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.
South African “Scrooge” on PM
As ever with a SA piece, cue the soulful Soweto-type crooning in the background as a South African theatre group rework “A Christmas Carol” in a London theatre.
Anxiety in the voice of the reporter as they wonder about the protrayal of Scrooge as a blck African woman (not a profile any self respecting Beeboid would endorse).
And as ever, we turn to politics as the reporter what this production has to say about modern SA and the political situation there.
What claptrap. Can you imagine the BBC taking this approach with anybody else doing “Scrooge”? Not really, unless a Palestinian group decided to do it.
I just wish the BBC would grow up.
Did I really hear a piece on PM saying that things were improving in Iraq and thousands of Iraqis were returning to Baghdad and other cities from Syria and elsewhere? Or did I dream it? You have to be quick with these sort of stories on the BBC; blink and you miss it.
Was that really a comedy programme I heard on Radio 4 at 6.30pm? Or is it what you get when BBC types trapped in a leftoid echo chamber try and be awfully funny about each other?
abandon ship – it’s true. v.good article on pg 35 and leader on pg 16 of today’s times.
this has also made it onto the front web page of bbc news section.
don’t get too excited yet though. I
anticipate lots of stories about american military failing to deal with rehousing/electricty supply of said refugees and numerous other failings…
jimbob – The BBC report:
“Iraqis return home ‘in thousands’
Some of the returnees found it hard to make a living abroad
An estimated 1,000 people a day are returning across Iraq’s borders having previously moving abroad to escape the violence, Iraqi authorities say.”
Given that they estimate 1000 per day, why does the BBC need to put “in thousands” in inverted commas in the headline?
However, the BBC are then quick to burst our balloon as the article goes on:
“An improving security situation – but also the lack of job opportunities for Iraqis in Syria – may account for the move, correspondents say.”
So it’s lack of jobs, as the mysterious correspondents say.
And then:
“However, at least five people died in a bombing in Ramadi on Wednesday.
A suicide bomber slammed a vehicle into a courthouse compound, police said.”
See? See? John Humphreys was right all along – return all you like Iraqis, but you are all doomed, the Americans are doomed, we’re all doomed!
John Reith
The TV tax is enshrined in law. However so is BBC impartiality, but that law is not obeyed as is shown here. You only even attempt to defend a small fraction of incidences of bias mentioned, and you fail most of those.
How about the BBC directly lying, when they say that “Handguns Are Used in Most US Assaults and Robberies”, when they are used in less than 30% of robberies and a tiny fraction of assaults? Not biased against the US and against firearm ownership?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7104800.stm
Random: The full quote is “Handguns are used in two-thirds of robberies and assaults and in half of murders in the US, according to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigations.”
So the BBC got its figures from the FBI. Where did you get yours from?
David Gregory,
I was just about to make a complaint similar to Random’s. I believe your defense is in error. You will have noticed that the BBC article does not link to any figures coming from the FBI. Here are some actual government statistics for you to consider, which will tell you that handguns are used in 5.4% of U.S. assaults and 26.3% of robberies.
Click to access cvus05.pdf
Furthermore, a source that is a bit more gentle about these matters will inform you that only 42% of all robberies involved firearms generally, and only 21% of all “aggravated assaults” (read: use of deadly weapon, usually a gun).
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/robbery.html
Eugene Volokh (a law professor who know better than most) has already filed a complaint to the BBC about this, and you can read his take on the matter here:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_11_18-2007_11_24.shtml#1195673449
I learned from Katty Kay last night that the world wants a US president who advocates gun control. Is that the world’s opinion, the BBC’s, or just hers?
http://tpuc.org/stoppayingtvlicencefees
I’ve not been able to find this story here yet, but it struck me as one of the more horrible examples of the BBC whipping up anti-arab hatred. If you’re opposed to the terrorists, no effort will be spared in showing your evil.
Here’s the story as presented by the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7096814.stm
A woman gets into a car with an unrelated man and is raped. It is implied that she is punished for being raped. The rapists are sentenced to up to five years, which is then doubled.
It was a popular story and has caused many women, in particular, to discuss the horrors of Saudi society.
Here’s the story from the NYT. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/world/middleeast/16saudi.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
A woman gets into a car with her ex-boyfriend. They are both set about by a gang and both raped. They are then both punished for being in the car together. The rapists get 2-9 years in jail and up to 1,000 lashes.
It turns out that, although there are many ways in which Saudi society discriminates horrifically against women, the most horrifying things in this story, the rape and the conviction, happened to a man as well as a woman. It’s still an interesting case. The NYT was right to report it. But the BBC’s solid support for Al-Qaida, extending from the struggle against the west to the struggle against the Saudi government, causes them to obscure just about every salient detail of the story.
