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 A | 20.11.07 – 4:51 pm
I normally try to stay out of the debates here about climate change • it ain’t my subject.
But in this post you are telling a downright blatant untruth:
Richard Black produced this statement as an excuse for why the BBC failed to report the Congressional Hearings into the Hockey Stick or the Wegman report thus:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/t…ech/ 7092614.stm
No he didn’t.
Go back and read the article you cite again and you will find that Black did not write the words in question ‘as an excuse as for why the BBC failed to report the Congressional Hearings’.
He used them as an explanation of why he did not need to expand on the matter in the (remarkably short) catalogue of alleged instances of bias among the academic/journals community that he was setting out in this particular article.
Big difference.
Dr R
You did not perhaps follow the link I gave to the other thread….? I deal with the costs issue there.
D Burbage:
Allan @ Oslo
Surely if the earth absorbs more than it gives out, it’s heating up?
If the equation was equal, then the temperature would stay the same….
The BBC makes the assumption that there is only one variable which establishes temperature on earth and that is the ppm CO2 in the atmosphere which, given that the earth’s temperature system is complex, is an absurdity.
As was pointed oout above, the earth generates heat from its core. That would not matter much if the output were stable – but is it? If the heat from the element of a light bulb were to vary, so too would the temperature of its surface. Just another variable for the MMGW crowd to ponder: but they won’t, and that’s the problem.
John R. cites others who have uttered the same urban myth concerning population density in Gaza as some justification for Bowens reiteration, but doesn’t seem to notice that the BBC, with more than £3.2 billion a year in tv poll-tax cash, should be offering a bit more depth and cogent analysis than simply repeating the same tired myths without any attempt to unpack what the belief is based on. The BBC is a biased, agenda driven organization no question, but more and more these days it comes across as intellectually/journalistically lazy as well. It really says a lot when an ‘experienced’ journalist based in the area can’t be bothered to probe and inquire beyond the common truths bandied about the hotel lounge.
Want to change the BBC? Stop paying for it!
How did this make it onto the BBC?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7103292.stm
Any comments on religiosity, “family values” and upright moral stances taken by community leaders welcome
An afterthought on my link above – perhaps this poor, and deeply religious, family now have a legitimate fear of oppression and face a serious risk of vioence in their nation or origin……….
Actually, an increase in the average temperature can be compatible with warming or cooling or neither. Thus global warming cannot be deduced from an increase in mean global surface temperature (assuming the parameter exists!).
There are two extremes on the environmental debate. The truth is somewhere between these two extremes.
It is absurd to suggest that the Earth’s climate is entirely dictated by what we exhale into it.
But it is equally absurd and silly to think that pumping tons and tons of chemicals into the atmosphere has no effect.
Both the greeny doom-mongers AND the sceptics are equally retarded IMHO.
A plague on both their houses.
MPAC are holocaust deniers who lift literature from neo-nazi sites:
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2006/02/08/mpac_lifts_more_material_from_neo_nazi_website.php
they also say 7/7 and 9/11 were orchestrated by government:
http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4174/34
So why are the BBC giving this ugly organisation oxygen in a puff piece about muslims?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7102519.stm
“Ibrahim Mogra, chairman of the interfaith Muslim Public Affairs Committee and an imam in Leicester”
Griff’s fake Nevis claim
TV presenter Griff Rhys Jones landed the BBC in another faking row yesterday after falsely claiming to have climbed Britain’s highest peak.
Griff, 54, told Mountain viewers he had finally conquered 4,406ft Ben Nevis on his third attempt.
In a voiceover for the BBC1 show he said: “I’ve made it to the summit of Britain’s highest mountain.”
From the Mirror article and a similar Telegraph version I’m not entirely sure when the producers knew. They admit Griff was unaware when he narrated the programme but did they deceive him or were they similarly unaware?
The explanation from the BBC is a bit weasely too. They didn’t have to lie and nor would the narration have to be overly technical. Would it have killed them to have Griff say he thought they got to the top but were mistaken because of fog?
Or even ask Griff to climb it again?
pounce:
I agree with your sentiments on the muslim sense of humour article:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7102519.stm
Of course it’s just yet more propaganda from the Islamic Press Wing of Al Beeb. But what on earth is it doing on their news pages? Who made the decision to write such an article and why? And where’s the opposing balanced view?
I guess that as the BBC has employed so many fanatics from it’s pet religion, they need SOMETHING to write about. But why is it they can write about NOTHING ELSE BUT MUSLIMS? I thought journalists needed to be knowledgable and flexible. It seems Al Beeb supplies one journalist per subject matter, hence why the place is over-run with talentless hacks.
