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.
John Reith:
“Well, at least the much maligned BBC has done its duty:”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/s…ims/ default.stm
Oh yes John, the BBC have really done it’s duty. In depth reporting on the attacks without using the dreaded “M” or “T” words.
Oh no, hang on, I’ve found the “M” word a few times. And where do you think it is? On the victim’s write up pages of course.
Are any of the other victims religions mentioned? Two guesses.
Incidentally John, reading some of those obituaries on those victims really rammed home to me how sickening the BBC is with it’s Pro Islam stance and how important this web blog is in highlighting that.
It also made me wonder what those victims families feel about the BBC and their constant pandering of terrorists.
Come on John Reith. Compare these 2 stories and then explain. Why is one offenders political affiliation mentioned and the affiliation of the other is not? Bias?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne…ide/ 7073440.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla…ire/ 7058771.stm
An explanation would be greatly appreciated
Immigration Minister Liam Byrne MP and campaigner for road safety is fined for using his mobile while driving.
Sorry, did somebody say ‘Labour MP’?
Erm, no…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7074640.stm
But here maybe:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=491290&in_page_id=1770
Glad to see the BBC had the decency to switch the front page story around from De Menezes death (POLICE-MUST-RESIGN, RESIGN!….) story to the police officer that was ran over and almost killed.
Have just seen the most appalling case yet of BBC pro-Palestinian bias. Posted on Youtube:
Just finished watching the local North West bulletin that follows the main 10.00 pm news.
The “Fiddling Mayor” was quite high up the list.
My caring “this is what we do” “news every f**k**g minute” BBC didn’t seem to think I would be interested in what flavour politician he was.
God – this lot are just beyond the pale. I reckon we should reserve a special set of lamposts for them when we can finally persuade the worms to turn (and the tipping point isn’t far away – I sense so much anger)
Come on the BEEB apologists that inhabit this site. Apologise for this.
More unprofessional blatant bias from Matt Frei’s BBC News America.
Frei has the night off, so his junior associate Katty Kay is the presenter for the evening. At the end of the hour, we get a feature on a new film starring a Palestinian actor/taxi driver, Bashar Da’as “Driving to ZigZigLand”. Obviously it’s about a struggling Palestinian actor who tries to fight against being typecast by American film and tv producers as a terrorist. As he’s mostly a taxi driver in Los Angeles, all of his fares think he’s a potential terrorist as well, which is why he eventually makes up the South American island nation of ZigZigLand as his non-threatening homeland. Equally obviously, this is presented by the BBC as totally blind racism, with no mention ever of why people in the US might possibly think a Middle Eastern male might be a terrorist. Don’t bother to ask why even a liberal haven such as LA, especially Hollywood, might share the same “prejudices” as the rest of us United Statesians. Today’s narrative is that all of us are bad, m’kay.
The film is obviously extremely low budget; the acting is on par with children’s school plays, and there are no professional sets to speak of in the clips we are shown. Interspersed between scenes from this amateur production is lots of interview footage with the star, Da’as. Even though the official website of the film lists him as an actor only, the report implies that it’s semi-autobiographical, reflecting the life experience of Da’as.
(The official press kit pdf file lists “Wild World” by Cat Stevens on the sound track. Not even Yusuf Islam.)
At no time is there an attempt to temper the accusatory tone of the story with an acknowledgment of terrorism in the news of the day, or that there is any connection in the public mind of Middle Easterners and terrorism. Oh yes, not Arabs or Muslims. It’s Middle Easterners or Palestinians today. The funny thing is, while the BBC reporter and editor of the piece are going through unbelievable contortions to present this as straight up Uhmurrikan prejoodiss, Da’as himself slips reality in when they aren’t looking. He says that in the ’90s, the Russians (Soviets) were the bad guys, “now it’s our turn.” He smiles a little when he says this, but the Beeboids don’t get the joke. They think he’s being 100% sarcastic. So they let him add, “Maybe someday aliens will invade,” and the Middle Easterners will be off the hook. Yes, BBC, that’ll be the day.
The jarring dichotomy between the tone and words of the report and this last bit of honesty from Da’as makes it pretty clear that he means it one way, while the BBC takes it another way entirely.
