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.
Poor Boy/John reith,
A or B? Israel is being smeared and belittled by antisemites who would laugh at her destruction! The BBC plays a huge role in undermining the ONLY democracy in the region. She is surrounded by corrupt dictatorships who would show her and her people no mercy. Nothing is spared in the lefts attempt to turn the worlds opinion against Israel and you play childish games with loaded questions like A or B?
John Reith, in answer to my question about Hebollahs crimes said, “so what”, well that tells me all I need to know about where his loyalties lie.
In that tiny outpost of western democracy called Israel they fight evryday against true evil and my heart goes out to them, knowing as I do that their most bitter enemy lies in places like the BBC.
A or B? I choose Israel and you choose Hezbollah, fair enough, because you can lie and smear Israel BUT the truth will out in the end.
The BBC and how its hatred of the UD permeates its news reporting.
Iraq journalist’s family ‘killed’
An Iraqi journalist who lives in Jordan has said that 11 members of his family have been killed by Shia gunmen in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.
…………….
The police in Baghdad have not confirmed the attack, but one officer told the BBC the killings had occurred. Mr Kawwaz edits a website that has been critical of the Iraqi government and the US military presence in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7113406.stm
So who are the BBC saying really did the shooting?)
US helicopters fly in cyclone aid
Helicopters from the US navy have begun delivering relief supplies to survivors of the devastating cyclone that hit southern Bangladesh 10 days ago.
………………
Bangladesh has accepted US help because it does not have enough helicopters to deliver the required aid, officials said, Reuters news agency reports.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7113178.stm
Yeah right, here is what US navy news are reporting;
“At the request of the Government of Bangladesh, Kearsarge and 22nd MEU (SOC) are coordinating with government officials, military leaders and international aid organizations to determine how best to focus the added capabilities of the U.S. naval forces against relief efforts.”
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=33476
(Oh yes BBC everybody else in the world was reporting this story on Sat morning.)
US Navy ships drop HK visit plan
The US Navy says Chinese approval for its vessels to enter Hong Kong for the Thanksgiving holiday has come too late. The navy said the ships had already left the area, after China initially refused their request to dock. China later said it would allow the flotilla to dock in the harbour for “humanitarian” reasons. About 8,000 personnel on the USS Kitty Hawk and other vessels had expected to go ashore, but instead have spent most of Thanksgiving on the South China Sea. When the approval to dock was given, the US ships had already left port to return to their base in Japan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7106871.stm
Reading the BBC version you’d think the Yanks buggered off a huff after the kind Chinese allowed them to visit Hong Kong. What the BBC don’t tell you is that the US Navy informed, requested and gained permission for the Kitty Hawk and her support vessels to visit HK well in advance of the visit. The Chinese played silly buggers at the last moment. Here is how AP reported the same story;
“The top US military commander in the Pacific said on Thursday he was “perplexed and concerned” by China’s last-minute decision to deny a US aircraft carrier entry to Hong Kong for a previously scheduled port visit.The USS Kitty Hawk and its escort ships were due to dock in Hong Kong for a four-day visit on Wednesday until they were refused access. Hundreds of family members who had flown to Hong Kong to spend Thanksgiving with their sailors were stranded by the move.”
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2007/11/24/2003389316
The BBC and how its hatred of the UD permeates its news reporting.
The BBC and how its hatred of the UD permeates its news reporting.
Iraq journalist’s family ‘killed’
An Iraqi journalist who lives in Jordan has said that 11 members of his family have been killed by Shia gunmen in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.
…………….
The police in Baghdad have not confirmed the attack, but one officer told the BBC the killings had occurred. Mr Kawwaz edits a website that has been critical of the Iraqi government and the US military presence in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7113406.stm
So who are the BBC saying really did the shooting?)
US helicopters fly in cyclone aid
Helicopters from the US navy have begun delivering relief supplies to survivors of the devastating cyclone that hit southern Bangladesh 10 days ago.