The fact that they even needed to generate this article proves that the last bastion of Islamic indoctrination is to prove to us all they they don’t take murder and persecution all that seriously. No. They all know how to have a jolly good laugh too. Except at themselves.
Unfortunately for most of us – who don’t have Al Beeb’s Islamic obsessed sensibilities – a good sense of humour doesn’t involve laughing about
the Twin Towers falling to the ground.
Telly tax being used to attack white working classes in the name of multi-cultural indoctrinating drama.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=495236&in_page_id=1770
The Trojan Horse is that it claims to be exploring Britain’s “under siege” white working class, while of course using it as an excuse to prove what a bunch of ignorant racists the white working classes really are.
Nice going Al Beeb. Keep biting the hand that feeds you.
“The BBC is a biased, agenda driven organization no question, but more and more these days it comes across as intellectually/journalistically lazy as well.”
Indeed!
This latest news that global warming is real, because it has been found that the Earth is transmitting less heat radiation than it receives from the sun, is a classic cut and paste operation without any attempt to use grey matter.
One of the most elementary cautions in physical science involves the percentage error of the difference between two large and almost equal numbers. The normal metaphore would be atempting to weigh a ship’s captain by weighing the ship before and after he came aboard!
In the case of the Earth’s heat balance suppose that in the case of perfect balance( ie no global warming or cooling) both input and output were measured to be 1000 units with a measurement error of one tenth of one percent.
Then the true values could range between 999 and 1001 units.
The difference could range from -2 to +2 with a error magnitude of 400 percent and an uncertainty which cannot distinguish between net cooling or warming!
Now to get to the point.
This is not rocket science. It is included in any undergraduate physics course and is in fact simple enough to be explained to an average fifteen year old.
So why does the BBC not employ out of its 3 billion pound budget someone who has progressed beyond cntrl v and cntrl c?
Gordon, I think Ctrl v and then Ctrl c might be a better order in which to use these commands 😉
Mind you at the BBC maybe that sort of sophistication is only for senior journalists…
John Reith:
John A | 20.11.07 – 4:51 pm
I normally try to stay out of the debates here about climate change • it ain’t my subject.
JR – If you feel obliged to defend the bizarre ruminations of Mr Black, maybe you should try a bit harder.
The final paragraph of his article includes probably the most unscientific analysis I’ve ever seen from anybody with scientific pretensions:-
…..Andres Millan, who wrote to me on the subject from Mexico, offered another explanation for why scientific journals, research grants, conference agendas and the IPCC itself are dominated by research that backs or assumes the reality of modern-day greenhouse warming.
“Most global warming sceptics have no productive alternatives; they say it is a hoax, or that it will cause severe social problems, or that we should allocate resources elsewhere,” he wrote.
“Scientifically, they have not put forward a compelling, rich, and variegated theory.
“And until that happens, to expect the government, or any source of scientific funding, to give as much money, attention, or room within academic journals to the alternatives, seems completely misguided.”….
Black appears to be endorsing a view that resources and exposure for scientific research should be reserved for “compelling, rich and variegated theories”.
So if the boring truth is that nothing terribly exciting is happening to the climate and we don’t have to cripple our economies and rush back to the stone age – you don’t get any funding ‘cos it’s just tooo boring.
Science as a media event.
Tells you all you need to know about Black certainly.
I wondered if “John Reith” had a point, but upon re-examination it was sub-microscopic and avoided the central question:
If the Congressional Hearings and the Wegman Report were so extensively written about elsewhere, why did the BBC not report about them at all?
The rest stands, and the BBC is mute.
By the way, its been a while since we’ve had the standard BBC Olympic weasel position:
“We’ve been criticised by the left for not being X enough and by the right for being too X, so we think we’ve struck the right balance”
Oh and another cliché that really should be retired:
“There are two extremes on the environmental debate. The truth is somewhere between these two extremes.”
Crap. It is perfectly possible for one side to be wrong.
UN AIDS mob were wrong or deliberately so.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900978.html?nav%3Drss_email/components&sub=AR
“The United Nations grossly overestimated both the scope and direction of AIDS infections, its scientists will admit later this week. The actual numbers in almost every theater have proven to be much less than UN reports indication, in some places less than half of that asserted. Outside researchers say that their demands for government funding motivated them to essentially lie about the gravity of the situation:
The United Nations’ top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement.
“There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda,” said Helen Epstein, author of “The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS.” “I hope these new numbers will help refocus the response in a more pragmatic way.”
This kind of scientific work casts new doubt on other issues that the UN champions as well. Their panel on global warming will publish a new position, insisting that the situation is critical and that nations need to act now in economically-crippling ways to curtail emissions. As Scott Ott notes rather trenchantly, they’re basically saying that all of the people who don’t really have AIDS will drown in the rising ocean levels instead of dying from HIV infections.
