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 BBC TOADY show is giving a platform to the “muslim council of Britain”(why is the word ‘Great’ missing from the title?) According to Bakri we(infidels?) are to blame for everthing(and the Jews of course) and ‘his’ muslim community is being “unfairly targeted” in the search for terrorists. Hmmm! I thought that all islamist terrorists were muslim? So what group should be targeted in the hunt for islamist terrorists? Perhaps Christians should be targeted as a show of even handedness? or maybe its the Sikhs/Hindhus who are realy to blame?
But then we get to the real issue, if only the Infidels gave the ‘MCB’ more political power and “legal protection” and if only the Infidels adopted the islamic way of life, then we could all live in perfect harmony Etc Etc Blah Blah.
Why does the BBC feel the need to give a platform to such an anti-British and pro-islamist and unrepresentative pressure group? How many of this ‘council’ are elected by anyone?
Does anyone think that the BBC will give airtime to ‘MCB’ critics?
The BBC, useful idiots and appologists
for evil! Its what they do(best)
I think that such terrifying views should be aired. They show what horrific attack our civil society and culture are coming under from all sections of Muslim society. If they had their way, we would probably be soon burning ‘witches’ at the stake again (or at least hanging them from gantry cranes). The issue is whether those with counter-views are given at least equal treatment and exposure on Today, and whether the true nature of the organisation involved is properly explored by BBC journalism (is the Council ‘moderate’ as it claims or just a cloak for extremism and bigotry). My impression is a firm ‘no’, though maybe JR can find evidence otherwise.
UN chief makes Antarctica visit – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7088435.stm
” Mr Ban – the first UN chief to visit the continent – wanted to see for himself the effects of climate change on the world’s largest wilderness.
After flying over melting glaciers, ”
IT’S SPRING ! Of course the glaciers are melting.
“Antarctica is home to about 90% of the world’s ice, but scientists say some parts are melting fast.”
Some parts=less than 1%. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, the vast bulk of the place, is putting on ice.
How many greeny lies can the BBC produce before they can be sued for something ? Because that is the only thing that is going to stop this constant stream of propaganda.
Robin | 10.11.07 – 12:43 pm
whether the true nature of the organisation involved is properly explored by BBC
I’d say the BBC has a pretty good record in exploring the true nature of the MCB.
It was John Ware’s Panorama entitled ‘A Question of Leadership’ that first led the Government to recalibrate its relationship with the MCB.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4727513.stm
The Antartic ice sheet has actually been GROWING year-on-year. But, of course you won’t hear that from the BBC. The naivety and simple-mindedness has no bounds.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0520-08.htm
The muslim council of evil racist britain is apparently being allowed
to air its `professional victim` propaganda virtually unchallenged.
It`s premise appears to be we are starting to distrust and isolate muslims as the nazis did the jews in germany.
My grasp of history pertaining to jewish acts of terrorism in germany
prior to the 1939-45 war is woefully lacking,perhaps someone could enlighten me,JR?
or any beeb dhimmi?
The case for isolation is valid but never clarified in that it is self imposed.
Mistrust? Why should we mistrust a faith that openly admits it judges ours to be worthless and would like to impose it`s absurd medieval mores and values on our our open,free and secular society.(oh yeah they bombed trains and buses)I can`t help but feel that were bbc interviewing one of the barking mad idiots of the bnp every inconsistancy and absurdity would be challenged,however as usual `hands off the muslims`
Not up for the challenge auntie?
scared of a little fertilizer and hair bleach?
They should hang their heads in shame.
Saturday morning’s Today programme.
Stephen Bell – Economist – The fuel efficiency of the average American car has actually been deteriorating as they have moved to these monolithic SUV thi…
Naughtie – Extra-ordinary isn’t it.
…ngs
Yes, as usual Naughtie was in like Flynn when the chance came to have a snipe at his hated Americans.
—————————————————————-
James Naughtie in China
See blogs and pictures from Shanghai , Yichang, Lanzhou , the train journey to Lhasa and Tibet.
Business Class all the way and no worries about enlarging his carbon footprint.
Extra-ordinary isn’t it.
The BBC poll about people’s views about ‘green’ issues seems to have been a prelude to a week of environmentally themed programmes on BBC World Service. Every programme seems to have a green theme, all completely and unashamedly biased towrds the view that man is the problem. Even the World Football programme was not immune, and David James, the premiership goalkeeper was wheeled out yet again as a green champion. Mr James used to play for the club I support and I took my nephew to watch the players train. Mr James does not drive a small economical car – that wasn’t mentioned on the programme.