………………
Bangladesh has accepted US help because it does not have enough helicopters to deliver the required aid, officials said, Reuters news agency reports.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7113178.stm
Yeah right, here is what US navy news are reporting;
“At the request of the Government of Bangladesh, Kearsarge and 22nd MEU (SOC) are coordinating with government officials, military leaders and international aid organizations to determine how best to focus the added capabilities of the U.S. naval forces against relief efforts.”
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=33476
(Oh yes BBC everybody else in the world was reporting this story on Sat morning.)
US Navy ships drop HK visit plan
The US Navy says Chinese approval for its vessels to enter Hong Kong for the Thanksgiving holiday has come too late. The navy said the ships had already left the area, after China initially refused their request to dock. China later said it would allow the flotilla to dock in the harbour for “humanitarian” reasons. About 8,000 personnel on the USS Kitty Hawk and other vessels had expected to go ashore, but instead have spent most of Thanksgiving on the South China Sea. When the approval to dock was given, the US ships had already left port to return to their base in Japan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7106871.stm
Reading the BBC version you’d think the Yanks buggered off a huff after the kind Chinese allowed them to visit Hong Kong. What the BBC don’t tell you is that the US Navy informed, requested and gained permission for the Kitty Hawk and her support vessels to visit HK well in advance of the visit. The Chinese played silly buggers at the last moment. Here is how AP reported the same story;
“The top US military commander in the Pacific said on Thursday he was “perplexed and concerned” by China’s last-minute decision to deny a US aircraft carrier entry to Hong Kong for a previously scheduled port visit.The USS Kitty Hawk and its escort ships were due to dock in Hong Kong for a four-day visit on Wednesday until they were refused access. Hundreds of family members who had flown to Hong Kong to spend Thanksgiving with their sailors were stranded by the move.”
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2007/11/24/2003389316
The BBC and how its hatred of the UD permeates its news reporting.
John Reith | 26.11.07 – 3:33 pm,
Yes, Katya Adler is a Jew. Not all Jews, especially those with modern, liberal educations, know the history of the foundation of Israel. Many of them have bought the mainstream view that all Palestinians were exiled, all had their homes stolen, all are victims of Israeli Jews only. They believe that every single key on a string around a Palestinian’s neck is real.
It is typical of today’s “progressive” leftoid Jews that they see Israel as the unequivocal villain. I have had many debates with these people over the years, and the lack of knowledge (or willful ignorance) of certain realities is ubiquitous.
JR, I don’t think I need to point out to you (yet here I am doing it anyway) that all Jews do not move in lock-step in “Israel First” formation. Lots of Jews in the Diaspora have been crying for surrender to terrorism for over twenty years. There are many, many Jews who are quite happy to portray Israel as the oppressor, and that Israel is to blame for singlehandedly creating the situations in which the poor Palestinians find themselves today.
Auntie likes to hire these kinds of Jews as reporters, doesn’t she? You know, progressive, non-observant, solemn yet precious. And so it goes for your Katya.
This is the same Katya Adler who files reports on how the ultra-orthodox community in Israel oppresses women, without any quotes from someone with a positive experience, which the BBC would do in a similar report about Muslims. This is the same Katya Adler who files reports on the nasty Israeli Army bulldozing a Palestinian school and a clinic, which were deliberately built in a militarized zone (this is where money donated by Britain to the Palestinian authority goes). It is also your Katya who files loving reports about earnest Muslim lads from Jordan who go to Iraq to fight the nasty Americans .
Oh yes, this is the same Katya Adler (who’s name Katty Kay garbled so I didn’t catch it during the initial broadcast) who did that ludicrous report on the Red Cross giving “human rights” training to balaclava-clad Palestinian “militants” from Gaza.
So yes, JR, Katya Adler is a Jew. But she is obviously one of the useful idiots your employers like to keep around. Sort of like the unfortunate Jewish kid who had to do that report on the opening of the Holocaust archives and was probably forced by his editor to balance the piece by interviewing one Communist Gentile looking for murdered relatives (Hooray!), and one Jew looking to reclaim some cash (Boo!). The racial/religious origins of the reporter is supposed to make the report itself beyond reproach.
Katya Adler’s Jewish background makes her a tool for propaganda, but not necessarily a reliable source on Israel-related issues.