Why should we trust their scientists on this when they’ve consistently fibbed about AIDS? They have a track record of hysterics and exaggerations for political purposes. They’ve turned themselves into an advocacy group for statist policies, and any UN report on impending disasters should come with a five-pound sack of Morton’s Salt in the future.”
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016057.php
Meanwhile the BBC version says nothing about the widely reported comments of various people that UNAIDS deliberately over estimated (as did the AIDS research funding lobby) the figures to keep their funding going….all those conferences in South Africa for example.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7103163.stm
“And the number of people living with HIV in Europe – including parts of Asia – has gone up from 1.25m in 2001 to about 2.4m, figures show. – why BBC? ”
Would it be to do with immigration from Africa? So why not say this? Also why lump Europe with N America and totally distort the figures?
Come on BC – YOU tell US ALL the facts, WE then make OUR minds up.
I wonder how the BBC will report the death of Ian Smith, former PM of Rhodesia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7104552.stm
“The BBC’s James Robbins says that to the end of his days Ian Smith was convinced that Rhodesians, black and white, would have fared better under his leadership than in the Zimbabwe of Robert Mugabe and his Zanu-PF party.”
At some point they will have to deal with this very uncomfortable notion, because I imagine that a lot of people might come to an incorrect decision.
Max/JR – thanks for kind greeting ref the arrival of Lewis Jay T weighing 6lb 7oz with a full shock of hair and a smile to melt the hardest of hearts.
As I type he is sitting in his bouncing chair and so I turned to him and said:
“One way wee man, you will own a wrist worn watch/PC/TV and you won’t have to watch the BBC on it!” (He smiled at that! With relief and great joy, I think!)
Sorry John Reith! 😎
I know one group of people who are in favor of all this Global Warming: archaeologists.
Scientists who specialize in areas like Late-Neolithic to early Bronze Age Europe and Viking settlements in Greenland and Vineland are finding all kinds of interesting things. Same goes for fans of woolly mammoths.
I guess there must have been some serious Man-Made Global Cooling for quite a long time in order for all these Iron Age settlements and things to get frozen over. After all, the general consensus is that only humans can alter the planet’s climate so dramatically.
Perhaps we’re just getting back to a mean level for the current geological age.
And the BBC think they are not biased? This is the comment they highlight:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7104552.stm
“His legacy was one of imposing Mugabe on the world”
Maggie Jones, Cheltenham.
“Some people” (weasel words inc) say that this may not reflect what people are really saying:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=3841&edition=1&ttl=20071120224342&#paginator
Actual top comment:
Ian Smith declared UDI because he believed that both black and white people would be better off than if the black majority took over. Sadly he has been proved right
The BBC: proving whitey is evil yet again.
Stephanie clague: First of all I must apologise for getting your name wrong, that’s very rude. Clearly even a simple ctrl c and ctrl v is beyond me.
I’m charmed by your analogy, but honestly no one tells me what to say. I just want to report what the science is saying.
The reason I first posted is just because the point you raised is well dealt with. It is a classic cherry pick. Not to mean you can’t find a much better example to discuss of course but raising this point (or indeed Mediaval Warm Periods, thickening sea ice ect ect) is just preaching to the choir. As a scientist my natural instinct is always to push beyond that.
Backwoodsman: Funnily enough we’re doing something on deer poaching next week. Not to say that’s what you were doing I may say 😉
You remind me of that radio Moscow presenter of the late 70s/early80s who used to spout the Soviet propaganda BUT you could tell that he did not believe what he was saying but he was forced to tow the party line. I felt for the guy and knew in my heart that he knew the truth even as he told the ststes lies!
Finally, as I’ve said before I can’t really comment on particular BBC journalists. Nothing to stop them coming on here to debate for themselves. It’s not my place to do it for them.
Perhaps Mitzna and Laor were too busy listening to BBC World Service when they should have been checking their facts from a more responsible source?
deegee | 20.11.07 – 12:49 pm
Thanks for the chuckle.
It’s an old trick of Reith’s: find a couple of Israeli lefties who spout the same crap as the BBC to try to disprove BBC bias.
I’ve trawled the net from time to time to try to find the documentary Israel’s Secret Weapon – that fine example of gross anti-Israel BBC bias which was shown on BBC 2 and BBC World a few years ago. Reith, on looking at the transcript, insisted there was no bias there. Well, now that the documentary is available in all its anti-Semi…er anti-Israel venom, those interested can take a look and judge for themselves:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Israel%27s+Secret+Weapon&btnG=Google+Search
(Click on the fourth one down.)
