, might as well have been a Labour Party Press Release – a jolly retelling of Ed Balls’ words, unencumbered by any opposition response (not even from the BBC’s favoured ‘opposition’, the LibDems), with, for good measure, a free kick at David Cameron at the end.
Biased BBC reader Pete points out another BBC Views Online story, NHS staff protest against reforms, apparently so universally uncontroversial that it too requires no balancing comment.
Reimer, I heard that BBC radio 5 broadcast too. It was one of the most unbalanced programs I have ever heard on the BBC. The BBC can’t really understand how the world has left it behind. That’s why it is dying.
The BBC should die gracefully. I get the feeling it won’t. Who cares?
On Radio 5 Live this evening (Richard Bacon Show) they are discussing the impact of the internet on news delivery and entertainment. The BBC is terrified. The BBC seems to know it is the best way of delivering news and entertainment to the people but is unsure of how it can convince them of this fact!
The BBC is past its sell by date. We should pension off the old stagers at the BBC and sack the rest. The BBC might have been a good idea in 1926. In 2007 it seems nothing more than a way to employ the dead beat scions of the south east and their lower class hangers on.
WHY THE BBC IS KEEPING QUIET ABOUT KIRSTY WARK
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=492360&in_page_id=1770
Somewhat patronising presenter Kirsty Wark has been drawn into a story you WON’T be hearing on Newsnight…
The Today news headlines at 8 o’clock contained this one: “Tesco today continues its relentless expansion…”.
“Relentless” seems to me to carry clear implication of disapproval and I wonder why it was thought necessary to include the word. Could it be because the company concerned is a nasty profit-making business that is successful? Would such a word have been used to describe, say, a non-profit making organisation that expands out of its core activity and acquires Lonely Planet?
On R4, Today, just now: it’s the anniversary of the Ininskilling bomb so they decide to have two commentators/academics discuss whether such things will be “air-brushed” out of history or distorted to fit the political needs of the “sides”.
Quite a lengthy, unhurried discussion, some sideswipes at the British Empire’s historical record, some arguments that “all” sides had things to be ashamed of – quoting the British first – and implying some sort of moral equivalence, the view, unchallenged that all public memorials were “political” and, of course, unless I missed it, no mention of terrorism – or indeeed of the victims.
The two commentators were not BBC staff but their choice, and the angle the interview took says so much about the moral intellectual world the Corporation seems to inhabit.
MattLondon
The BBC cannot bring itself to deliver outright condemnation – or choose commentators who might deliver the same – where the British or Irish whose ancestors fought for Britain – might be on the “right” side (ie in Enniskillen, innocent victims of terrorists). It’s the same mindset which used the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire as an excuse, not for congratulation or celebration but, to condemn our ancestors in respect of the slave trade and slavery by, among other things, giving inordinate airtime to the usual race hustlers.
BTW if you were listening at the time, you will have heard that the editorial line on this morning’s “Today” is that the “real” news coming out of Iraq is that “more US soldiers have been killed this year in Iraq than since the year after the invasion”. We are also told – as an apparent but not very important afterthought – that owing to the “surge” there has been markedly less terrorist activity in Baghdad (and elsewhere): this success though, the BBC reporter seeks to imply, is probably temporary. The following interview with a cleric in Baghdad confirms this success but the cleric, although relieved, is strangely reluctant to give the US military (which apparently has suffered the increasing casualties to ensure this success) his thanks or appreciation.
Roland Deschain | 08.11.07 – 8:55 am
“Relentless” seems to me to carry clear implication of disapproval and I wonder why it was thought necessary to include the word.
‘Relentless’ means exhibiting no let up in intensity or pace.
It implies no moral judgment and any note of disapproval exists only in your imagination.
Ronald | 07.11.07 – 11:08 pm |
Yet more propaganda from Newsnight, who are again banging on about the “gap between rich and poor”. Paxman declares that this is a major preoccupation of the people of Britain. But most people don’t care that much about it. It’s the BBC and other leftists who are obsessed with this issue.