I was watching Songs of Praise on Sunday and Sally Magnusson made the comment that Saint Andrew was a Palestinian. This wasn’t particularly relevant to the gist of the programme but was made anyway. I did a quick check online and found that, as I had expected, he was crucified around 60 AD. Those of us who know our Biblical history (most Christians I hope), know that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD and cleansed of Jews along with Judea being renamed Palestine by the Romans. By today’s definitions Andrew was a Jew, by the definition of the first century he was a Jew from Judea. Yet this comment was made to further cement the BBC line that the Jews have no real claim to the Holy Land and further sever the Jewish roots from Christianity.
I never denied that the defection was covered. What I pointed out that it was not anywhere near as prominent as more obscure defections from the Conservatives have been. It is also said by Iain Dale to have been missed from Radio 4 and 5 news reports this morning well after it was announced.
No excuse given for your racism in thinking that Adler’s Jewishness was relevant, I see.
Well said Paul. Next the left will be telling us the Muslims saved us from the Spanish Armada. WHOOPS!
The BBC/RDF film was just on about the Monarchy that had all the kerfuffle a few months back about the BBC twisting the facts and they do so well….
So actually a very good film BUT perhaps our resident Beeboids could explain why there was a comment slipped in about main reason for the visit was to prop up the British Government and the Iraq invasion. Followed by the President speaking very well and with some pride and with articulate words about the Queen and his memories of previous visits which then cut to some clown putting up a tent in Virginia who muttered about the US having a President who couldn’t even speak English. And finally the very last clip during the credits showed President Bush moving too fast for HM down some stairs, realising his mistake and moving back up the stairs which came across like an ‘outtake’ and seemed designed to show him in a poor light. If he did, so what? He corrected it and carried on.
BBC – never miss a chance to slag off the Yanks – this is what we do. A good film ruined by yet more stupidity from the half wits who probably have never met a real American from outside their incestuous media crowd/Democrat infested circles in their lives! They are getting really quite ridiculous!
Stephanie clague | 26.11.07 – 8:26 pm
You’ve been at the filfar again Steph. So we’ll take that as a palpable A.
Can’t you get it into your head that it is YOU who’s badmouthing Israel by applauding and cheering it for committing a war crime it actually never committed at all. Dumb or what?
Are you a member of the ‘Katya Adler and Tim Franks are self-hating Jews’ chorus too?
Any other BBC Jews you’d like to put in the same category?
One gets so used to BBC people pretending to be unbiased that it’s quite refreshing when one of them stops pretending. A chap called Peter Marshall began his report on Newsnight just now with : “His Middle East policies have been largely disastrous, and today Mr Bush….”
It certainly saved me the trouble of listening to the rest of the report !
“His Middle East policies have been largely disastrous, and today Mr Bush….”
Well…maybe the BBC uses ‘disastrous’ to mean ‘actually rather correct and working well but we hates him we does precious so we uses nasty wordsssss’
Bit like Clinton with his interesting definition of ‘sex’ ……
Isn’t it interesting that when people talk about Rwanda no one ever mentions the fact that Bill Clinton (and Al Bore) sat back and watched a million or more people get hacked to death.
Oh an Bill’s middle east policy wasn’t very successful either was it?
At least he was a hit with the ladies and the cigars.
I don’t think the bias at the BBC is being reduced. In fact it’s getting more blatent.
The “hand picked” question time audiences that all appear to be social workers, members of local terririst groups and Guardian readers is typical.
The one sided view of the “climate change” debate.
The failure to report good news stories from Iraq.
The refusal to give negative stories about Brown and Nu Labour a high priority until the rest of the media make it impossible for the BBC to ignore (even though they play the stories down)
The open way the BBC allow patsy Scottish presenters to give Nu Labour politicians an easy time (Marr and Wark as two examples)
Peter Marshall began his report on Newsnight
& he ended it by claiming that with Syria only sending a deputy prime minister it was a “humiliation” for President Bush.
After a 1001 BBC-styled humiliations it’s probably water off a duck’s back.
I haven’t completely made up my mind about the Oxford Union giving a platform to Nick Griffin and David Irving, yet. However, Ross Atkins of World Have Your Say doesn’t seem to have a problem with using the BBC to give a platform.