Astonishing story from Saudi:
Rape victim sentanced to a thrashing for sex outside marriage:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/saudis-defend-rape-victims-thrashing/2007/11/21/1195321813926.html
Almost as astonishing is that this story does not seem to have been mentioned by the BBC (or indeed any UK media source?)
Katty Kay has just interviewed B-level Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on BBC News Propaganda America. Naturally, it is a complete disgrace, and is a shining example of the BBC’s attempt to indoctrinate my country into BBC Groupthink. I challenge any lurking Beeboid to requesta tape from the Washington, DC bureau. It might even be on the website somewhere; I haven’t looked because I don’t want to throw a brick through my nice monitor.
After the obligatory softball (What does Mike Huckabee want America to know about him), Katty puts the boot in straight away. Huckabee was a Baptist minister for many years, so Katty (for proper journalistic reasons, I agree) asks him how that has affected his life. Huckabee starts to say that his ministry gave him insight into peoples’ experiences at all levels of life, and that has made him more compassionate. His answer is obviously cut short by a clumsy edit (done by a very, very young person, who is paid very, very low wages, as we know).
Next Question: “How will your Christian faith shape your policies?” Huckabee starts to say it will make him better, but he doesn’t let it dictate all policy, but he is again cut short by a clumsy edit.
Katty tries again, Huckabee’s attempt to answer is cut short again. Since this is not about issues that the average US citizen gives a damn about, but rather it’s what the BBC thinks is important, no real electoral issues will be mentioned tonight. So, she drops all pretense of professionalism.
The current administration is an evil Christian. (Anyone here remember a few years back when a certain BBC talking head snickered when he asked Tony Blair if he had prayed with Bush when they had their first big summit?) Of course, the world has a problem with the way George Bush has done the war on terrorism. “The war on terrorism is couched in Christian terms. Much of the rest of the world finds that very, very worrying.” Never mind the policies, luv, it’s those Christianists what cause unrest. I won’t bother to mention the dripping, melodramatic seriousness of her tone, as that would be a subjective impression. Again, I challenge anyone about who takes the BBC shilling to look at the tape and tell me I’m wrong.
Huckabee tries to say he doesn’t necessarily agree with the way the current administration has been running things, but he is once again interrupted by Katty:
“But do you understand that other people find it scary, frankly?” Emphasis Katty’s, not mine, and that’s a fact, not an impression. Katty continues to inform the poor bastard that the world is going to give a Paxman-like sigh at him, and say, “Yet another President who’s going to let Christianity dictate his policy.” The clucking of her tongue is still ringing in my ears.
Now Katty gets down to the more serious BBC business of attempting to indoctrinate me and my neighbors into their mindset. I have previously mentioned occasions when Matt Frei and Co. went all out in their efforts to tell us to elect Hillary. Or, if the topic is just the contest for the Democratic nomination, that she should be anointed. Now we learn the BBC choice for the Republican candidate.
Can Mike Huckabee, Katty asks coyly, envision a Republican party when the candidate is “pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-gay rights?” Huckabee gives a great retort: That sounds like a Democratic candidate.”
Katty lets it all hang out: “It sounds like Rudy Giuliani.”. Again, I won’t bother anyone with my subjective impression of her sneering tone, as we have been abjured against that.
Now, some of you may have the impression after Katty’s last remark that the BBC might consider Rudy Giuliani to be an acceptable alternative as President. Don’t be silly. Katty follows up by asking if Pat Robertson’s endorsement of ol’ Rudy will just be an albatross around his neck. Huckabee gently lets us know he is not much of a Robertson fan these days.
Finally, as if this hasn’t been disgusting enough, Katty lets one last turd drop:
“Is America too sexist to elect a woman? Is America too racist to elect an African-American as President?”
In other words, is America so awful that it might elect someone other than the two Democrat front-runners. A vote for any Republican candidate, mes chers, is a dirty, evil vote. Huckabee replies that America most certainly is not too racist or sexist, but will vote its own mind. Alas, the damage has already been done.
It is with great effort that I don’t tempt the moderator right now with a massive amount of swearing. My challenge to any lurking Beeboids is in deadly earnest. Go get a copy of this interview and judge for yourselves if there is a clear agenda in word, in tone, and in editing. I wouldn’t expect any of you to give a reply that in any way criticizes your employers, or slags off on a colleague. Rather, I would hope that you would make up your own minds, and put a word in to someone who can do something about this disgrace to your profession.
Everyone else, this is what your license fee pays for. All bias on display for everyone to witness. I would cancel my subscription right now, but BBC America comes in a package with a couple of other channels that I do watch, so I’ll just start skipping over it in between G4 and Boomerang.
tom atkins | 21.11.07 – 12:52 am
Almost as astonishing is that this story does not seem to have been mentioned by the BBC (or indeed any UK media source?)