Auntie’s slip is showing again.
Just now in the 10pm repeat of BBC World Propaganda America, Matt Frei quickly went through an update about Mike Huckabee’s recent surge in the polls for Republican candidate for president. The accompanying footage was Huckabee here, Huckabee there, and then, WTF? A shot of BBC favorite Hillary Clinton, followed by a shot of Barak Obama, followed by Rudy Giuliani.
We have known for months now that Hillary is the anointed one from Matt Frei’s Washington, DC office all the way to the inner warrens of Bush House and the big offices of White City. We have been informed by the BBC that the US is too racist to elect a black man, so Obama – who otherwise has very few qualifications other than his anti-Iraq war stance – must also be rubbed in our faces. We were told last night by Katty Kay (as she informed the aforementioned Huckabee while she was supposed to be focusing on him) that the BBC’s preference for the Republican candidate is Rudy (specifically, Katty told us, because he is “pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-gay rights”).
So naturally it is in this context in which this American victim of BBC propaganda views these nearly subliminal shots of Auntie’s approved thoughts. Orwell couldn’t have written it better himself. This was a very brief report about the contest for the Republican nomination, and a candidate who was just featured by the BBC. Any inclusion of a Democratic candidate is of no relevance whatsoever. Unless, of course, there is an agenda at hand.
Nothing to see here, Mr. Smith. Move along.
Ladies and gentlemen, your taxes are now paying for a deliberate attempt to influence the electoral process of the US.
Dan Collins just gave a dishonest report about the very serious industrial contamination in La Oroya, Peru. Apparently this has been rated one of the Top 10 most polluted places in the world, so is worthy of a report.
The entire tone of the report is that this is a US-owned company which is polluting the planet, causing horrible diseases amongst the local, and generally ruining everything for everybody. Dan goes on and on about it, and shows us the gloomy, gray, polluted scenery of the metallurgical plant in the buildings immediately surrounding it. He even interviews the native Peruvian president of the company, who earnestly tells us that they are doing everything they can, the government should get involved, and that the pollution is at it’s lowest level in the entire 80+ year history of the plant.
That’s not good enough, it’s obviously the nasty US doing its dirty business and poisoning the peasants. What Dan does not tell us is that Doe Run (Boo! Hiss!) bought the plant from the Peruvian government-owned company that had run it since 1974. Before that, we are not allowed to know, the Cerro de Pasco mining company (not an American company, so no problem) was contaminating the landscape with lead.
What Dan and his superiors at the BBC really don’t want you to know (the company president is allowed to defend himself, but is quickly and knowingly rubbished by Dan) is that the Doe Run company have seriously been working to improve things, the poisons really are at their lowest levels ever, and that there is a comprehensive plan to make things even better. But don’t take my obviously biased word for it. Listen to the Center for Disease Control:
Click to access la_oroya_report.pdf
This report will tell you an entirely different story from what you will have learned from Dan Collins and the BBC. Unfortunately, it is of no use in America bashing, so they have to make up a story instead.
The BBC are pushing a story about the Australian Liberal party and an alleged fake poster, OK you might say?
BUT I made a quick google search and came up with 97100 hits on ‘Australian Labour party election fraud’!
So why is the BBC just pushing this ONE minor story and giving it a prime slot on the news?
We know that the BBC are trying to influence the US elections in favour of the Democrats and now we see them trying to influence the Australian elections?
Will we see ANY story on ALP election fraud and dishonest practices? I think its safe to say that the answer is a resounding NO!
The BBC, Rigging foriegn elections for the left! Its what they do(best).
I doubt that the BBC has any real influence on elections within the rest of the Anglosphere, but they certainly contaminate our people’s perception of the candidates. A colleague of mine had watched one of the US presidential debates on a satellite channel – Bush vs Kerry – and he said to me the next day that he was “amazed at how coherent Bush was”. This is simply because, until then, he had viewed the US elections (and GWB in particular) through the BBC’s prism. The BBC will now have us believe that John Howard is an Alf Garnet-type bigot etc.
Ian Smith’s death (posting yesterday):
‘Disgracefully even-handed’ – (as noted – and thus derided – by John Reith) was a phrase I used carefully to describe a BBC ‘fact’ file that was supposedly ‘balanced’, but which carefully avoided the truth – in this case the murderous excesses of Mugabe and Zanu-PF. Those excesses cannot be played down in any circumstances, least of all in a ‘fact’ file.
As for the JR allegation that I am an ‘armchair pundit'(a classic Beeboid catch-all tool of derision for those outside their pale), I have worked extensively in Africa and know exactly what it is like to be under threat.