He discussed the issue with Nick Griffin of the BNP, Travis Pierce of the Klu Klux Klan and a representative of Vlaams Belang whose name I didn’t catch. Seems he missed any irony in his choice of guests.
BTW look at the full-sized graphic used in the BBC ‘Free to speak‘ season.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/COpPpMnH.jpg
http://thumbsnap.com/v/hhAzwp0h.jpg
I would have thought the Pravda/Soviet images were a little out of place.
Why two very similar but different images? One I downloaded about an hour ago and one I downloaded now.
John Reith | 26.11.07 – 11:02 pm
Are you a member of the ‘Katya Adler and Tim Franks are self-hating Jews’ chorus too?
Any other BBC Jews you’d like to put in the same category?
Since this question to Stephanie claque was most likely prompted by my post above, I think I need to make a slight correction to this.
I think at least Katya Adler is an Israel-loathing Jew, not the self-loathing kind according to the standard definition. Naturally, there is a difference. Of course Katya, like so many angry Leftoid Americans, would say that they hate their country the way it is today (or their perception of it), as opposed to hating the country itself. They do hate many of their countrymen, and certainly current and past political leaders. Katya demonstrates her loathing for Israelis (her currently adopted countrymen, in a sense) in her reporting.
I think poor Tim Franks is more an innocent tool of the BBC (used as I described in my previous post), and may not be entirely self-loathing. He may in fact realize the unfortunate “balance” of his piece, and might even resent having to have done it that way. I don’t know him, obviously, and couldn’t make such an accusation based on the report, especially since I know he didn’t create the report all by his lonesome in a vaccum. But I’m pretty sure he would not have been assigned to do such a feature if he was either an observant Jew or had told his superiors that Jews deserved the same consideration as Muslims in reports like these.
I won’t fall for the will o’ the wisp that all criticism of Israel is de facto anti-semitism. However, the problem with Israel-loathing Jews like Katya (and others we can discover, surely) is that while when they get to biased, unfair, and even false reporting which portrays Israel as the sole, vicious villain, they often engender anti-semitism. This is not exactly a new idea either.
Unfortunately, the Jewish identity of the presenter can be subliminal armor against criticism of the BBC for being unfair to Israel or unfair to Jews. Any criticism of the report automatically becomes with a serious personal criticism of the reporter, of a type that doesn’t really exist with too many other issues.
“But the reporter was a Jew” is not a valid defense. It is more likely an offensive tactic.
David Preiser | 26.11.07 – 8:40 pm,
Comprehensive post there on Adler. I figured John Reith wouldn’t be able to offer a rebuttal to it, except if sneering can be regarded as one, and he proved me right at 11:02 pm.
Funny, today Adler was telling us on the World Service, re Olmert, that, His critics doubt his sincerity. And there are people who doubt Abbas’ sincerity, but of course Katya wont tell us that.
And here’s another BBC hack:
Palestinians are dying here on a daily basis. Nobody expects that to change soon.
Least of all the BBC. Be frustrating for the BBC if it did. Then it could no longer point an accusing finger at Israel.
Elsewhere on the World Service, re Bill Clinton’s efforts at peacemaking:
Not even he could coax the Israelis and the Palestinians into a final deal.
What really happened, of course, was that Arafat walked away from peace. Re the peace attempts, Clinton later said to Arafat, I am a failure, and you have made me one.
Come on, BBC, if any of you are listening. You don’t have to stay frozen in pro-Palestinian PeeCee for ever. Just report the truth. It’s not that hard.
Bryan,
Matt Frei’s not listening anyway. He’s just had on Mustafa Barghouti, one of the least offensive Palestinian political figures around, in media circles. He represents an extremely small percentage of his countrymen, but his politics are more palatable than most of them, so he must be the ideal representative of the Palestinian people tonight, no? No.
The topic, of course, is the Annapolis talks, which must be discredited because Hamas isn’t there, and only a junior envoy from Syria has shown up so far. Oh, and it would be a success for Bush and Blair.