Rubbish.
Why do you make this stuff up?
Saudi gang rape sentence ‘unjust’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7098480.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/7098940.stm
available in all its anti-Semi…er anti-Israel venom, those interested can take a look and judge for themselves:
Bryan | 20.11.07 – 11:27 pm | #
You drop this particular unsubstantiated ‘opinion’ in a lot Bryan. I guess in the hope that if you post it enough people will believe it. Well I am fed up of ignoring it, because tendentious accusations of racism have that affect after a while…
(Reith has tried this exercise before and it was avoided then, but no harm revisiting…)
Imagine a BBC newsroom or studio, if it is as an anti-Semitic place, as you hint at – would that be a place where a relatively large amount of Jewish people work happily, have successful careers and rise to the very highest positions?
Or would it not?
Sarah-Jane | 21.11.07 – 10:38 am |
Imagine a BBC newsroom or studio, if it is as an anti-Semitic place, as you hint at – would that be a place where a relatively large amount of Jewish people work happily, have successful careers and rise to the very highest positions?
Or would it not?
That’s a PhD topic going begging. I’m not sure blending in with a hostile but otherwise comfortable background is exclusively Jewish. Women, American Blacks, Homosexuals, etc are also known for it. British Jews are noted for not making waves, lest the antisemites become aroused – working for the BBC could be an excellent example.
How do you explain Queers for Palestine supporting a place which murders homosexuals in the street in their struggle against a place which is unquestionably the most ‘queer friendly’ in the Middle East? Rhetorical question – I don’t have an answer. Perhaps they hate their mothers?
How do you explain Charles Enderlin, Jewish with an Israeli passport, not BBC, jumping to accuse Israel of cold blooded murder despite ambiguous and dubious evidence? How do you explain him sticking with the Mohammed Al Dura story, leading to dozens of innocent deaths, including journalist Daniel Pearl until today? Perhaps he hates his father? I have no better explanation.
How can you explain a Chomsky, Finkelstein or a Pappe? If you have a good hypothesis, let me know.
BTW I have no idea how you would measure but how many Jews work for the BBC, at all levels? How many is a relatively large amount of Jewish people?
Sarah Jane:
You come across as extremely naive in your clumsy attempts to excuse your co-workers of being immune from racism because they are of a minority cause themselves.
What you haven’t seemed to grasp – and I’m sure you are also guilty of this yourself – is that liberal obsessives NEVER think about the consequences of their agendas. They merely think of the short term self-satisfaction it gives them. The fact that they are tapped in to the ‘moral consciousness’ of ‘doing the right thing’ as is dictated to them by political fashion.
BBC employees – just like all leftys – see themselves as totally separate from the masses. The agenda’s they preach are for everyone else to conform to – not themselves. They actually believe that once the great unwashed submit totally to these agendas, then there will be room for bartering with the very powers they have submitted too.
Feminists at the BBC don’t actually believe that Sharia law in this country would affect them. Because THEY are DIFFERENT to the proles. THEY ARE SPECIAL. They will be treated differently by the laws of Islam (and by the laws of cause and effect) because THEY are the ones that opened the eyes of the ignorant white working class, and crow barred in every marginal group that opposed them.
Dream on.
Right now, all this multi-cultural tosh the BBC are forcing upon us isn’t applicable to anyone who works at the BBC (Unless they are cleaning the toilets or sweeping up the canteen of course) because people such as yourself Sarah Jane don’t live in areas heavily dominated by ethnic minorities. Nor is your job remotely threatened by the in-flux of immigration. You live a relatively cosy life, financially supported by well-off family members, a huge social network of Uni friends, and pals that can help land you a nice well paid job in meeja – not from what you know – but from who you know and where you were educated.
You are totally free from the sort of trouble the working classes – which you and your kind utterly despise – have to face on a daily basis.
Therefore, with so few troubles of your own, you can afford to take on the troubles of those you feel will in same way elevate your own sense of smugness and superiority, regardless of how much at odds THEIR beliefs are with your own.
deegee – good strawman, utterly flawed I am afraid. They are not Chomsky’s. By relatively well represented I mean that considerably more than 0.5 % of the population are represented on eg the Executive Board. I guess we could all be anti-Semitic, but just spectacularly bad at it, er, which would be not anti-Semitic then.
Reg Hammer – you seem well qualified to comment on ‘smugness and superiority’ if that post is anything to go by. Until 3 months ago I was living in a not so great bit of Hounslow (not Chiswick) so obviously was completely detached from all the things you mention 🙂 I even voted ‘independant’ in the local elections, having carefully checked up on the past affiliations of the candidates at length. How does that stack up against your all certain knowingness?