Wrong again. And in every particular.
On the eve of their Brighton conference the party leadership published an Ipsos-Mori poll which revealed that 84% of voters think the earnings gap between rich and poor is either “too large” or “much too large”. A majority of Conservative voters (55% to 39%) also believed “the richest people in Britain should pay more tax”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,2170699,00.html
John Reith:
You can’t help your patronizing rebuttles can you Reith? Peering over your half moon specs at everyone like some dusty boarding school headmistress.
I think the original poster is fully aware of what ‘Relentless’ means. And to any polite individual – yourself undoubtedly excluded – it is a terse and uncomplimentary adjective.
As you work for Al Beeb you can be excused for being unable to grasp such a rudimentary understanding of semantics.
I see BBC Arabic is helping the enemy get their message across:
http://www.ameinfo.com/137585.html-
Isn’t this what William Joyce (“Lord Haw Haw”) was hung for after the last war?
John Reith spins in his grave:
You’re certainly right; from reading Lord Haw Haw’s wikipedia entry:
“Among many techniques used, the Nazi broadcasts prominently reported on the shooting down of Allied aircraft and the sinking of Allied ships, presenting discouraging reports of high losses and casualties among Allied forces.”
Sound familiar?
Reg Hammer | 08.11.07 – 12:06 pm |
I think the original poster is fully aware of what ‘Relentless’ means. And to any polite individual – yourself undoubtedly excluded – it is a terse and uncomplimentary adjective.
Oh really?
As sure as the sun will rise, my memories of you will never fade and the relentless joy of them will always shine through……
the relentless happiness these children possess is inspiring to say the least! …
with clinical precision and relentless good sense….
his relentless generosity and remarkable philanthropy. ……
http://regan-pemberton-slater.gonetoosoon.co.uk/my_tributes.php
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=relentless+happiness&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Foundations-Neuroscience-M-Bennett/dp/140510838X
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E5D7163AF936A25752C0A9609C8B63
…{you} can be excused for being unable to grasp such a rudimentary understanding of semantics.
It’s clearly you who needs the lessons in semantics, Reg.
Reith: “Wrong again. And in every particular.”
Reith, there are plenty of polls showing that the majority want less tax. Once again, you’ve merely picked a result that suited you, in the classic BBC way.
Anyway, the point is not how many people say they agree with a question that is asked of them, but whether it is a major preoccupation of the people. For example, even if most people said “Yes” when asked whether they were in favour of more government funding for sport, it doesn’t follow that it’s a major preoccupation for them.
And it isn’t. There are plenty of surveys around that ask people to talk about their major preoccupations, and they generally don’t, as far as I’m aware, list the gap between rich and poor amongst them.
Of course there is a proportion of the population that is obsessed with this issue, but then there is also a proportion of the population (which is probably a similar number) who are obsessed with taxes being too high, but you rarely hear the BBC say the people are obsessed with taxes being too high.
As for your comment about “relentless”… who you think is going to fall for such an obvious deception? Have you just given up?
It’s clearly you who needs the lessons in semantics, Reg.
John Reith | 08.11.07 – 12:29 pm | #
What a pathetic post JR.
Your sources for your patronising polemic on english useage include a random bunch of unknown hacks, photo captions and classified ads.
If I could be bothered to waste the time – I’m sure I could prove via google that “he went” is the correct third party past tense of the verb “to say”.
Still, as a paid up beeboid I’m sure you’re pefectly well attuned to the subtle semantic undertones of words like “relentless” after all – it’s what we do.
The BBC and a party political broadcast for the Islamist party in Egypt
(With obligatory dig at the US)
What price democracy in Egypt?
In 2005, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared the Bush administration was backing democracy throughout the Middle East. But on a trip to Egypt earlier this year, Justin Webb discovered that there was still a long way to go.