Again, other than this last bit – upon which the BBC reporter does not remark – there isn’t even a hint of what might make people think in these enlightened times why terrorists tend to be Middle Eastern males. We are merely told that 90% of the auditions Da’as gets are for terrorist roles.
Report ends, back to the studio. Katty Kay speaks, with a bit of vinegar in her tone: “Bit of prejudice on display there.”
Yes, dear, but whose prejudice?
I forgot to mention that ZigZigland has not been shown in any US film festival, and has no US distribution at the moment. Nor does it seem to have any distribution anywhere. We were not told that the film has been rejected or suppressed or anything. Just that the producers are currently looking to get the film shown to the public. The implication is, of course, American prejudice. It wouldn’t have anything to do with the totally crap production values, would it?
So, since it’s not a film being premiered in the US (which would be newsworthy), and there doesn’t seem to be any controversy about it’s suppression or that the release is being blocked by a Zionist conspiracy or anything (very newsworthy if true), why is it worthy of a lengthy BBC report, even in the Light Entertainment segment? Why do they feel the need to do what is essentially a publicity piece for a film that is not being censored, suppressed, banned, or anything at all?
Katty Kay’s snide little comment tells us why.
David Preiser:
They’re looking for a distributor for it? Step forward BBC. Your masters beckon.
Just seen the bigoted crap about the ‘taxi driving actor’ Bashar Da’as!
Anti American lies and propaganda dressed up as news on BBC world! Many Actors get offered roles that fit their looks so wheres the big surprise? He looks like a terrorist, so is it any wonder that he gets picked for the roles? of course not! Why is he in America if its so cruel and racist to him? He looks well fed and prosperous to me and I cant help but wonder about his motives!(money+fame?) I know why the BBC chose to report this non story, because it fits their petty prejudice?
The Anti American sentiment, the lies, the manipulation of the facts and the cynical opportunism all remind me of the old Soviet/Nazi propaganda trash we see on the ‘history channel’ now! Ilya ehrinburg, that Soviet propagandist would be very proud of the BBC commisars I think.
Its obvious to anyone with a brain that Bashar saw a golden opportunity for self publicity(actors are good at this).
You have to wonder WHY the BBC hacks didnt wonder about this ‘actors’ motives, are the BBC hacks so stupid? or is there another factor at work here?
John Humphries on Today, Saturday 3rd Nov:
Greed is the essence of capitalism
I heard a feature on the history of the song Hava Nagila on the Today programme. Lots of warm, non-hostile references to early Zionist settlers in the Holy Land.
The sort of thing Bryan claims is never broadcast.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/
Where exactly is “Tobasco”? Twice we see that the Toady show’s web site spells Tabasco as Tobasco.
£3.5bn/yr and they don’t seem to even have Google Earth loaded on a machine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabasco
Muppets.
Could Reith supply the time on the Toady show that the Hava Nagila piece was broadcast? I don’t want to trawl through the whole show listening to its distortions.
Not biased, just bad …
Just watched Football Focus as, unlike Mr Reith I do care if Arsenal beats Tottenham, I care a lot.
Last sentence from Mark Lawenceson was ‘Have you noticed all the Quarter Final draws are North West v South?’ to which the presenter replied ‘Gosh, your geography at school must have been good.’
So, the have a presenter of the BBCs premier football analysis programme doesn’t even know where the teams are based? Triffic!
wally greeninker | 02.11.07 – 9:45 pm
Have just seen the most appalling case yet of BBC pro-Palestinian bias. Posted on Youtube
Eh, I think you saw a satire from outsiders about the BBC. Claire Bollockson should have given the game away or perhaps the title Israeli-Palestinian BBC Newscast! Best Political Satire!
Funny, accurate and worth seeing, but not evidence.
Maybe Tobasco is what you say if you are trying to sound sophisticated – BBC staff often say Cheelay for Chile, Valenthia for Valencia and so on.
I emailed 5 Live because although they take pains to say Barthelona, Mumbai and Bejing they couldn’t pronounce Altrincham correctly. Maybe that is because Altrincham is north of Watford.
Note to BBC staff looking forward to a move to the bonny banks of the ship canal – we call it Solford, not Salford.