The people here who constantly harp on, thinking they know all about people they simply do not have the foggiest about are becoming very tedious.
“Despise the working classes”, yeah, yeah whatever. I wish I could be as insulting as some of the idiotic tosh that is posted on here but fortunately my good old working class mum brought me up better than that.
Anyway, that’s enough of this claptrap for now. There is an interesting conversation to be had on ‘bias’ and the license fee, but the constant bollocks to be had from people who presume to know our minds, but know so very little, means it can only be tolerated in small doses.
Au revoir Andrew, and the better folk of B-BBC.
Reg Hammer | 21.11.07 – 6:53 pm |
Serious Question. Do you honestly believe that the BBC is deliberately trying to impose Islam on the working classes?
Has it not occured to you that the reason why the BBC has common cause with the Mad Mullahs is because they share a hate figure – The USA.
If the USA has supported the Arabs and the USSR the Jews in the Middle East Conflict, which side do you think that the BBC would be on now?
The Fat Contractor,
Excellent points. The BBC’s current attempt to interfere with the US election process is a case in point.
Regarding the BBC and Jews, even if we accept Sarah Jane’s claims that the BBC is majority anti-Semitic (a claim I actually accept), they do not give Jews the same consideration they give to Muslims. Let’s also agree, if just for the sake of argument, that an anti-Israel position is not de facto anti-Jew. I would posit that the type of strenuous anti-Israel antics by the BBC (and others who also claim not to be anti-Jew) often have severely negative consequences on the general public’s attitude toward Jews. As there is a general consensus everywhere in the world that Jews nominally support Israel, and are in some way connected to it, I think that is a logical supposition.
It is very clear that the BBC make a similar association between Muslims in Britain and Islamo-fascist terrorism, as well as Islamo-fascist Imperialism (i.e. getting the UK to implement Shariah). The BBC take great care to deflect anger about the latter from the former. This is all supposedly for multicultural tolerance and all that. Yet they make zero effort to do the same for Jews. As the population percentages of Jews and Muslims in the UK is not significantly different, one has to wonder, no?
Fat Contractor:
“Do you honestly believe that the BBC is deliberately trying to impose Islam on the working classes?”
Yes I do. Just as much as you believe the reason they are doing it is purely because they will side with anything that opposes the USA. I’m sure that for some that is an added motive. The icing on the cake. But in general I don’t believe the BBC have any other reason for imposing Islam upon the working classes other than the sense of satisfaction it gives them championing – what they perceive – as the religious underdog.
“If the USA has supported the Arabs and the USSR the Jews in the Middle East Conflict, which side do you think that the BBC would be on now?”
Whichever side was dictating the loudest lefty values of course.
But let’s not forget that the USA too has it’s own nest of lefty’s doing the work of Islam, opposing the USA from the inside. Al Beeb would never be so foolish as to write them off too. Quite the contrary. It always uses this fifth column as “the voice of reason” or the “opposing view” in any of it’s reports attacking US policies regarding Islam.
I don’t think the BBCs intentions are just to oppose the USA. Today’s lefty is just a mutated form of the pro-gay, pro-feminist, pro-animal-rights soapbox from yesterday, which selects it’s agenda purely upon whatever is shouting the loudest, being heard the clearest or is politically en vogue.
At the moment that is Islam, and all other lefty causes must default to it.
Let me ask you a question. If America was predominantly full of Muslims, do you think the BBC would oppose it in any way?
Sarah Jane:
No offense Sarah Jane, but I have yet to meet a member of the media class that hasn’t done a few months tour-of-duty in a supposed ethnic laced inner city (a place they wouldn’t dare socialize with the natives), or supposedly isn’t from a working class background. It’s fashionable to have some kind of mockney education in media circles. But you didn’t stop me on the suggestion that you have access to a social and financial safety net that is atypical of middle class media types, and is denied to the type of people the BBC constantly preach too.
Sarah-Jane | 21.11.07 – 10:38 am,
You drop this particular unsubstantiated ‘opinion’ in a lot Bryan. I guess in the hope that if you post it enough people will believe it.
That is actually the BBC’s style, not mine. And unlike the BBC, I can back up every point I make with facts. You shouldn’t complain about people claiming to know what is going on in BBC minds and then do the same thing regarding my mind. I try to steer clear of repetition but Israel’s Secret Weapon is a special case. It was such a vile anti-Israel documentary that it led to the Israeli government withdrawing cooperation with the BBC.
The BBC editor responsible for the documentary defended it in spite of complaints. Like John Reith, he apparently thought it was fine.