John Reith neatly side-stepped my key point about Zanu-PF in his comment about the main online Smith report. It was that their impact on Zimbabwe was palpably far more than ‘inflation and unemployment’, and to describe it thus was a disgraceful under-statement.
As usual putting a NuLab spin on it “Tory claims that senior officials were involved in the loss of benefits data are challenged by the Treasury.
This is the lead.
More anti-US editing by the BBC.
Jill | 21.11.07 – 5:14 pm | #
Jill – I reckon this one is worth a formal complaint – it’s a direct example of fakery (like the Queen supposedly storming out of her photoshoot). The BBC has pledged to clean up their act on this stuff and should be nailed.
Chris,
Nearly as good as allowing darling the completely unchallenged assertation that ‘ the Tories approved the bailout of Northern Rock’
David Gregory, I’m afraid you saying the bbc are working on a programme on deer poaching, justifies all my comments on their treatment of the countryside – in advance I can tell you it will be sensationalist, selective and slanted to imply that this is typical of rural types.
The BBC is keen (in my view rightly) to ensure that we all know that General Musharraf has stuffed the Pakistani Supreme Court with his supporters :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7106831.stm
The verdict was expected to go in Gen Musharraf’s favour since he has appointed new judges to the bench who are considered more loyal.
I don’t remember the BBC being nearly as keen to give us the details on Mr Chavez doing the same thing • in spades • in Venezuela, and having had a rootle around on the BBC site and on google, I don’t seem to be able to find anything. Can anyone help me ?
The full tale is told here :
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/14/venezu9864.htm
The Venezuelan Congress dealt a severe blow to judicial independence by packing the country’s Supreme Court with 12 new justices, Human Rights Watch said today. A majority of the ruling coalition, dominated by President Hugo Chávez’s party, named the justices late yesterday, filling seats created by a law passed in May that expanded the court’s size by more than half.
President Chávez signed a court-packing law that allowed his governing coalition in the legislature to obtain an overwhelming majority of seats on the country’s highest court. The 17 new justices (and 32 reserves) were selected yesterday by a simply majority vote of the governing coalition, which did not reveal the names of the nominees to the opposition membrs of Congress until the time of the vote.
The court-packing law signed in May also gave the governing coalition the power to remove judges from the Court without the two-thirds majority vote required under the constitution. In June, two justices retired after facing possible suspension from the Supreme Court as a result of these new provisions
Lee Moore | 22.11.07 – 10:22 am
I don’t think the BBC tends to do much on the domestic politics of Venezuela, rather in the same way that it tends to pass on reporting municipal elections in Kenya.
When they threaten to impact on the wider region or world, however, it’s a story.
That’s why when a nuclear-armed Islamic country that’s a key partner in the war on terror looks pretty close to collapse and chaos…..it gets more detailed attention.
To try to pretend that Pakistan gets more coverage than Venezuela because of the ideological leanings of BBC journalists and that this is a sign of bias is extremely silly and does you no credit. Heavens, you’re one of the smarter people on B-BBC.
David Gregory (BBC) | 22.11.07 – 12:15 am
Actually David I think the BBC may have got this one wrong by misreading the FBI stuff.
Eugene Volokh explains all here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eugene-volokh/gun-statistics-in-the-med_b_73792.html
Chris:
As usual putting a NuLab spin on it “Tory claims that senior officials were involved in the loss of benefits data are challenged by the Treasury.
This is the lead.
Chris | 22.11.07 – 8:47 am | #
Yup.
Compare and contrast the Beeb’s “Tory Claims are challenged” spin with the lead article from that well known Tory house joural – the Grauniad:- “Senior officials knew data was to be sent..”
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/economics/story/0,,2215025,00.html
Once again the Beeb party political spin is well to the left of the country’s most left leaning newspaper.
Only this morning I was reading an article in World Agenda covering the closure of RCTV by Chavez
Oscar | 22.11.07 – 9:34 am
I’ll put a complaint in. I expect I’ll get the usual arrogant response from them.
John Reith:
David Gregory (BBC) | 22.11.07 – 12:15 am
Actually David I think the BBC may have got this one wrong by misreading the FBI stuff.
Well, JR, no harm done – mistakes will happen – could happen to any of us…
or perhaps not if we had a budget of £3Bn and 30,000 expert fact checkers at our disposal.
JR: Oh dear.
John, I couldn’t be stoical about accepting TV tax cash for my wages. I’d be ashamed to do so, not stoical.
Taking money from people and then wasting it overwhelmingly on trash is something to be ashamed of in my opinion. The government might think such an arrangement desirable but that’s no reason to become personally invoved in the manufacture of that trash.