I heard a feature on the history of the song Hava Nagila on the Today programme. Lots of warm, non-hostile references to early Zionist settlers in the Holy Land.
The sort of thing Bryan claims is never broadcast.
John Reith | 03.11.07 – 10:50 am
Nonsense. I post comments about the lack of BBC bias here and elsewhere when I find it. But I rarely tune into local BBC radio. Around the beginning of September they had a programme on a guy who sings national anthems. He’d practiced Hatikva for the England vs. Israel Euro 2008 qualifier in case the Israeli singer couldn’t make it to the game and, with a bit of prompting from the host, sang it on the radio.
I’m not saying, and never have said, that the bias has permeated 100% of BBC output. But it is certainly rife. It would be helpful if you and Nick Reynolds and David Gregory and others would acknowledge that fact. Plenty of past and present BBC people have done so. Why can’t you?
Now do point us in the direction of that programme, John Reith. Inquiring minds want to absorb this bit of bias-free output from the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7076926.stm
Labour ‘united despite mistakes’
The Labour government has “made some mistakes” during the past few weeks, but remains united, Schools Secretary Ed Balls has said.
Aye, united by the golden thread of incompetence.
He criticised the Conservatives for policies which “hold people back”.
“Whether it’s on families, health or education, the Tories’ vision is a vision of a two-tier Britain.
“David Cameron stands for a two-tier Britain, two tiers of opportunity – not just holding young people back from reaching their full potential, but holding the whole country back from what we can achieve together.
…
“Labour is not just the Party of the Union, but the true ‘one nation’ party in British politics. It is our values and our vision which will deliver the change that Britain needs and win the trust of the British people.”
Quite happy print Ed Ball’s Up’s speech, but no rebuttal from the Tories? Not even an attempt at analysis and criticism from the writer of the story? The story reads like a press release.
The story reads like a press release.
Probably because it was one, the BBC as well as printing PA text verbatim without attribution, also does this with press releases. As long as the narrative fits their world view
Along with martial law in Pakistan, surely the other big international political story of the day is the mass expulsion of Romanian immigrants, without trial, from several Italian cities.
Euroreferendum covers it comprehensively and it’s a lead item in several dailies :-
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/11/blue-nettle-with-yellow-stars.html
But it’s one of JR’s famous “4-click” jobs to unearth a two day old reference on the BBC News site:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7073873.stm
Could this be the beginning of the end for the great European experiment?
Not if the Beeb can help it.
John Reith:
“I heard a feature on the history of the song Hava Nagila on the Today programme. Lots of warm, non-hostile references to early Zionist settlers in the Holy Land.”
You mean we’re supposed to be amazed that the BBC couldn’t find something hostile to say in a report about a piece of music?
Jesus Christ Reith, you really are scraping the barrel if this is the best you can do to prove impartiality when it comes to Israel.
Now go away and trawl through the BBC news reports archives and see if you can find some proper non-hostile references.
Who knows, you might even get a bonus from your paymasters, seeing as it’s quite clear that battling away on the BBC bias blog is now part of your job spec.
What’s even more amazing is that the BBC consider Ed Balls’s press release to be a more important story than the National Trust and NHS workers lambasting the government. They are currently political stories two and three…
The problem with BBC News is that it wants to inform, educate and entertain when all we require from it is information. If it stuck to what it should be doing BBC TV news bulletins could be 10 minutes long rather then the 30 they currently are.
BBC news should leave the entertainment and education bits to Eastenders and Flog It respectively.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7076231.stm
A straight report of what some people think, with no hint that other people think differently. How odd. Has the BBC decided that these people think so correctly that nobody else’s opinion need be heard on the issue?
BBC: “Pakistan has been engulfed in political upheaval in recent months, and the security forces have suffered a series of blows from pro-Taleban militants opposed to Gen Musharraf’s support for the US-led “war on terror”.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7077310.stm
I can see that it must be hard for the BBC to make out that the “pro-Taleban militants” aren’t too bad and at the same time have something left over to blame US for. “suffered a series of blows” what’s that, a bit of a punch-up? Oh! The BBC means terrorists that are opposed to Gen Musharraf’s support for the war on terrorists.