I won’t bore everyone with the mind-numbing iterations of the Palestinian position – with only a gesture towards challenging by Frei. I’ll just mention one particular bit of propaganda Frei let go right past him. After getting his answers to what three key things Barghouti thought the Israelis must do, he asked the same question for the Palestinians. Barghouti merely shrugged and said they had done everything already. They had accepted a state made up of just the West Bank and Gaza, just 23% of the Land of Palestine, and half of what the UN gave them. What more can they do? It’s all down to Israel.
Frei eats it up, and it’s off to commercial.
Pure propaganda, lovingly administered.
The BBC, swings and roundabouts and guess the missing noun.
Anti-polio drive gets $200m boost
The global campaign to eradicate polio has been given a grant of $200m (£97m) from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Rotary International. It comes as the World Health Organization (WHO) is calling for more donations to boost its drive to eradicate the disease altogether. In the last 20 years, immunisation programmes have dramatically cut the number of new polio cases.
But it is still endemic in Nigeria, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan.
……………………………………..
In countries where the virus is still endemic, immunisation programmes have met a range of problems.;
The communities where people are most affected tend to have poor health services.
It can be difficult to reach the children and to keep track of them for repeat doses.
Parents do not always understand that the vaccine needs to be given more than once and may refuse it.
Sometimes there are cultural obstacles. If the people doing the vaccinations are young or inexperienced, for example, they might be refused.
If they are male, the women in conservative households may not let them in.
Sometimes false rumours that immunisation will harm children also puts people off.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7114026.stm
So anybody guess from all that procrastination by the BBC just what people in;
Nigeria, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan are not allowing their children to feel a little prick. (Unlike the founder Member of a certain BBC sponsored faith)
The BBC, swings and roundabouts and guess the missing noun.
The BBC and the half stories it tells in which to promote its hatred of the US.
Iraq seeks UN troop mandate’s end
Baghdad will ask the UN to renew the mandate of US-led forces in Iraq for a final time until the end of 2008, Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki has said. He said the mandate should be replaced by a new pact between Iraq and the US. The Security Council has been renewing the troops’ mandate annually since the US-led invasion into Iraq in 2003. Mr Maliki also urged the UN to remove all restrictions on Iraqi sovereignty, which have been in place since Baghdad’s invasion into Kuwait in 1990.
Iraq-US talks
“The United States has promised that the multinational forces will stay under a UN mandate only until the end of 2008,” Mr Maliki said in a televised address.
Mr Maliki said that Iraq had reached the stage where it did not need coalition forces, adding that the country should be allowed to become a “normal state”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7113969.stm
Anybody read the above. Does one get the impression that even the Iraqi propped up government have had enough of the Yanks. Here is the same story but told by the Guardian;
US, Iraq Deal Sees Long-Term US Presence
WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush on Monday signed a deal setting the foundation for a potential long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq, with details to be negotiated over matters that have defined the war debate at home – how many U.S. forces will stay in the country, and for how long.
The agreement between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki confirms that the United States and Iraq will hash out an “enduring” relationship in military, economic and political terms. Details of that relationship will be negotiated in 2008, with a completion goal of July, when the U.S. intends to finish withdrawing the five combat brigades sent in 2007 as part of the troop buildup that has helped curb sectarian violence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-7105606,00.html
Strange how the BBC doesn’t inform the British paying public what is really happening on the ground, but instead reports with a very biased leftwing view. Why next they’ll be promoting the next video clip from their ideological master. O.B.L with a glowing review.
Silly me they already have;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7114157.stm
The BBC and the half stories it tells in which to promote its hatred of the US.
Typicaly tendentious BBC analysis
“Would Hitler have failed from the start without freedom of speech”
A dangerous article. Free speech either means that or it means nothing. The whole article bangs on about Hitler, David Irving and the BNP and says that with repressive measures Hitler could never have been allowed to come to power.* Obviously they intend to connect this to the BNP and David Irving. But if you open the door to repressive regulations on speech, then there’s no reason why you shouldn’t keep going and going.
*It must be mentioned that Socialists and Communists before 1933 fought the incipient Nazis in the streets and they did not suceed in curtailing his “right” to free speech.