John Reith,
The link you supplied(thankyou)was 2yrs old and the interview was with Sacranie, a moderate pushed out by increasing militancy?
So why would the BBC give airtime to such a despicable bunch of terrorist sympathisers/racists? The truth is that the BBC has treated these evil people with undue respect and defference and by giving them a platform to extoll the ‘virtues’ of stoning women to death Etc you validate their sick and warped agenda!
Pete,
The Thames flood barrier was designed to withstand a twenty metre tidal surge, so it was in no danger! The BBC had political orders to talk up the danger to make Gordon Browns ‘riding to our rescue’ look impressive. In the end it turned out to be a damp squib and Gordon Brown was found out yet again in his cynical self promotion games, ably assisted by the political arm of the Labour party, the BBC of course.
Here is the muslim council of britain story on the web: news.bbc.co.uk/…
It has been re-written several times since I first spotted it about 12 hours ago. I’m not sure why – its not breaking news: its based mainly on an interview in the DT. It seems inefficient to keep re-visiting a story in this way.
But there is some fascinating stuff here. We learn that “”A lot of what it [islam] says is relevant and important to our society today, but at the same time Muslims have to acknowledge that the West has an awful lot to teach the Muslim community as well,” she said.
“The importance of democracy, the importance of the individual, I think it’s very much a two way street.” (Farmida Bi of “Progressive British Muslims”)
Interesting – no specific examples of which bits of islam are relevant or important. Never mind, Dr Bari of the MCB fills in the gaps for us: “Muslim principles can help social cohesion – family, marriage, raising children with boundaries, giving to the poor, and not being too greedy,” – thanks for that, Doc.
He goes on… “there was no justification for suicide bombing, but“ – guess you know what’s coming now, yes “suicide bombers were victims as well as aggressors”
and – yes its time for some more excuses – “Children come to hate when they don’t get enough care and love. They are probably bullied, it makes a young person angry and vulnerable… the people who become suicide bombers are really vulnerable.”
Hang on a minute – what about those muslim values ? We now have muslim children, growing up on muslim families without enough care and love. Bullied. Vulnerable.
He also repeats the “must work both ways” idea – but then seems to describe a one-way street where we all convert to islam for our own good. This last bit was stronger in earlier versions of the story and has been played down in the more recent versions.
How dare they compare their situation with the plight of Jews in Nazi Germany. They, Muslim, Islam, Arabs, call them what you like, openly loathe and hate the Jews. They aligned themselves with Hitler in WW2 and tried to get him to build concentration camps in the Middle East to exterminate Jewish people there. Their ability to twist, lie and distort is breathtaking. It is time people asked just what is it we have in our midst.
It was John Ware’s Panorama entitled ‘A Question of Leadership’ that first led the Government to recalibrate its relationship with the MCB.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr…ama/ 4727513.stm
John Reith | 10.11.07 – 5:49 pm | #
I remember that programme well, JR, and I absolutely agree that it caused some scales to drop from Home Office eyes.
I think what a lot of us can’t understand is that it didn’t have the same effect on the rest of your BBC colleagues.
MCB spokesmen still get trotted out on BBC programmes with great deference, as if they were legitimate representatives of UK muslims in general.
Those pesky ‘vandals’ have been letting boar out again. So nothing to do with animal rights nutters, then.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7070000/newsid_7073900/7073909.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7089131.stm
Why is the headline of this article ‘Shut up, Spain king tells Chavez’, as opposed to the more accurate and logical ‘Dictator calls former democratically elected national leader fascist’?
Nothing to do with Chavez being the current champion of the lefties…
New TV scandal as BBC foxes viewers again
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/11/nfox111.xml
The BBC, Cher songs ,its hatred of America, and half a story.
Spring forward, fall back
We think of time as tied to the seasons, but politicians have been tinkering with clocks and calendars for centuries. George Bush is the latest to do so.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7087502.stm
The BBC publishes a subtle diatribe on the Anglo Saxon world by claiming that the surreptitious implementation of an earlier start day and a later finish to Daylight saving (DST)in the States was more of a political sop in which to try and appease the rest of the world over how the US hadn’t signed up to the Kyoto Protoco and supposedly makes a significant contribution to energy conservation.