John Reith:
Lee Moore | 22.11.07 – 10:22 am
I don’t think the BBC tends to do much on the domestic politics of Venezuela…
Complete rubbish, JR!
The Beeb has been a major shill for Chavez ever since the dubious elections when he came to power.
“Chavez, friend of the poor and scourge of George W” has had non-stop exposure – usually garlanded with flowers and clutching other left wing luminaries like our own Red Ken, Fidel Castro or half of Hollywood.
I best most of the BBC audience can’t even recall who his predecessor was though – ‘cos he wasn’t on the Beeb’s “favourite person” list
John Reith : I don’t think the BBC tends to do much on the domestic politics of Venezuela, rather in the same way that it tends to pass on reporting municipal elections in Kenya.
I would find this slightly more convincing if the BBC did not have a whole web page of stories on “Venezuela under Chavez”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/americas/2006/venezuela/default.stm
Indeed it even has a Venezuelan domestic politics story today.
To try to pretend that Pakistan gets more coverage than Venezuela because of the ideological leanings of BBC journalists and that this is a sign of bias is extremely silly and does you no credit.
I’m not suggesting that Pakistan gets more coverage than Venezuela • I’m not even sure it does. All I’m suggesting is that the BBC seems to have reported Gen Musharraf’s rigging of the Pakistani Supreme Court more prominently than Mr Chavez’s rigging of the Venezuelan Supreme Court.
Once again the Beeb party political spin is well to the left of the country’s most left leaning newspaper.
John Reith spins in his grave | Homepage | 22.11.07 – 11:24 am | #
Looks like the website Beeboids have just woken up and read their paid for copies of the Graun – they’ve changed the headline to:-
Tories demand data loss ‘truth’ .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7106987.stm
Maybe we’ll even lose the “quotes” in an hour or so.
WATO is devoting half it’s programme to football. I wonder why? Nothing to do with burying bad news surely?
http://icecap.us/
All those who wish to peruse unbiased Scientific papers on climate, the above link may be of interest.
I include all the BBC contributers who seem to think the “Debate” is over.
Best Regards to all
The World at One, 22 November.
It seems quite extraordinary that more than half the programme has been devoted to football, at a time when the huge government scandal over the loss of personal data needs further scrutiny. It is, however, a good way limiting the damage to Bottler and his gang. The Today programme likewise made almost no mention of the tax-loss fiasco.
Are we surprised?
Oscar | 22.11.07 – 1:20 pm
WATO is devoting half it’s programme to football. I wonder why?
Beats me.
It’s not as if there were a big football story or anything.
Perhaps someone’s been persuaded by this blog that the BBC should be doing more for the white working class? 🙂
I watched Newsnight last night. To be fair, they gave the loathsome Brown government a significant kicking.
Pete 11:25
Its not just the odd £3 billion the beeboids personally waste every year, they are directly culpable for the squandering of £100’s billions of taxpayers money, by slanting the news to make these nulab shysters appear competent.
When you view the effect of bbc bias from that point of view, it suddenly becomes a lot more serious.
Let me put it in perspective, as a small business owner. ANY invoice I send out over £1,000, automaticaly goes recorded delivery. But, hey the Today programme presenter sounded puzzled, because the press had been so vulgar as to complain about the loss of a few million sets of bank details.
Perhaps someone’s been persuaded by this blog that the BBC should be doing more for the white working class?
John Reith | 22.11.07 – 1:44 pm
Oh I see – this was the World at One for the White Working Class (vulgar types like the bloggers on this site) – who of course are only interested in football and nothing so trivial as HMRC losing all their personal data in the post. Thanks for clearing that up John.
Andrew Marr, that BBC and Labout Party stalwart, has criticised ‘SKY News’, saying it was only “frequently right”.
Suprisingly,in the ‘Telegraph’ report, Mr. Marr does not provide screeds of evidence to prove his contentious point. No doubt, he has this dossier provided for him by the BBC, it’s just that he hasn’t shown it to the licence-payers yet, I suppose.
Can we trust the word of Mr. Marr on this, or should we wait for him to provide the weighty evidence? Some people raise doubts about his impartiality:
“…many wondered whether the opinionated former editor of ‘The Independent’, who had made no secret of his enthusiasm for Tony Blair and New Labour and most of its works, could be a completely impartial voice.”
‘Sky anger at Andrew Marr’s veiled attack’ (Nigel Reynolds, Telegraph,22 Nov.).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/22/nbbc122.xml
John knows he’s good for us. That we can’t understand that is our failing. John, and the BBC in general, treats us like children. They are so old-fashioned. That kind of paternalism might have been OK in the 1930’s but society has moved on. What a pity the BBC hasn’t. The reason for that is the licence fee.