The BBC are desperate to make as much political capital as they can out of a Conservative candidate (not even an MP!) who has made some comments about immigration. It is apparently the second most important story worldwide according to the BBC News website at the moment. The headline uses the words “Migration row” – well, who started the “row” in the first place?
And why is the word “Tory” used in the headline and then Conservative in the sub-headline? Presumably because the word Tory has more negative connotations at first sight – those same old Tories etc. etc.
Apropos the Enoch Powell story. Radio 4 news, 8.00 am, the newsreader spoke of “Enoch Powell’s rivers of blood speech” and a BBC correspondent said “Enoch Powell predicted rivers of blood”.
Well of course he never used the words “rivers of blood” and the words he used did not so much “predict” anything as to express fears of where we might be going if we did not address the issues created by immigration, specially in our cities.
The phrase “rivers of blood” in particular, and in association with Powell’s name, has become part of the vocabulary of the left. The BBC should not be using it in its news bulletins as shorthand for what Powell actually said.
Yes, interesting that the comments of a local candidate with his ear to the ground are given second spot in the national news, whilst the revelation that 8 out of 10 new jobs created over the last few years have gone to immigrants, doesn’t rate a mention. Or the fact that there are an additional 500,000 British out of work !
The bbc , proud to support the labour party.
Andrew Marr has again raised the issue on the BBC of fewer black and Asian people coming to England if immigration outside the EU is tightly conrolled.This is clearly the line the BBC is taking aginst the Tories.
Labour’s poodle Marr tried to raise this obscure candidate’s words several times this morning, and allowed Hain to get away completely unchallenged over future population growth, whilst pressing Osborne several times to give an answer he had no interest in receiving from the government.
Great response from Osborne to Baroness Kennedy, who was playing the racist card, about Brown’s “British jobs for British Workers” quote she couldn’t answer, exactly the sort of comment an unbiased interviewer would also have raised with Hain when he was playing exactly the same card.
What was it that Margaret Hodge said last year? No racist underbelly discussions from the BBC in that one for some reason.
“And why is the word “Tory” used in the headline and then Conservative in the sub-headline?”
Because headlines always used the shortest words possible, so as to fit more in. That’s why every argument or debate is a “row”. Most people don’t see any difference between “Tory” and “Conservative”.
can we shorten Labour to Red then?
Ross to be paid an extra £100,000 to host next year’s BAFTA awards:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2801114.ece
The Conservatives must be maschochistic then because no one calls them Tories more than themselves. It may have been a derogatory term…in 18th Century Ireland!
Enoch Powell’s speech is popularly known as the ‘Rivers of blood’ speech. Whether you are right wing or left, thats what it is called…
“Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’.
Read more on that well known bastion of the left: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech
Backwoodsman: “The revelation that 8 out of 10 new jobs created over the last few years have gone to immigrants, doesn’t rate a mention”
Where have you been for the last week?!?!
(I’m not sure about your figures, it was reported as 52% of jobs since Labour came to power 10 years ago, but I stand to be corrected on that point.)
Re BBC pronunciation. Barthelona is wrong if you’re speaking Catalan. Our daft friends at the BBC all reckon they can “do” Spanish and so “th th th th” all the time, right or wrong. Careless. Same as they are with pretty much everything I would say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/default.stm
‘Filthy Conservative (boo-hiss) says something naughty’ is apparently a more important story than ‘Government to press ahead with spending £5.5 billion on the unpopular and unecessary ID cards’. It’s also more important than ‘Government to increase detention limit despite no need to do it’. Had America been trying to do such a thing, you can bet the BBCs army of human rights fanatics would be wheeled out.
Re. ID Cards:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/7077767.stm
(I’m not sure about your figures, it was reported as 52% of jobs since Labour came to power 10 years ago, but I stand to be corrected on that point.)
Bill | Homepage | 04.11.07 – 12:27 pm | #
You stand to be corrected, Bill – and you will be.
The 52% figure is Thursday’s news.
Today’s news is that new figures from the ONS show that 81% of new jobs have gone to people born abroad
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2801894.ece
I would have thought that, working for a £3Bn a year news gathering machine, you might have picked up the story that’s all over the old dead tree press today.