And here is what the BBC don’t tell you;
1) The new DST times was included in the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) 2005 which was the first energy policy in 10 years. Here is what Preisdent Bush had to say when he signed it.
“For more than a decade, America has gone without a national energy policy. It’s hard to believe, isn’t it? We haven’t had a strategy in place. We’ve had some ideas, but we have not had a national energy policy.”
So what else did President Bush say that day;
“The bill recognizes that America is the world’s leader in technology, and that we’ve got to use technology to be the world’s leader in energy conservation. The bill includes incentives for consumers to be better conservers of energy. If you own a home, you can receive new tax credits to install energy-efficient windows and appliances. If you’re in the market for a car, this bill will help you save up to $3,500 on a fuel-efficient hybrid or clean-diesel vehicle. And the way the tax credit works is that the more efficient the vehicle is, the more money you will save. Energy conservation is more than a private virtue; it’s a public virtue. And with this bill I sign today, America is taking the side of consumers who make the choice to conserve.”
……………..
Thirdly, the bill I sign today will help diversify our energy supply by promoting alternative and renewable energy sources. The bill extends tax credits for wind, biomass, landfill gas and other renewable electricity sources. The bill offers new incentives to promote clean, renewable geothermal energy. It creates a new tax credit for residential solar power systems. And by developing these innovative technologies, we can keep the lights running while protecting the environment and using energy produced right here at home. When you hear us talking about less dependence on foreign sources of energy, one of the ways to become less dependent is to enhance the use of renewable sources of energy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050808-6.html
As for the BBCs cheap shot at DST.
Studies done in the 1970s by the U.S. Department of Transportation show that DST trims the entire country’s electricity usage by about one percent EACH DAY
http://testimony.ost.dot.gov/test/pasttest/01test/Lawson1.htm
(Note that report was written in 2001)
As much as the author cries foul play over how her mother is inconvenienced by DST. (Because she didn’t know??) I think she omits how the whole of the US will have had to change TV listings, transport timetables and of course their own clocks. Her Mother would have known. Plus at 8 hours difference what is stopping her from ringing at 11am her time?
(The strange thing is California where the author’s mum lives wants to go it alone and push the clock back all the year round.)
http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubNum=P400-01-013
Which was also written in 2001
The BBC, Cher songs ,its hatred of America, and half a story.
The BBC, Cher songs ,its hatred of England and half a story.(Part 2)
Spring forward, fall back
In October 1582, it was politics that decided the English not to follow suit when Catholic Europe complied with a papal edict decreeing that 10 days be removed from the calendar to bring it back in line with that in use in 325.
…………..
Across Catholic Europe that year, 4 October was followed by 15 October, apparently without much fuss…. Queen Elizabeth I’s Protestant administration chose not to comply. It was not until 1752 that the English calendar (and that of her American colonies) was finally brought into line with that of the rest of Europe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7087502.stm
In order to substantiates its claims the BBC kindly informs the reader that , the other bastion of Anglo Saxon intransigence in the world. England, was the only country in Europe which refused to conform to the will of the people. (No coincidence with our current relationship with the EU BBC?) and allow Pope Gregory XIII to hit the number 1 spot in the charts with his version of “If I could turn back time” in 1582.
And here is what the BBC doesn’t tell you;
Of the countries that immediately adopted Gregory’s reforms all were officially Catholic. Italy, Poland and Portugal…
France, Belgium, Luxembourg and parts of the Netherlands and Switzerland converted later in the year.
Prussia converted in 1610
Denmark (which then included Norway) in 1700
The remainder of Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands became Gregorian in 1701
Britain in 1752
Sweden changed in 1753.
As the Ottoman Empire slowly collapsed several countries followed their independence with a switch to the Gregorian calendar, including Albania in 1912. However, the process that finally united the calendars of Europe was ignited by the 1st World War.
Russia changed in 1918 (Which is why the Oct revolution is also known as the Nov revolution)
Turkey itself followed at the end of 1926.
Lastly the Eastern Orthodox Church has never fully accepted the calendar; it did introduce several changes during 1923 that brought them closer together.
http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa041301c.htm
Funny enough the BBC omits that in 1582 England was at war with the Spanish Catholic Empire and that the first British colony in America was formed in 1607 (25 years after the Gregorian calendar kicked off) here is what the BBC wrote about that first colony in May this year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6623023.stm
The BBC, Cher songs ,its hatred of England and half a story.