I put “right” in quotes because a right is something conferred on you by a higher authority, and a higher authority can revoke your rights. Which just goes to show that no one must have the power to make and arbeit rights. Which also just goes to show that Liberalism and Democracy are themselves dangerous ideas and should be banned.
I think that’s pretty plausible don’t you? I mean that.
I think I’ve just struck at something profound..
The article quotes** Peter Tatchell: “In extreme circumstances, there should be intolerance of intolerance. Otherwise some people can use free speech and their human rights to undermine the human rights of others.”
There’s your explanation for the Iraq war. Right there. How ironic.
I could call this a mere attack on a BBC article but this issue is so much more than that.
But really though.
BBC = Sucky and tendentious
** We must remember that quotes hardly pick themselves
More evidence to back Yazza’s complaints of a BBC drift to the right. On News24 tonight, reporting the story of the Liverpool teacher arrested in Sudan for calling a teddy bear Muhammed, the newsreader referred to ‘Islam’s prophet Mohammed’. Their use of the phrase ‘THE prophet Mohammed’ is so habitual I assumed it was their house style. Perhaps we can even look forward to ‘the so-called prophet Mohammed’.
A typically “balanced” news broadcast from BBC Propaganda America:
After Abu Bowen said his piece (no need to go into that as you all can write the script), but before the interview with Mustafa Barghouti about which I posted above), Matt Frei interviewed Mark Regev, who is the spokesman for the Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Regev can be considered a valid source of information on the wishes of the Israeli government, and of Israel in general, whereas as Barghouti cannot be.
After allowing Regev to give a brief statement that he thinks there is hope for peace talks this time, Frei lays into the discussion of borders. What sort of Palestinian state did Israel envision, Frei asks while tracing his fingers around an imaginary map in front of him, “What kind of state will you allow?” Regev replies that Israel is not concerned so much with the borders themselves, but with what kind of state will inhabit these borders. If it is a “Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah” state, Israel wants no part of that, and they will be against it. If it is a “democratic, healthy state”, a peaceful neighbor, Israel welcomes that.
“But those are just generalities,” Frei exclaims, shaking his head. He proceeds to demand answers about the border details. Frei challenges Regev the entire way.
So whether or not it’s a Death to Israel state is just a generality, Matt? Apparently so, as he goes on with his desire for Regev to describe a contiguous Palestinian state, full stop. And it just gets sillier.
Contrast that with Frei’s session with Mustafa Barghouti, who does not represent an official opinion of any Palestinian government (about which I posted above @1:13), in which Frei had his tongue so far up Barghouti’s backside he could practically clean the man’s back teeth.
So the final “balance” is this:
Bowen, Barghouti and Frei join forces in an overwhelming victory for the Palestinians.
After the break, more gloating about the Bush defeat, er, Labor victory in Australia.
Your Licence Fee hard at work.
“John Reith” wrote:
Whoaaaa LIBEL ALERT!!!
Did you ever defend your libel by naming the six posters you claimed were BNP members?
John Reith | 26.11.07 – 11:03 am
That post – along with your other posts on this thread – was a quite a display of venom from you Reith. I suppose you thought it would be venomous enough to paralyse people here so they would miss your spectacular moving of the goalposts. First you accuse the IDF of murder and a group of us of being apologists for murder (and you did not exclude Stephanie from the group, as a look at the last open thread will confirm, so don’t try to wriggle out of that one) and then, after your research, you declare the IDF innocent, but us guilty of approving of murder. In some ways you provide quite a comical spectacle: a BBC employee energetically coming to the defence of Israel (as if this is something the BBC does) only because he thinks in so doing he can trash people on this site.
You quote Tsipi Livni:
“There will never be an [Israeli] army commander that will intentionally aim at civilians or UN soldiers”, she said.
