make other Republicans militants?
“Smug Ross hit by 25% pay cut: BBC plan to slash deals of its top presenters”
———–
I await now a cut in the licence tax.
(When, when, when will the growth in population result in the individual BBC tax amount coming down? They can’t ALL be children or over 75, can they?)
Here’s a new name reporting for the BBC – Kate Joynes-Burgess. She’ll fit right in.
1) overpaid presenters have 25% wage cuts leaving them only very very overpaid rather than very very very overpaid
2) Another empty headed Obamaluvva droid joins the BBC —
no news there
Labour-speak, (and BBC-speak?)-
‘ In business questions today the Leader of the House, Harriet Harman, referred to “the financial services ombudsperson”. To raucous laughter, she added, “Sorry, Mr. Speaker, it just slipped out.” Well done, Harperson.’
‘Evening Standard’, ‘Londoner’s Diary’ (soon top be ‘Moscovite Diary’?)
http://londonersdiary.standard.co.uk/2009/01/im-pointless-says-kaletsky-.html
http://londonersdiary.standard.co.uk/2009/01/im-pointless-says-kaletsky-.html
DB | 28.01.09 – 5:31 pm |
Good catch. Yes, Justin Webb is once again spouting Democrat propaganda. He’s lying about what’s in the “stimulus” package, and why people are objecting to it.
Not only is ACORN going to to get a huge amount of my taxes, but it’s a big, fat pile of pork, full of payments to favorite Leftoid projects like birth control programs and all kinds of nonsense that will not contribute one penny to the economy. It’s mostly beloved Democrat projects with no connection to economic stimulus whatsoever. Except to fatten their friends’ bank accounts.
Here’s a bit of what I’m talking about:
Morning Bell: The Pelosi-Obama-Reid Trillion Dollar Debt Plen
And now here’s one of those Republicans who objects to this. Watch the video of Senator Corker, and decided for yourselves if Justin Webb is a liar or not.
I note that The Evening Standard is reporting that the constable suspended for “BNP Membership” is returning to work at Southwark as “there is no evidence to justify sacking”. Will the impartial BBC report this?
Roger C | 29.01.09 – 4:50 pm
Will the impartial BBC report this?
I expect they’ll report little else for days to come.
David Preiser (USA) | 29.01.09 – 4:40 pm
Webb is doubling down on his spin. Once again today he’s promoting the stimulus package as primarily a plan for the infrastructure. He even takes a swipe at those who would dare suggest otherwise:
“the stimulus bill is hardly a charter for a splurge on useless projects that benefit no-one.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2009/01/stimulus_talk.html
Even MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Obama’s biggest fan in the media, isn’t buying that:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/01/29/cramer-matthews-where-s-infrastructure
DB | 29.01.09 – 5:22 pm |
Webb’s really cherry-picking his “local paper” coverage, isn’t he?
He knows better, but just can’t help himself. There is no question about whether or not the money will surge into the economy or drip in.
Here’s a little more info on that:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123323991367328771.html
So Ross gets a pay cut. The BBC should offer him £100 000 a year which is still a lot of money for a rude man with a bad wig. If his ‘market rate’ is more than that one of the other channels will make him an offer.
Even MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Obama’s biggest fan in the media
I thought that was Sullivan. His dribblings about Obama simply drip with sexual excitement.
The BBC is still in denial about the reality of OBAMA’s fraility in both 1.) foreign policy, 2.) domestic policy; for example:-
On 1.), his misunderstanding of the modern history of the Middle East is exposed here , and no doubt accounts for his dhimmitude:
‘Jihadwatch’
“20 or 30 years ago -and longer”
[Extract]:
“Max Boot dissects an Obama comment from the Al-Arabiya interview, demonstrating that the President doesn’t have the slightest idea what he is talking about when he invokes an era of good relations between the U.S. and the Islamic world as recently as two or three decades ago. Boot says that Obama’s comment reveals his ‘profound ignorance about most aspects of foreign policy, including the recent history of the Middle East.’ And it also makes it more than likely that Obama is likewise profoundly ignorant of not just the recent history of the Middle East, but the history of the Middle East as a whole. What he thinks he knows, moreover, is likely to be historical myth and propaganda, the acceptance of which is extremely common among those who should know better”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024616.php
On 2.), the myth of his ‘global’ vision has been superseded by his ‘protectionist’ economic policy for the USA:
‘Telegraph’:
“US-EU trade war looms as Barack Obama bill urges ‘Buy American'”
[Extract]:
“The prospect of a trade war between the US and Europe is looming after “Buy American” provisions were added to President Barack Obama’s $820 billion (£573 billion) stimulus package.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4389597/US-EU-trade-war-looms-as-Barack-Obama-bill-urges-Buy-American.html
Al Gore (and the BBC) talk about ‘The Inconvenient Truth’ and the alleged ‘hockey stick’ increase in global temperatures.
Glenn Beck (on Fox News) talks about ‘The Inconvenient Debt’ and the ‘hockey stick’ increase in American government debt. (3mins:46 secs Video clip.)
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html
I note the BBC are making much of the Turkish PMs uncivil attack on Israeli President Shimon Peres at Davos yesterday.
He is described variously as a “hero”.
This thug fits in with the BBC’s infantile love affair with tyrants like Chavez.
He attacked Peres – a polite Israeli peacenik – for cheap publicity at home. He forgot to mention (as did the BBC report) that he is reintroducing Islamism in a secular state, rounding up his opponents who object and slaughters Kurds from time-to-time, including illegal incursions into Iraq. What a fraud!
Mr Erdogan – remember what Danton famously said – “When the mob is behind you, all the more reason to watch your back.”
Another reason not to invite Turkey into the EU.
BBC cheerleading (in its impartial way) for Turkey’s Islamist Erdogan, re-his anti-Israel politics:
“Turkey’s PM given hero’s welcome”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/davos/7859815.stm
Of course, the BBC’s political attitude towards Turkey fits with Labour’s enthusiasm to get 75 million more Muslims into the European Union, despite, or because of this:-
“Turkey’s leaders plan Muslim Europe” (Edward Luttwak, 2007.)
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/6563,opinion,stranglehold-of-turkeys-islamic-akp
I’m reading elsewhere that British (i.e. Real British) workers are striking over foreign workers being brought in to do the work that they (the British) are actually doing. What is the BBC’s slant on this?