The BBC, Cher songs ,its hatred of America, and half a story.(Part 2)
Spring forward, fall back
In October 1582, it was politics that decided the English not to follow suit when Catholic Europe complied with a papal edict decreeing that 10 days be removed from the calendar to bring it back in line with that in use in 325.
…………..
Across Catholic Europe that year, 4 October was followed by 15 October, apparently without much fuss…. Queen Elizabeth I’s Protestant administration chose not to comply. It was not until 1752 that the English calendar (and that of her American colonies) was finally brought into line with that of the rest of Europe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7087502.stm
In order to substantiates its claims the BBC kindly informs the reader that , the other bastion of Anglo Saxon intransigence in the world. England, was the only country in Europe which refused to conform to the will of the people. (No coincidence with our current relationship with the EU BBC?) and allow Pope Gregory XIII to hit the number 1 spot in the charts with his version of “If I could turn back time” in 1582.
And here is what the BBC doesn’t tell you;
Of the countries that immediately adopted Gregory’s reforms all were officially Catholic. Italy, Poland and Portugal…
France, Belgium, Luxembourg and parts of the Netherlands and Switzerland converted later in the year.
Prussia converted in 1610
Denmark (which then included Norway) in 1700
The remainder of Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands became Gregorian in 1701
Britain in 1752
Sweden changed in 1753.
As the Ottoman Empire slowly collapsed several countries followed their independence with a switch to the Gregorian calendar, including Albania in 1912. However, the process that finally united the calendars of Europe was ignited by the 1st World War.
Russia changed in 1918 (Which is why the Oct revolution is also known as the Nov revolution)
Turkey itself followed at the end of 1926.
Lastly the Eastern Orthodox Church has never fully accepted the calendar; it did introduce several changes during 1923 that brought them closer together.
http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa041301c.htm
Funny enough the BBC omits that in 1582 England was at war with the Spanish Catholic Empire and that the first British colony in America was formed in 1607 (25 years after the Gregorian calendar kicked off) here is what the BBC wrote about that first colony in May this year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6623023.stm
The BBC, Cher songs ,its hatred of America, and half a story.
The BBC and its hatred of the Conservative party
Tory Aitken returns to front line
Disgraced former Tory Cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken is to be rehabilitated back into front-line politics by leading a study into prison reform.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7089183.stm
So tell me did the BBC refer to Blunket and Mandelson as ‘Disgraced’ when they found the old boy (Apparently not for Peter) network working in their favour.
The author of this drivel…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7087502.stm
…Lisa Jardine, daughter of Jacob Bronowski, has what sort of politics – right of centre or left of centre?
Answer:
Since the age of 16, she had been an active socialist – “I’ve moderated with age, though I’m still well to the left of Tony Blair…”
http://education.guardian.co.uk/academicexperts/story/0,,1687764,00.html
When can we expect “A POINT OF VIEW” to appear on BBC Views Online from a well-known right-of-centre person?
So tell me did the BBC refer to Blunket and Mandelson as ‘Disgraced’
Er — were Blunkett or Mandelson ever put in prison for lying to a court of law?
The list of ministers from both sides who have to resign for some irregularity or other is so long there’s almost no point in using the word “disgraced” for them.
“Tory Aitken returns to politics”
is the headline on the BBC’s news front page, leading you to this story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7089183.stm
Disgraced former Cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken, who was jailed for perjury, is to lead a study into prison reform for a Conservative policy group.
Well, it is a Conservative policy group in the sense that it was set up by a Conservative, has mostly Conservatives on its advisory board, and puts policy advice to the Conservative party. But how does this differ from the IPPR • and when have you ever seen the BBC refer to the IPPR as a Labour policy group ?
The Conservatives obviously do not regard the CSJ as a Conservative policy group :
Conservative Party spokeswoman said: “The CSJ and the Conservative Party are two separate entities and they make their appointments independently.
And returning to “Tory Aitken returns to politics” let’s see what Tory Aitken has to say for himself :
Mr Aitken added: “I don’t regard this as any kind of Aitken comeback. I regard it as a job to be done and an assignment. “This is something I can contribute to, not that this is some sort of ladder for me.”
Stephanie clague | 11.11.07 – 5:48 am
they chose to air the MCB side with NO rebuttal whatsoever!
This is simply not true.