A nice woman called Anne Stawski answers the phone. She is the head of media relations for OshKosh Trucks in the evocatively named city of OshKosh, Wisconsin. Oshkosh Trucks’ latest success is to sell to the Egyptian government. “Are there countries OshKosh Trucks would not do business with?” “Yes, but Egypt is fine.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7075445.stm
Strange how the BBC omits how every Middle-eastern country bar ‘Israel’ isn’t democratic. Where security police stalk the streets looking for people to arrest. The fact that the tenets of Islam (which is the prevailing faith in the region) forbids democracy is all but lost on this excuse of a story on how religious bigots must be allowed to take control of Eygpt via the ballot box.
I did like this snippet at the end thou;
“I do believe – unfashionably, I suspect – that the United States is a force for good in the world. But that reputation has to be earned.”
The BBC and a party political broadcast for the Islamist party in Egypt
Amazing. The basic principles of Media 101 somehow don’t apply to the BBC. When Fox News uses the term “relentless” in this sort of way the Communications Professors tell their students that this is a subtle use of language to convey a negative impression. But when the BBC do it the word can’t possibly have a negative aspect to it, and anyway a BBC man found some positive uses of it on Google, so what’s all this talk about “implicit moral condemnation”?
Nevertheless John Reith, ‘relentless’ , nearly always infers a weariness on the part of those who are on the receiving end of the relentlessness. The words ‘tireless’ and ‘indefatigable’, whilst near synonyms, do not carry this inference. If you replace ‘relentless’ with either of the above words, would you feel the report’s meaning to be unchanged or has it become too pro-Tesco?
IPCC report says Ian Blair obstructed their work and witnesses say de Menezes received no warning. BBC website leads with ‘Police body urges shooting debate’.
Meanwhile, Reuters: ‘New report adds to pressure on London police chief’
Sky: ‘De Menezes Shooting: No Warning Heard’
Guardian ‘Report condemns De Menezes police ‘confusion’
John Reith:
Looking up a few instances on google doesn’t prove a thing. “Relentless” is clearly negative and you know it.
David Gregory is nice, Nick Reynolds is obtuse, but John Reith has just become a laughing-stock.
More BBC rubbish AGW propaganda about Bangladesh and how it is disappearing under rising sea levels. The only trouble is that sea levels are not rising! They even used a silly cartoon of Bangladesh vanishing under the sea! Its a ‘non story’ of course, high on speculative guesswork and plenty of IFs and MAYs but hard facts were absent. After watching this programme you would be left thinking that sea levels were already maybe 10ft higher? NO! Maybe 5ft higher then? NO! OK then 1ft higher? NO not even close! Well how about an INCH? Er NO(well why the scare mongering?)in fact Bangladesh floods because of rivers that flow from the moutains and higher hills during the monsoon season and it has NOTHING to do with supposed sea level rises.
So desperate is the BBC to sow fear and hysteria in the viewers minds, they happily lie and cheat and mislead and exagerate to push their warped AGW agenda. This ‘documentary piece’ is just one of a string of dishonest unproven ‘trash TV’ that the taxpayer is funding!
most likely will be deleted in 5 seconds,but anyway i found this in the daily mail,elvis costello says he wont play in the u.k anymore,part of the reason is the bbc….
He said the final straw for his relationship with his homeland was in July when he played at Liverpool’s Picket club.
He said: “On that tour the BBC asked Allen [Toussaint] and me to do an interview. They kept us waiting in reception for ages and then they said they didn’t want Allen on the show, they only wanted me.
“So I said, ‘OK, I won’t do it!’ Then they relented. What the f***? This guy is a guest in what used to be my country and you’re just embarrassing yourselves.”
Stephanie you may like this story;
“DHAKA (AFP) — Bangladesh plans to build an underground railway in Dhaka in the next five years at a cost of one billion dollars to ease traffic in one of the world’s most congested capitals, an official said Monday.”
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gfmMh6o2o0aURvqLZA8qLQqKxkuA
John Reith spins in his grave | Homepage | 08.11.07 – 12:53 pm
Your sources for your patronising polemic on english useage include a random bunch of unknown hacks, photo captions and classified ads.
I used those sources because I wanted to show ordinary, common usage. I thought that if I used quotes from literary or high-culture sources, I’d inevitably be accused of elitism etc.