Now imagine the BBC setting out on a single-minded mission to produce a documentary on Iran’s nuclear programme complete with the elevation to heroic status of any Iranian who exposed the programme and dark hints about sinister intentions and the danger Iran poses to its neighbours. The idea is absurd. The BBC would never even think about producing such a film, this despite the fact that nuclear weapons in the hands of an Ahmedinejad is an infinitely more dangerous prospect than nuclear weapons in the hands of an Olmert.
So we naturally have to ask ourselves this question: Why is the BBC so obsessed with trashing democratic Israel, surrounded as it is with belligerent neighbours and forced onto a defensive footing, rather than the brutal dictatorship of the terror-sponsoring Iran?
Is it because the BBC is inherently anti-Semitic? And if it is not, what other reason can there possibly be for the extraordinary imbalance in the BBC’s approach to Israel and Iran?
You tell me.
And Sarah-Jane, instead of sulking and storming off, you might like to actually watch Israel’s Secret Weapon. It might lead you to a better understanding of what we are on about here re the BBC.
I hope this thread gets carried to the top of the Biased BBC web page.
❓ My question is not why ‘Islamic’ news is so frequently broadcast on the BBC. My question is, why Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh news receives so little coverage? ❓
According to the CIA factbook. Religions in UK: Christian (Anglican, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist) 71.6%, Muslim 2.7%, Hindu 1%, other 1.6%, unspecified or none 23.1% (2001 census)
For that matter specifically Atheistic or Humanist news rarely receives coverage. You could, of course, argue that Atheism is the BBC’s default position.
Even if the BBC took the proportion of religions in the World as a guide then Hindus and Buddhists are still much under represented in BBC coverage.
CIA factbook:
Religions: Christians 33.03% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%), Muslims 20.12%, Hindus 13.34%, Buddhists 5.89%, Sikhs 0.39%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 12.61%, non-religious 12.03%, atheists 2.36% (2004 est.)
Sarah-Jane | 21.11.07 – 9:41 pm |
deegee – good strawman, utterly flawed I am afraid. They are not Chomsky’s.
I may have overstated my case. The point was Jews and others stay in hostile environments when the perceived gain (not necessarily money) is greater than the perceived threat (embarrassment). That Jews work in the BBC does not mean that the BBC is not covertly hostile. It just isn’t proof that the BBC isn’t hostile.
BBC Trust: Chairman, Vice Chairman and ten members. Didn’t see any Jews but I could be wrong. By my calculation each member represents 8.3% of the population. If Jews form about 0.5% of the British population even one member of the tribe over represents them by a factor of 16.
Executive Board: Ten members. Jenny Abramsky is probably Jewish (at least by descent – I don’t know if she represents herself as such). Relative over representation of 20%.
deegee, I’m sure you’ll recall that the debate over whether a Jewish employee of the BBC can be anti-Israel or anti-Semitic has been debated before on this blog. There was the Israeli who supplied the BBC with photos of religious Jews complete with unflattering captions. Before I or anyone else knew that the photos came from a Jew, I saw this as bias and then was triumphantly denounced as misguided by a BBC guy once that fact became known.
The concept that Jews are unified in our approach to Israel (or anything else) is a woefully uneducated one. It also smacks of bigotry.
Bryan | 22.11.07 – 10:17 am |
The concept that Jews are unified in our approach to Israel (or anything else) is a woefully uneducated one. It also smacks of bigotry.
God forbid that any group, of family size and above, should share the same views about everything. There must even be a variety of views within the BBC 😉
I know plenty of Jews who are arch-Zionists and plenty who would rather Israel behaved a bit better than it does. I even know one or two who believe that Israel should not exist (tho’ they are very left wing and hold a lot of very silly & hypocritical views IMHO).
Let me ask you a question. If America was predominantly full of Muslims, do you think the BBC would oppose it in any way?
Reg Hammer | 21.11.07 – 11:10 pm |
Yes I do think the BBC would oppose it simply because the USSR would not have had the influence it did in the ME and would, no doubt, had backed Israel, which would have collapsed Zionism almost entirely. In that scenario Israel would not exist now and the world would be very different.
I really do not believe the BBC is as pro-Islam as you believe. If anything, they are scared of the consequences of shining too much light on Islam and are deadly afraid of being un-PC. Add in their anti-US tendancies and it all seems to clear to me.
If you are old enough to remember compare how the BBC reported IRA atrocities and NI in general in the Seventies. Remember how often McGuiness and Adams were given un-interupted air-time to spout their racism whilst the Paisley was rarely given the same treatment (and whilst being an unpleasant man Paisley did not advocate terror). The BBC were open about Irish-American help the IRA received but much more coy on the help they got from the USSR via Syria and Libya.