The ‘new’ point made by Bari (and consequently the focus of the story) was his accusation that the Government’s anti-terrorist laws singled out Muslims. In every bulletin I heard this point was rebutted by a government spokesman’s statement denying this was the case and making plain that the laws apply to all • irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion etc.
….for a National broadcaster to air the views of a bigoted and racist organization….
The whole point of the BBC charter is that it obliges the BBC to air the views of all significant parties to any controversy • whether they’re bigoted, racist or evil.
BBC programmes frequently make criticism of the MCB and critics of the BBC get a platform too. Douglas Murray, for instance, probably holds the record (or at least, rivals Charlie Falconer for it ) for the highest number of appearances on Question Time in any twelve month period.
The Panorama programme, which you so airily dismiss, was key in exposing the MCB’s links with the Muslim Brotherhood and similar radical political groups. The BBC has closely reported moves in the Muslim Community to find more moderate spokesmen • e.g. the Sufi Muslim Council etc.
… the MCBs evil justification of suicide murders and stoning people to death Etc is plain wrong?
I haven’t checked the MCB’s policies on these, but I suspect that they do not openly advocate suicide murders (at least in the UK) or stoning people to death. Surely it is their pretence of being ‘mainstream’ and ‘moderate’ that makes them dangerous.
I can assure you that the BBC is under no illusions about the MCB and that they will continue to be challenged, investigated and …when appropriate, exposed. However, impartiality rules also preclude focussing on these negative aspects every time the MCB is on air. They have a right to put forward their views. They have done so. If you want to contribute to the debate • directly or indirectly • then fine: challenge the MCB or join an organization that does.
But instead of doing that, all you seem to want to do is to shoot the messenger. And you reveal you bias in your choice of which messenger to shoot. In this case, the BBC was picking up on a set of controversial statements the MCB leader had given in an interview in the Daily Telegraph.
John Reith:
“The whole point of the BBC charter is that it obliges the BBC to air the views of all significant parties to any controversy • whether they’re bigoted, racist or evil.”
It doesn’t though does it John, because if it did then we wouldn’t all be here would we?
As far as I can tell the only bigoted, racist and evil views the BBC oblige to air (using the BBC charter as an excuse to do so) is their own.
Could you please show us ONE instance of the BNP’s views being aired on the Beeb with the same lack of opposition as those of your beloved pets the MCB?
No. Thought not.
Reg Hammer | 11.11.07 – 12:24 pm
…your beloved pets the MCB….
That isn’t how everyone sees the relationship.
Muslim leaders in feud with the BB-Muslim Council official claims Panorama is ‘pro-Israel’
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1548936,00.html
Here’s what the MCB itself says about the BBC and a couple of the programmes oft cited here at B-BBC:
…about Spooks –
The MCB is scheduled to have a face-to-face meeting on 2nd July with BBC1 controller Lorraine Heggessey and other BBC staff responsible for the screening of the Islamophobic and misinformed BBC fictional drama …’Spooks’- broadcast on BBC3 Digital on 2nd June 2003 and BBC1 on prime time on Monday 9th June. The programme reinforced the worst negative stereotypes and should not have been aired….
http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-214
on Panorama…:
We believe John Ware’s team have made a deeply unfair programme using deliberately garbled quotes in an attempt to malign the Muslim Council of Britain and with the barely concealed goal of drawing British Muslims away from being inspired in their political beliefs and actions by the faith of Islam..
http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-489
as for the BNP • oh are you another one then? • here’s Griffin being allowed to get his point across, though challenged at the same time. Which is how it should be. (If he hadn’t wasted his breath going off on a BBC-bashing excursion half-way, he’d have had even more time to develop his case.
Reg, there’s no point asking for just one instance of anything, because there’s always some old clip that Reith can drag up. What matters is the amount of times that different views get aired on the BBC.
There is good report of Jim Muir.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7089168.stm
Here he mentiones the improving situation in Iraq.
John Reith:
For years [since 9-11] the BBC blocked John Ware’s attempts to make a programmne about Islamic extremism.
Only after 7-7 was he given permission. Even the BBC realised that it could not deny the obvious and had to make at least one concession to reality.
bodo | 11.11.07 – 3:30 pm
I don’t know where you get that from.
Here’s an interview Ware did only one week after 7/7 from which it is clear that work is already quite advanced on the Panorama.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4681857.stm
John Reith,
The BNP clip you supplied was NOT a BBC interview was it? so what was the point of including it?