But you, Reg and Jonathan are just plain wrong in insisting there’s a necessarily pejorative sense to relentless. Here are some more intellectually up-market examples to prove it:
Edward Hirsch writes in the American Poetry Review:
Here is a poem of relentless joy by the Italian poet Guittone d’Arezzo (1230-1294). I quote it first in the original Italian and then in Michael Spiller’s literal translation…..
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3692/is_199801/ai_n8784352/pg_4
Over at the Britannica site, one commentator writes of Charles Dickens’s ‘relentless sense of wonderment’
http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2007/03/charles-dickens-and-the-romance-of-repellant-things/
In his novel, Yellow Dog, Martin Amis writes of “the radiation of quietly relentless approval”.
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,,1031580,00.html
meanwhile, TIME magazine’s White House correspondent mentions Karl Rove’s relentless optimism.
http://time-blog.com/allen_report/2006/11/the_architect_speaks.html
JR:
This is _really_ labouring the point, but the examples you give above all connect to positive words (eg “wonderment”). This makes them almost oxymoronic. Relentless has by default a negative connotation unless you do this. Your exaples are the exception rather than the rule.
la marquise | 08.11.07 – 1:07 pm
Nevertheless John Reith, ‘relentless’ nearly always infers a weariness on the part of those who are on the receiving end of the relentlessness.
No it doesn’t.
Anyway, in this case, no-one is ‘on the receiving end’ of Tesco’s expansion.
One can expand transitively or expand intransitively. Here the latter is clearly the case.
The words ‘tireless’ and ‘indefatigable’, whilst near synonyms, do not carry this inference. If you replace ‘relentless’ with either of the above words, would you feel the report’s meaning to be unchanged ……?
These words could be applied to Tesco – an organism plausibly capable of being tired/not being tired -but not to an abstraction like ‘expansion’.
… or has it become too pro-Tesco?
In what sense do you think the BBC is ‘anti-Tesco’? Is it pro-Waitrose, Sainsbury’s or Morrisons? Or just anti-supermarket. If so, why?
(PS There’s a branch of Tesco built into the BBC’s White City Media Centre!)
Ah JR, now that you’ve got back from wherever you’ve been, I wonder if you’ve had a moment to consider my post from Monday – and, if so, whether you’d care to indulge me with your wit, wisdom and insight on the matters raised.
Jonathan (Cambridge) | 08.11.07 – 2:17 pm
‘Expansion’ is a positive word too – particularly when used in a business context.
Relentless has a number of precise meanings – one of them, as I said above, is ‘exhibiting no let up in pace’.
We need a word for that.
The attempt by a group of ideologically obsessed fanatics to insist that ‘relentless’ always implies a pejorative sense threatens to rob us of a useful word…..thereby impoverishing the language.
Reith, of course “relentless” isn’t *necessarily* pejorative, and can be used in a positive manner, just as it can be used in a negative manner (although you initially denied that it had any connotations at all, an untenable position which I notice you have quietly dropped). In the case at issue it was being used in a negative way — I don’t suppose you noticed any such examples in your Google searches, did you?
And it’s doubly misleading for the BBC to talk about Tesco’s “relentless expansion” because that also suggests that Tesco are taking over an area even though there is no popular support for what they are doing, when in fact they are only able to expand because they are offering what a great many people want. Their expansion would come to a sudden halt were people to decide that they didn’t want to purchase goods from Tesco any more. “Relentless expansion” is a phrase more suited to describe the activities of the EU or the BBC itself, not a supermarket acting in the marketplace.