On nearly all issues you can trace BBC bias back to their ‘left-wing’ view-point. Even gardening. 🙂
Reg,
And another thing … The BBC, like all lefties, are very keen on supporting those who are against this country and attacking those who support us. Another reason for their less than honest approach to Islam.
Gosh, this thread has got a bit personal, hasn’t it? I don‘t see how being rude to individual people is going to advance our cause • personally I’d rather we did get visitors from inside the BBC so that we can have reasoned debate, otherwise we run the risk of just being viewed as some kind of lunatic fringe.
Reg, I think your comments to Sarah-Jane were well out of order. You know nothing about her personal circumstances or background. In 20 years working in the media I have yet to come across a single person, male or female, who is “financially supported by well-off family members”. I guess, perhaps, on something like ‘Horse and Hounds’ it might occur occasionally, the rest of us have to work for a living and a lot of it’s freelance and pretty hand-to-mouth.
If you’re going to cast aspersions like that, let’s have some evidence please. Otherwise you should think about keeping your comments rather more general, I feel.
Rob Clark:
I’ve had plenty of experience with Al Beeb employees thanks Rob. Possibly more than you have yourself.
As I have yet to meet one that doesn’t fit into my indenti-kit opinion of them, I will retain my belief until proven otherwise.
Perhaps you would like to tell me how many of Al Beeb’s staffers are working class non-university grads? As you won’t get such information from BBC FOI any answer to that would be purely speculative.
I personally have never met one.
Incidenatlly, I do apologise to Sarah Jane if I offended her.
My intention was to make my point as I saw it, which is borne from personal experience.
I don’t wish to stifle debate with BBC staffers, and I agree that their input is important.
However, I’m sure I would suffer just as much ignominy as them if I took my views to a BBC discussion forum and attempted to air my views. Chance would be a fine thing.
That’s fair enough, Reg. I hasten to add that I don’t have any issue with the general points you were making, just felt it was getting a bit personal.
Take your point about working class employees, but the university-educated one is a bit of red herring, I feel. The majority of journalists, in any media, have a degree, which I would have thought is a good thing, personally, though it would be nice if the reporters had degrees in the subjects in which they are reporting!
The Fat Contractor | 22.11.07 – 12:49 pm |The BBC, like all lefties, are very keen on supporting those who are against this country and attacking those who support us.
World Service have had 2 war stories in the past couple of days.
In one the US forces kill friendly Sunni in Iraq. In the next UK forces kill civilians in Afghanistan
Coalition forces are yet to kill any of the enemy, it seems, they are just too good.
The World service is also trailing a prog for next Monday – Iraq as Vietnam. “Iraq is a war that the US cannot win.”
Sarah-Jane, I regret that the blinkered relentlessness of certain commenters has driven you away – it’s very easy for people to forget that they are dealing with real people with real feelings in this forum. It’s also easy to forget that most people aren’t as bad in reality as they might come across online.
I hope that you will keep in touch here or by email, and I hope that those involved (they know who they are) will pause to reflect on their behaviour. It will take a long time to bring the BBC behemoth to heel – battering individuals who come here to engage in dialogue detracts from our efforts – it certainly doesn’t help them.
Sarah Jane:
I incorrectly assumed that all BBC staff had the arrogant thick skin of John Reith or the upbeat thick skin of David Gregory.
Having been on the receiving end of BBC staffers thick skinned arrogance in the real world, not just on-line, perhaps the prescene of any Beeboids on-line is a red rag to a bull.
I apologise profusely and will be more considerate in future.
Don’t surrender. I’m sure you are tougher than that.
Reg: I dunno, I can’t win. I thought B-BBCers thought it was a good thing I was a scientist considering my day job? And now I learn in actual fact my qualifications are the problem.
I’m confused
But on the other hand “upbeat thick skin” is the nicest description I’ve ever heard!
I hope SJ sees your apology and can be tempted back. And it takes a big man to apologise.
I take this opportunity to state that I value Sarah-Jane’s contributions here and whether or not she/he is the real Sarah-Jane of CBBC fame, she/he is a BBC journalist and therefore provides a perspective that must be taken seriously here. Sarah-Jane’s input is also more open than most from the BBC and reveals a sense of humour.
So, as the person whose 20.11.07 – 11:27 pm post indirectly led to Sarah-Jane’s hopefully temporary departure, I am sorry if I caused him/her any offence.
However, I stand by the comments I made in that post and in that of 21.11.07 – 11:23 pm. Can anyone from the BBC explain the reason for the gross imbalance in its harsh treatment of democratic Israel as opposed to its respectful treatment of Israel’s chief enemy – the terror-sponsoring dictatorship of Iran? And if not, why not?