Why am I unsurprised?
Bill I never said it wasn’t mentioned, just that the candidate story was apparently more important in terms of their priority on the page. Plus, I’m not sure how well you help your case by pointing me to an article packed with plenty of government spin about ID cards, and which gives Harman another unchallenged mouthpiece.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7077944.stm
Kelly sorry over leaflet funding
Ruth Kelly has apologised for breaking rules on using public money for party political material.
The article itself is pretty netural, imo, so well done on that count, but the supposed importance of the article leaves much to be desired. It’s been placed in the top left, as a text-link, under “other top stories”.
I would think a minister appropriating public money for a party political agenda, in clear defiance of the rules (are these rules, or laws?), would rank pretty highly.
I would think a minister appropriating public money for a party political agenda, in clear defiance of the rules (are these rules, or laws?), would rank pretty highly.
BM | 04.11.07 – 5:45 pm | #
It’s not on the front page now – you’ve got to click once to reach the site, again to select “UK” and then to read the story.
What I call a “three click” smokescreen.
Does this mean that 81% of new jobs at the BBC have gone to foreigners in the past 10 years?
I doubt it, with the BBC motto being:
“Do as we say, not as we do.”
Good news from Afghanistan which is presumably why it hasn’t turned up on al-Beeb yet:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071104/ap_on_re_as/afghan_child_health
Bill:
Enoch Powell’s speech is popularly known as the ‘Rivers of blood’ speech.
Whether you are right wing or left, thats what it is called…
.
Widely known and popularly in some circles – but few people I know hear that description without pointing out its inaccuracy.
“Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’.
Well that at least is a direct quote – but he did not – as claimed by a BBC correspondent in today’s R4 news predict “rivers of blood”. The entire text of the speech is readily available.
Read more on that well known bastion of the left: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Riv…of_Blood_speech
Ah – the same Wikipedia that has half a dozen edits by the CIA reported as headline news by the Beeb and, was it 7,000 by Beeb employees NOT reported by the Beeb?
More on Powell. His speech is now (BBC Radio 4 News, 21.00) “Enoch Powell’s notorious rivers of blood speech”.
This is all typical of liberal media kidnapping the truth.
As a young politically involved observer in the West Midlands in the late 1960s it was clear to me that immigration was an issue that mattered deeply to most working class people not because they were racist but because it affected them directly and adversely in a range of ways. The labour party did not want to know and the conservatives were understandably frightened of being labelled as racist if they made other than the most bland comments on the issue (liberal media/labour cosiness, there).
Powell, after some years of growing concern, made his Birmingham speech – and it spoke directly to the concerns not of right wing racists but of working class voters, Labour and Tory (or “Unionist” as they still often referred to themselves in Birmingham), who had felt for years that their concerns were being ignored by all the political parties and that they were not really “allowed” to voice such concerns.
Perhaps to a younger generation of commentators (right and left) it is not clear how sterile political debate on race and immigration had become in Britain in the late 1960s. There was minimal actual debate and the subjects could not be spoken about in a political context without cries of “racist” and “Nazi” being bandied about. Not being allowed, as they saw it, to voice their deep concerns on such issues alienated ordinary voters from the political system and drove them into the arms of extreme organisations of the far right.
Powell put the concerns of ordinary voters firmly on the political agenda. He changed that agenda and the vocabulary in a way that made our treatment of the issue – though still far less honest than that in US politics – more honest and more responsive to ordinary people’s needs and concerns.
My own view as a “liberal” Tory then and now is that Powell, by making the speech, was actually reducing the chances of the sort of outcomes he is supposed to have been predicting. That is not to say that the points he made in his “notorious” speech are not, many of them, as relevant to current conditions as they were in 1968.
Please keep your comments on-topic.
Nigel Hastilow is STILL on BBC Views Online’s mainpage – where he’s been all day long.
For a contrast take a look over at Sky:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/home
The story is there under the “most read” section, proof that Sky have featured it, but now it has rightly moved off their mainpage.
Bias in action BBC style.
The campaign coincides with the start of union talks with the BBC over redundancies after the corporation announced last month it would cut 2,500 posts to bridge a £2bn funding gap.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7077704.stm
Funny that!