The BBC website now has the three speeches by the political leaders for the Queen’s speech under UK politics on their video and audio page. The notable thing is – while Brown and Cable’s speeches are given in full – the opening minutes of David Cameron’s speech have been edited out. The speech therefore appears to begin abruptly with a serious section on Iraq and Afghanistan. Why? Could it be that the BBC did not want us to know about this section, which immediately precedes the Iraq/Afghanistan statement:
There is one other member of this House who left us recently. I am referring to the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair. I thought I’d better mention him, in case the current Prime Minister just omitted to mention him in his speech. Although Tony Blair achieved great mastery of this House, he couldn’t wait to get out of here. Many have asked: “What was the hurry?” I think I’ve found the answer. The new book by Dr Anthony Seldon, with the appropriate title “Blair Unbound”, tells us about the former Prime Minsiter’s fears for the future. It says: “He was worried about Gordon’s character and personality, the dark side of his nature, his paranoia and his inability to collaborate.” No wonder he has retired to the comparative safety of … East Jerusalem.”
Is this a case of deliberate censorship? It certainly looks that way.
Blithering Bunny | Homepage | 08.11.07 – 2:29 pm |
you initially denied that it had any connotations at all, an untenable position which I notice you have quietly dropped….
Nonsense.
I have been consistent in denying that the word itself is loaded. Naturally its use in any given context will determine whether it’s ‘positive’ (relentless joy/happiness/expansion) or ‘negative’ (e.g. relentless attack/assault/slaughter).
The word ‘increasing’ is similar. We could talk of increasing joy/happiness or increasing attack/assault.
Or do we have to be careful not to use ‘increasing’ in BBC reports too?
Whereas ‘relentless’ is completely neutral, there are words which really are ‘loaded’, and which really DO imply some sort of value-judgment.
By your own logic, the BBC should be wary of using them.
Words like ……’terrorist’…..for example.
relentless
• adjective 1 oppressively constant. 2 harsh or inflexible.
(From askoxford.com)
relentless
adjective
continuing in a severe or extreme way
(From dictionary.cambridge.org)
Definitions of relentless on the Web:
grim: not to be placated or appeased or moved by entreaty; “grim determination”; “grim necessity”; “Russia’s final hour, it seemed, approached …
persistent: never-ceasing; “the relentless beat of the drums”
BBC ‘requires language watchdog’
The BBC needs a language adviser to ensure its broadcasters use correct English, campaigners have urged.
The proposal was made in a letter to the chairman of the BBC Trust.
“Naturally its use in any given context will determine whether it’s ‘positive’ (relentless joy/happiness/expansion) or ‘negative’ (e.g. relentless attack/assault/slaughter).”
Yes! This is the very point being made! No-one said that it’s part of the dictionary definition of “relentless” that it was necessarily negative (although Gareth points out that actually it is that way). Many words have connotations and associations. And “relentless”, unlike “increasing” (which is pretty neutral), is a word loaded with associations, which can be manipulated by the use to which the word is put. Which you now seem to be admitting, after initially trying to fob us off with the claim that “relentless” was a neutral word with no associations, move along, nothing to see here
These connotations of “relentless” are usually negative, although positive uses obviously exist as well, for example, in sport where you might hear someone praised for being relentless in their efforts, or a policeman who is praised for their relentless pursuit of a criminal. But even here the implication is that the relentless person has some Terminator-like quality, which is good in those particular contexts, but few people like the idea of a company that acts like the Terminator.
Are you really going to continue to pretend that no negative connotations were intended in describing Tesco’s efforts in this way?
JR:
“Expansion” is a neutral word.
And don’t start throwing your dummy out of your pram with the “obsessed fanatics” thing. We’re _disagreeing_ with you. You have an odd view of the world if you really think “relentless” has a neutral connotation for most people. I suggest you need to read more, or get out more.
further, the use of “relentless expansion” would imply something invasive to most people. It’s _completely_ different from “relentless joy”.
JR
When in a hole etc etc………
Time to stop digging methinks.
As for “terrorism”, yes it is a word with very negative connotations. It is used to describe the act of murdering innocent people. If you really think you can compare this to the expansion of a successful company, well without waxing lyrical, another example of the BBC mindset…
Usually I use Google for search, but tried Microsoft Live Search for ‘Biased BBC’ … The first result is bbc.co.uk’s “BBC GCSE Bitesize History” with the following summary:
“In your exam you will need to show that you can evaluate sources for their usefulness. This exercise will look specifically at sources that are biased or influenced in some way.”