– which is in effect precisely what I said. I can’t think of another army on the planet that would be as restrained as the Israeli army when the civilians it is bound to protect are attacked. But you try to twist my words and the words of others around to a justification for murder. People here can see through you, Reith. We know what you are trying to do in your desperate defence of your indefensible BBC. Time and time again we see you playing the man and not the ball, sneering at people here and trying to discredit them in the vain hope that you will thereby distract attention from your implacable bias, which is part and parcel of the bias of the BBC.
wally greeninker | 27.11.07 – 2:38 am |
reporting the story of the Liverpool teacher arrested in Sudan for calling a teddy bear Muhammed, the newsreader referred to ‘Islam’s prophet Mohammed’
Given that Mohammed (and variations) is the most common first name on the planet one would expect quite a number of toys named Mohammed. According to the BBC, the children came up with eight names including Abdullah (the father of Muhammad, meaning servant of God), Hassan (the first grandson of the Muhammad) and Muhammed. I wonder if the real problem is that Gillian Gibbons had the children vote?
This smells of Danish cartoons, something even the BBC noted.
Intriguingly this story slipped into the BBC Learning English section.
They can’t help it, it’s default mode.
The trail for a Marcus Brigstocke appearance on BBC1 Breakfast Time this morning is…guess what? A joke about China doing nothing about global warming, backeting inaction on that front with human rights abuses. So now they are linking celebrity froth with their favourite axe-grinding. Relentless!
Listening to various BBC news programmes discussion of what I would call “riots” in Paris, I note that its participants are called “protestors”. What I also find amazing is the way in which the word “muslim” is never mentioned.
What quality of news reporting is this?
The BBC, it’s what we omit.
Again and again you betray yourself John Reith!
More insults? and now putting words in my mouth?
By the way I dont even know what “filfar” is as I dont do drugs.
It suits you to smear and misrepresent my position and I cannot stop you BUT you condemn yourself and your antisemitic views with every word! carry on, its very educational to all here.
Your silence on the main points of my posts are truly enlightening! You choose to inult and smear and make fun of me instead of answering my questions in an honest and open manner.
I did NOT choose either A or B because the question is dishonest and twists the real question you should have asked. Typical BBC elitist and arrogant behaviour from you John Reith? You cant defend your position so you resort to low tricks.
David Preiser | 27.11.07 – 1:13 am,
Couldn’t agree more. Meanwhile I’m on a hunt to find a BBC programme on the conflict free of anti-Israel bias. There was one on Sunday, credit where it’s due (though the main guest was a typical apologist for the Palestinians – “resistance to occupation” and so on and endlessly on):
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/7117747642476064655/#375903
Now I’m trying to watch a Nov 20 Hardtalk programme with the Hamas terrorist leader based in Damascus:
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=d&q=Hardtalk&go=Search
But it keeps on buffering on me.
Hard work trying to counteract BBC bias. Even harder work trying to find some bias-free BBC output.
Has anyone else noticed the teddy bear called Muhammed story appears to have vanished from the Beebs teletext news and web pages ? This morning the ITV teletext news was running it as the 2nd item however.
To be honest you have to feel sorry for the Beeb as with Northern Rock exposing the Govts incompetence and the Labour donations scandal there are very few stories they can run at the moment. My money is on a whole batch of fresh global warming horror stories in the weeks to come 🙂
John Gentle:
Listening to various BBC news programmes discussion of what I would call “riots” in Paris, I note that its participants are called “protestors”. What I also find amazing is the way in which the word “muslim” is never mentioned.
What quality of news reporting is this?
The BBC, it’s what we omit.
John Gentle | 27.11.07 – 8:16 am | #
Listening to Radio4 it seems its those damn ‘youths’ that are rioting again.
Nah, Newsnight covered Abrahamsgate pretty thoroughly and fairly. The BBC website, however, is spinning it as a “we are all to blame” story and omits some salient facts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7114327.stm
Surprisingly, the website has made little play of two things: the planning applications, which are, frankly, a little bit smelly given the shadowy nature of Durham Green Developments; the claims by senior Labour MPs that they know nothing about Abrahams. Hilary Benn and Harriet Harman are not mentioned.
But don’t worry: Gordon is going to “answer” these claims at a press conference.