So the MCB is still in the process of making a complaint about a programme that is over four years old? Why do you bring up such an out of date example? Are you so short of rebuttal evidence that you have to go back 4yrs?
Your comment about the BNP was very informative to all here, The BBC would never dream of giving airtime to the BNP but you are more than ready to promote and validate some of the most wicked extremists and bigots ever to darken the UKs door.
Your comment about the BBCs duty to give equal treatment to all major political organisations is a plain lie. I am at a loss to understand how that fits with your leftist core values system!
A fair system of representation of extremist viewpoints(BNP/MCB)would be to put them in a ‘question time’ type enviroment with critics available to challenge both sides with difficult questions and the public would be able to see these people in their true colours, that would be fair and just and true to the BBC charter. I hate the BNP nearly as much as the MCB but I beleive that by denying them a democratic voice you validate their victim status.
It’s Gavin Esler hosting the BNP/Keith Vaz interview, on Newsnight by the looks of the captions.
John Reith:
Thanks for posting that link. I hadn’t seen it, but I watched it with interest. However, I feel that this clip entirely validates my point, as it is clear from this interview that Nick Griffin is CHALLENGED where as Keith Vaz is merely QUESTONED.
I also can’t understand your reasoning that the Challenging comes from the fact that he was “BBC Bashing” as you put it. He was making a fair comment that the BBC bandy the term ‘racism’ round like confetti at a Greek wedding. Anyone who dares criticize multi-culturalism in this country – reagardless of how reasoned the criticism is – is instantly labeled as a racist. And we all know that there are none so quick as to apply this label than Al Beeb.
When Nick Griffin is allowed to talk one-on-one with a BBC hack, THIS is the kind of treatment he gets:
An utterly pointless attempt from the interviewer to gain one upmanship on Griffin by posing a set of ludicrous hypothesis, that sounds like a really bad Ali G sketch.
“What if your bodyguards were black. What if they were Muslim. What if they were Jewish.”
I thought at any moment, the interviewer was going to say:
“Is it coz I is BBC?”
By his sneering, offish tone and his juvenille one-dimensional remarks, you get the impression that the interviewer is just trying to look ‘big’ in front of all his leftie BBC mates.
If Reith could please supply a link where such an interview style is enforced upon any member of the Muslim Council of Britian, it would be much appreciated.
bodo:
John Reith:
For years [since 9-11] the BBC blocked John Ware’s attempts to make a programmne about Islamic extremism.
Only after 7-7 was he given permission. Even the BBC realised that it could not deny the obvious and had to make at least one concession to reality.
bodo | 11.11.07 – 3:30 pm | #
John Reith:
bodo | 11.11.07 – 3:30 pm
I don’t know where you get that from.
Here’s an interview Ware did only one week after 7/7 from which it is clear that work is already quite advanced on the Panorama.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po…ics/ 4681857.stm
John Reith | 11.11.07 – 4:21 pm | #
Nice try at the well practised airy dismissal JR – but Bodo’s quite right.
I think he got it from Anthony Browne’s Times article in 2005:-
“John Ware, one of the BBC’s most-respected reporters, spent years trying to make a programme on Islamic fundamentalism in Britain, but was repeatedly blocked by senior editors who feared it was too sensitive.”
– and I think John Ware confirmed the problem in his own words talking to Mediaguardian last year (cautiously since he was talking about his employers):-
“for example, political Islam needs to be explored robustly on BBC1, it should not be tucked away late at night on BBC2. I wouldn’t be confident that Peter Fincham would agree with that.”
You really are a bit of a Goebbels with the misinformation, aren’t you?
John Reith | 11.11.07 – 11:50 am
Douglas Murray, for instance, probably holds the record ….. for the highest number of appearances on Question Time in any twelve month period.
Yeah, and he sticks out like a sore thumb. Dimbleby introduced him as a “neocon writer” during the latest Question Time. Funny, He’s done that before and he doesn’t pigeonhole his other guests like that. Could be that Murray is plonked in there to try to fool people that the programme is balanced.
John Reith | 11.11.07 – 1:05 pm
Re Muslim complaints about the 2003 Spooks, I suppose that’s why BBC dramas have become so bleached in PeeCee. The BBC has fallen into line like a good dhimmie and wont produce a drama that casts Muslims in a negative light.
On the other hand, the BBC feels free to produce any old insulting rubbish about Jews….er, sorry, Israelis – as in that one about the Mossad.