Oh the irony! Made me laugh anyway.
Blithering Bunny | Homepage | 08.11.07 – 3:08 pm
Are you really going to continue to pretend that no negative connotations were intended in describing Tesco’s efforts in this way?
Okay • so here’s an exact equivalent.
Wal-Mart unveils relentless expansion….. Announcing plans to increase its retail space by 8% next year, president Lee Scott said Wal-Mart would open, relocate or expand up to 180 supercentres, 40 discount stores, up to 20 Neighbourhood Markets and as many as 50 Sam’s Club outlets in the US.
That’s from the Grocer magazine.
Are you really going to pretend that Grocer magazine intended a negative connotation and is biased against …..take your pick…..Wal-Mart, superstores, the retail sector, capitalism…..whatever?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5245/is_200010/ai_n19604641
Here’s Planet Retail on the same phenomenon:
“the main engine of growth for the company remains its relentless expansion of its Supercenter format in the USA.
Are you going to pretend that Planet Retail • the e-magazine of the retail trade intends a negative connotation here?
http://www.planetretail.net/Home/PressReleases/PressRelease.aspx?PressReleaseID=30001
Well, if you’re still unconvinced, maybe this will settle it for you:
The supermarket said that it had nothing to fear … claiming that its relentless expansion was good for consumer choice.
Yes, that’s Tesco reportedly using the phrase ‘relentless expansion’ about itself (probably). Are you now going to insist there’s some negative connotation intended by Tesco about its own activities? Or, if paraphrase, are you going to claim the Times is biased in the same way as the BBC?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article739543.ece
No-one said that it’s part of the dictionary definition of “relentless” that it was necessarily negative (although Gareth points out that actually it is that way).
All Gareth’s post does is show words can have more than one meaning. Big deal. I think we have common ground that the context here would make most of Gareth’s choices unsuitable. He’s been a bit selective too. I can redress the balance with some definitions he left out:
Meriam Webster Dictionary Online:
Relentless – showing or promising no abatement of severity, intensity, strength, or pace
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/relentless
msn •encarta
never slackening, but continuing always at the same intense, demanding, or punishing level
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861700300/relentless.html
world web online
Never-ceasing
http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/RELENTLESS
What a strange selection of questions the BBC has chosen for its Newsnight/Radio 5 Live debate on immigration at 10.00pm tonight.
What has been omitted is more interesting than what is but it does show the BBC line on ‘acceptable debate’ is in these matters.
It is difficult to come up with a question more meaningless than the first one – Q.1 How good a job, if at all, do you think the Labour Government is doing in its handling of the immigration issue?
By pretending that what has happened is as inevitable as a bout of weather it sidesteps the issue of whether we were adequately consulted.
The yes or no option on ‘without immigrants coming to the UK our economy would suffer’ tightly constrains the answer that can be given.
More pertinent from the low wage earners point of view would be; have they forced wages down.
Another good question that people are not allowed to answer is; are the economic benefits outweighed by the pressure on housing, education and health?
Finally people should be asked if they think that all migrants from all countries are equally useful. They should be allowed to state their preference from which countries they would prefer to accept migrants.
Here’s the rest:
Q.2 Overall do you think that immigrants to the UK do more to help the country or do more to harm the country?
Base: All respondents
Q.3 How much of an impact, if any, has immigration had on your own community where you live: a great deal of impact, a fair amount, just a
little, or no impact at all?
Table 4
Q.4 I am going to read you a list of statements concerning immigration and its potential effects. For each one please tell me whether you agree or
disagree with it. Is that strongly or tend to agree/disagree?
Q.5 Overall which political party do you think can do the best job of handling the issue of immigration?
Base:
The full poll can be accessed online at the pollsters site at http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=81. The list of questons is on P.78/79 of the PDF.
Maybe some other people can think of other questions that could have been asked?