Oscar | 22.11.07 – 3:22 pm
Pete | 22.11.07 – 3:48 pm
Blimey. People round here think you’re serious even when you append a bleedin’ emoticon.
Best leave off the gags then.
In an article about British and European bargain hunters shopping in the US because of the low dollar, entirely gratuitous Bush-bashing is inserted for no reason:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7102428.stm
“Analysts have come up with three possible reasons as to why European tourism to the US has not grown faster, given that exchange rates have been favourable for some years, he says:
A more negative perception of the US and Americans brought on by the Iraq war and policies of the Bush administration.”
What has that got to do with bargain shoppers? It appears that any excuse to bash Bush and the US, no matter how flimsly, the Beeb will take. The Beeb would find a way to insert negative things about Bush and the US in an article about the rising cost of toilet paper.
Get over your obsession already Beeboids!
John, I don’t care if you are serious or not. I just want you to get the message that plenty of people don’t want or need the BBC. In my opinion the BBC is biased, pompous and old fashioned. That’s why I don’t want to pay for it. I’ve no objection to anyone else paying for it on a voluntary basis.
Deeply non-PeeCee comments in a thread about the recent passing of Ian Smith:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=3841&edition=2&ttl=20071122165110&#paginator
As usual the ordering of the “most recommended” posts tell an entirely different story from the Beeb-directed ordering of posts.
John Reith | 22.11.07 – 11:13 am |
“I don’t think the BBC tends to do much on the domestic politics of Venezuela, rather in the same way that it tends to pass on reporting municipal elections in Kenya.
When they threaten to impact on the wider region or world, however, it’s a story.”
Then you are uninformed about just how much impact Chavez is having on the region of South America. Venezuela is having a huge effect on all the surrounding countries. Chavez is also making a herculean effort to put himself on a Wonder Twins team with Ahmadimjihadi, and is putting an equal amount of effort into changing the political direction of a good portion of the continent. He already has Bolivia in thrall. If that’s not an “impact on the wider region or world”, I don’t know what is. Go ask your colleagues in TVC.
Or could it be that some at the BBC actually like the direction Chavez is taking things, and see him as a positive influence, and thus not subject to the scrutiny Lee Moore suggests he deserves.
Bit of a cock-up in the BBC techy department…
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/22/beeb_week_iplayer_comment/
John Reith:
Quite so. We believe it’s wrong to
steal.
John Reith | 21.11.07 – 9:33 am |
“We” ?
Do you mean that thieving corporation the BBC.
I said when the telephone competition scandals started that anyone involved should be prosecuted for theft.
You all got off lightly you crooks.
BBC on a book about the American Jewish lobby:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7104030.stm
“The fact that the book invites criticism, however, is also a strength. Its scholarly, dispassionate tone is meant to encourage a debate.”
Wow. To think this came from the BBC… It would indeed be super if the BBC would invite criticism of subjects like, for instance, the link between man and global warming, wouldn’t it?
I guess as far as the BBC is concerned, it’s only worthy of debate if it involves American Jews.
John Reith:
“Blimey. People round here think you’re serious even when you append a bleedin’ emoticon.
Best leave off the gags then.”
I think we’ve experienced your views enough to know what you really think about the white working classes John.
Sorry, I don’t know how to link to archive postings, so I cut and pasted one of your responses to me in October which reveals perfectly your attitude to the ‘Telly Taxed majority’. Or rather – the people who pay the bulk of your wages John:-
John Reith (October):
“I’d have thought a chippy type like you would be dead keen on the fish wrap. But let me save you the bother: Britain as portrayed by the News of the Screws and similar tabs appears to be a country where the ‘working class’ you are so keen on do little other than sodomize their own and their neighbours’ children, nick things and either frequent or control prostitutes. If it really ain’t as bad as it’s portrayed up there on the council estates of darkest Derbyshire or wherever, then good…but I shan’t be visiting ‘til Rupert Murdoch himself guarantees it’s safe.”
Additional to the above, John’s attitude (as is most of the BBCs) that if you are white working class you live on a council estate, read the tabloids and watch football.
I don’t do any of that John. You need to get out of your Chelsea pad a little more often.
“The fact that the book invites criticism, however, is also a strength. Its scholarly, dispassionate tone is meant to encourage a debate.”
I would love to see some scholarly, dispassionate debate on al-Beeb’s favorite religion. Sadly, all they seem to produce are P.R. puff pieces along the lines of “Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic” and “British, Muslim and Proud.”