JR – check out the latest private eye on how spooks has descended into utter farce.
latest episode – peace loving iranian govt has an inside loony fringe trying to buy nuclear weapons. the evil americans are going to allow the loony fringe to do it so they can nuke the iranians.
very subtle isn’t it. geddit! Amerikka is evil. 6th form politics that we come to expect from the bbc.
next up for the in vogue bbc terrorist villains are rumoured to be fathers for justice.
again politically acceptable to the bbc as fathers for justice tend to be white and working class and the bbc don’t like them one bit.
as you no doubt know a “casualty” story line was also spiked as it featured our friends from the religion of peace and lots of explosions…
so don’t quote 2 year old links on this website JR
Story lines from Spooks or Casualty don’t really matter. The kind of person who watches such tripe is not going to care about such things so long as the programme dishes up the usual ration of romance, characters shouting at each other, car chases and special effects. The politically biased plots do nothing more than satisfy the programme makers desire to feel important and influential. When you spend your working life making such rubbish the temptation to feel important and influential must occasionally be too hard to resist.
Why, when reporting an interview with the MCB in the Daily Telegraph, in which the self-stated ‘voice of moderate Islam’ states that “‘Is stoning ever justified? “It depends what sort of stoning and what circumstances,” he replies. “When our prophet talked about stoning for adultery he said there should be four [witnesses] – in realistic terms that’s impossible’, is the headline ‘UK terror tactics ‘create unease’.
Surely knowing what these extreme pressure groups actually want is useful public education? And yet the article includes headlines such as ‘Learn from Muslims’, and leads with the highly sympathetic opening
‘The government’s approach to terrorism is creating an atmosphere of suspicion and unease, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain has said.
Muhammad Abdul Bari told the Daily Telegraph the amount of debate relating to Muslims was disproportionate.
He cited Nazi Germany in the 1930s as an example of how people’s minds could be poisoned against a community. ‘
No mention of his views on social policy ‘British people could, in his view, benefit from arranged marriages. ‘, closing down pubs and bars ‘the Government should consider banning drinking in public places, as it has done with smoking.’
I see the BBC are pushing the Johnathan Aitkin non story for all its worth?
Aitkin gets a job in an independent advisory group on prison reform, he is not back in the Tory party!
Is the BBC under orders from Gordon Brown to push this ‘non story’ to smear David Cameron? The BBC has for years pushed for the rehabilitation and re-integration of former offenders into society! Where has this Liberal reformist attitude gone? or does it only apply to everone just as long as they are not a former Tory? I seem to remember the BBC kicking up a gigantic fuss about plans to deport foreign criminals at the end of their sentences. It looks very fishy that just as Gordon Brown is doing badly at the polls, the BBC start pushing stories that try to link the Tories with sleaze? It seems that if you are a NuLabour crook like Blunkett or Mandelson Etc then its all ‘forgive and forget’ isnt it?
The BBC, proudly taking orders from the Labour party dirty tricks department, its what they do(best)
[The Moderator: Stephanie, please don’t post comments suggesting that the Gordon Brown and the Labour Party are issuing orders to the BBC and that the BBC is following them.]
In recent weeks some of the claims in this blog (with whose basic aims I’m in complete agreement) seem to be drifting into unreality.
Stephanie clague:
I see the BBC are pushing the Johnathan Aitkin non story for all its worth?
[SNIP]
Is the BBC under orders from Gordon Brown to push this ‘non story’ to smear David Cameron?
[SNIP]
The BBC, proudly taking orders from the Labour party dirty tricks department, its what they do(best)
Stephanie clague | 12.11.07 – 4:52 am | #
Are there actually contributors to this blog who REALLY believe that Gordon Brown gives orders to the BBC regarding its domestic news coveage or that the BBC “takes orders” from the Labour Party?
Wierd!
The problems with BBC news and bias are exactly those described in the 2006 quotes from Andrew Marr and Jeff Randall quoted at the head of Biases BBC’s home page..
Apropos Aitken there is a real news story there: he remains the only Cabinet Minister to be imprisoned for perjury this century (or possibly ever?). Despite Ms Claque’s description of Blunkett and Mandelson as “crooks” I’m not sure that they have committed serious criminal offences – perhaps she knows better.
Pete:
Story lines from Spooks or Casualty don’t really matter. The kind of person who watches such tripe is not going to care about such things so long as the programme dishes up the usual ration of romance, characters shouting at each other, car chases and special effects.