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history.html?q=blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history
John Reith’s relentless attempts to focus the conversation on the connotations of the word ‘relentless’ have not gone unnoticed by readers of this thread. Some people are beginning to question Reith’s motive for this, wondering whether he is afraid or unwilling to address the apparent instances of BBC bias described by Oscar (2.41p.m.) and Andrew (2.21p.m. and posts passim). After all, does winning an argument about the word ‘relentless’ aid the BBC’s cause in any way?
So the question still remains; is John Reith here to debate the issue of whether there is bias at the BBC in a fair and reasoned manner, or simply trying to lead everyone up the garden path?
John Reith:
Sorry John I didn’t see your earlier post because I was busy at work.
Can I just state this:-
Your relentless postings on this matter are duly noted.
Now please read that last sentence and ask yourself if there was any malice or scorn intended?
QED
Heron | 08.11.07 – 4:23 pm
A specific accusation of bias was levelled at the BBC based upon its use of the word ‘relentless’ in the phrase ‘relentless expansion’ about Tesco.
I hope I have now shown that the same phrase is widely used in a non-pejorative way, about Tesco by its friends and…seemingly… by Tesco about itself.
What this affair shows is that people here are finding bias where none exists.
Reading meanings into words or expressions that their authors did not intend.
That’s instructive.
I think it is common and that it would be better if people here set the bar rather higher when it comes to making bias allegations.
You raise Oscar’s point.
I’ll deal with that straight away.
The context is different in all those cases, Reith. As you well know. Describing your expansion as “relentless” to shareholders creates a positive connotation, because they’re interested in increased dividends, which they can now look forward to. But a BBC broadcaster who describes Tesco’s expansion to their listeners as “relentless” is implying something negative.
But don’t let me stop you trying to prove your point, I’ve never seen anyone fall into a hole this big who has dug quite so furiously.
The context is different in all those cases, Reith.
No, the context is exactly the same.
In the first case, Grocer magazine uses the phrase ‘relentless expansion’ about Wal-Mart in exactly the same way as the BBC does about Tesco.
The implied attribution of the phrase to a statement to shareholders is an error on your part. It is, in fact, part of the headline of the story.
It may seem puzzling why John Reith should wish to deny something so obvious and trivial that he makes a fool of himself in doing so, but when you think about it he has to deny it, just as he has to always deny that the BBC is biased whenever he’s asked.
Because the BBC is supposed to be impartial it can’t just come out and say what it wants to, it has to resort to all sorts of language tricks, and these have consequently become a stock-in-trade for it. So it must always deny that it manipulates language in such ways, otherwise it is admitting, in effect, that it isn’t always impartial.
So that’s why we’ve ended up with the situation where a supposedly educated man who is mysteriously unable to recognize that the phrase “relentless expansion” in this context has negative connotations. He cannot admit it, for to do so is to admit to something quite serious.
Further to relabelling “terrorists” as “extremists”, “misguided criminals” and “plumbers”, isn’t it great that the BBC have now downgraded “supporting mass murder through suicide bombing” to “supporting martyrdom”? And why aren’t I surprised?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7084801.stm
Lurker in a Burqua:
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
http://media.newsbusters.org/sto…st-scam-history
Lurker in a Burqua | 08.11.07 – 4:11 pm | #
From the same site, I noticed this hilarious item:-
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/un-climate-panel-discuss-global-warming-tropical-resort
Since JR’s around, I wonder if he can tell us how many beeboids will have to drag themselves away from their desks for the grim chore of a couple of December weeks in Bali.
A tough call I know, but when the planet’s in danger….needs must etc.
Reith, Grocer magazine is directed at people in the industry, who will take a different view of the matter than BBC listeners, although not necessarily a positive one — and I doubt that whoever wrote that headline in The Grocer thought that “relentless” is a neutral word that had no connotations for the reader — it was probably the emotive nature of the word that attracted it to him. But then, he’s under no obligation to be reporting in a neutral manner.
And Tesco might describe their expansion as “relentless” when they want to create the impression that they’ve been a successful business. In other contexts this would be an unwise choice of words.
But to use “relentless expansion” in a what is supposed to be an impartial news headline is just not on.