Pete | 12.11.07 – 1:25 am | #
Pete, to an extent I agree, but I don’t think that the BBC’s influence on people’s opinions is always overt. The pro-Muslim and anti-Israel storylines on Spooks are part of an ongoing, subtle bias that infests a great deal of the BBC’s coverage. This bias is (to my mind) more dangerous than overtly biased output, because it is the kind of thing that people absorb without thinking about it.
I know that my opinions on a lot of subjects have been influenced by just such constant, underlying bias – it’s only recently, for instance, that I have started to challenge the view that I was fed as a child about Margaret Thatcher (namely, that she was a raging individualist who ruled over an era of unalloyed selfishness that benefited no-one). I developed this view less from hearing Opposition politicians at the time, or since, denouncing the Thatcher government than from constant exposure to left-wing media telling me, usually in passing, how dreadful Thatcher’s regime was.
“Story lines from Spooks or Casualty don’t really matter”.
I completely disagree. The background assumptions of these standard sort of shows gradually filters into the mind of the sort of people who don’t usually watch Newsnight, but who do vote.
“In recent weeks some of the claims in this blog (with whose basic aims I’m in complete agreement) seem to be drifting into unreality.”
Matt, you should have seen this blog a year ago, it was full of loonies. The owners have done a good job getting rid of most of them. But there are still few half-nuts hanging around though.
Clarifications:
I am not ‘BJ’ (or even ‘Jonathan’ or ‘Jonathan [Cambridge]’).
The initials are co-incidence only and do not refelct on whether I agree with those posts or not.
The BBC, proudly taking orders from the Labour party dirty tricks department, its what they do(best)
[The Moderator: Stephanie, please don’t post comments suggesting that the Gordon Brown and the Labour Party are issuing orders to the BBC and that the BBC is following them.]
Stephanie clague | 12.11.07 – 4:52 am | #
In Stephanie’s defence, I think she was somewhat exaggerating to make a basically true point.
The Labour Party don’t need to issue orders to the Beeb, so many people in both organisations are linked by close ties of past employment, friendship or family that they are practically symbiotic – the message diffuses effortlessly in the pub or across the breakfast table.
The only way to restore impartiality is root and branch reform, by recruiting from a wider pool and eliminating the Beeb left/liberal “canteen culture” – we’re taking about “institutional” bias here (remember the Met – Beeboids?).
We’re doing our light hearted bit to highlight this problem at BBC Pioneers Blog, with our new Christmas Card Game – Lefty Beeboid Family Snap.
Check the home page.
Encouraging signs of mass hack-panic from Mediaguardian :-
Are reporters doomed?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/12/mondaymediasection.pressandpublishing3?gusrc=rss&feed=media
Yes…Yes…Yes!…..Please!
JRSIHG: What you say is okay. But that isn’t what Stephanie was suggesting.
(In other words, we don’t have any truck with “fake but true” here.)
Pete:
Story lines from Spooks or Casualty don’t really matter.
No – they matter a lot. They may not be meant to be propaganda or indoctrination but they have the same effect. Spooks is just one extreme example. Much Radio 4 drama has exhibited similar one sidedness over decades on issues such as Ireland (where the baddies were so often the RUC or the Army, and if paramilitaries the protestant ones), or on nuclear issues. Or indeed during the Thatcher years and for long after on social/political issues.
Apropos the Spooks plots, one can see the “dramatic” advantage (for lazy writers) of the plot twists – except that it’s become so predictable (a) that there will be a twist and (b) which way it will go!
And this is the underlying point, that these plots illustrate the intellectual atmosphere in which BBC writers work – they don’t probably realise that they are being biased and no-one whose job it ought to be to tell them realises either.
Telford:
JRSIHG: What you say is okay. But that isn’t what Stephanie was suggesting.
(In other words, we don’t have any truck with “fake but true” here.)
Telford | Homepage | 12.11.07 – 12:17 pm | #
Yes – I accept that
MattLondon | 12.11.07 – 12:20 pm
But just on this one thread we’ve heard complaints that Spooks has cast as villains: Israelis; Americans, and Muslims.
I’d guess the Chinese and some Balkan ruritania have figured too somewhere in the 6 series.
But have they put the French in the frame yet? Would that be too realistic? 🙂
This even-handedness in casting the villain’s parts seems to me the very opposite of bias.
If it were the Americans and the Israelis EVERY week, there might be grounds for complaint. But it isn’t.