Yup, the Toady team earned their corn again today, no inconvenient mentions of Durham Green Developments’ spectacular planning successess. Or groper jack never having met ‘dave’ abrahams, despite his being a former nulab prospective parliamentry candidate, and being a front row attendee at tone’s farewell party for the faithfull. Oh, or the donations to harriet harperson or barmy benn jr.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/
Listen to the 0855 slot on the Today programme, which is Jim Naughtie talking to Daniel Hamman (opposed to state funding of political parties) and Justin Fisher, a Brunel politics professor who was on the Hayden Phillips mob on party funding (who approves of state funding.)
Hamman gets five hostile Jim Naughtie questions / interruptions. Fisher gets none. I think Jim’s view on state funding is pretty clear. (It’s also quite funny that when Hamman has a kick at the cosy arrangements that the politicians have arranged for themselves in Europe, Jim’s natural response is to criticise the US arrangements.)
I don’t really see what religion has got to do with the rioting in Paris. Neither do many other people by the look of it. I’ll give you “children of immigrants” if you still want to show your prejedices though.
“Hundreds of youths fought pitched battles with police for a second night running as volatile housing estates north of Paris erupted into violence after the deaths of two teenagers.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2951485.ece
“Up to 160 riot officers fired tear gas and plastic bullets as they were pelted with stones and petrol bombs by youths in the high-immigrant area.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/27/wfra427.xml
“Villiers-le-Bel was not among the districts hit by the weeks of rioting of November 2005, when disaffected youths set thousands of cars ablaze to protest unemployment and discrimination.”
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/26/france.violence/index.html
“Rampaging youths rioted overnight in Paris’ suburbs, hurling Molotov cocktails and setting fire to dozens of cars.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313024,00.html
Sproggett, the News 24 coverage overnight was much the same. They had a former Labour Cabinet Minister (can’t recall the name) telling us that it was a wake-up call for all parties, and significantly helped the case for state funding of political parties… apparently. No counter, no debate, just the blank acceptance that this somehow reflects badly on everyone and that state funding (which is being held up by those nasty Tories, boo hiss) is the way forward.
Are you a member of the ‘Katya Adler and Tim Franks are self-hating Jews’ chorus too?
John Reith – you habitually use Jewish identity as proof of prejudice if someone defends Israel, but use it as evidence of impartiality to whitewash biased BBC reports, if the reporter happens to be Jewish
Can’t you get it into your head – a biased report is a biased report is a biased report. Period. The background of the writer is immaterial. Your fixation on Jewish origins like this only shows up your own prejudices. And btw – I didn’t notice anyone here using the phrase ‘self hating Jew’ except you.
Certainly I got no idea of the seriousness of the corruption potential of this affair from the Today programme – in my idleness I’d assumed he’d wanted to use bagmen to funnel money to the Labour party simply in order not to screw up his chances of a Lordship. Wasn’t until I hit the internet this morning that the full extent of the possible/likely corruption was made clear.
So the question is, Why was this part of the story ignored by the Today programme? It’s all over every other media except the tax-funded one. Funny, that.
I suppose there comes a point at which the BBC’s reluctance to do its job as far as the Labour Party is concerned becomes an active act of sabotage of democracy. At what point, though? Whether active bias or lazy groupthink, I think the BBC salami-slices away at the foundations of an informed democracy day by day. And mostly we don’t care . . . the outrage slips . . .
And whilst I’m banging on. . . the lead story in the BBC Webpage’s UK News is headlined: “Brown to answer ‘crisis’ claims.”
What’s wrong with this headline / story is that there is nothing in the story whatsoever – not a jot – about what Brown’s going to do, let alone any sign that he might “answer” his critics. For all we can tell from the story, Brown might be holed up his bunker, chewing his nails, snarling at phantoms, and weeping bitter tears. The fact that this far into the story Brown has said nothing, not a damned thing, of any interest about this scandal is itself a story, I’d have thought.
“Brown silent as scandal mounts” would be a more accurate statement of affairs, and a more accurate summary of the story they’ve actually printed.
Instead, it’s “Brown to answer ‘crisis’ claims.” Unless the men in white coats get to him first, eh?
Stephanie clague | 27.11.07 – 8:33 am
you condemn yourself and your anti-semitic views with every word!
Perhaps I would treat your constant bleating about alleged anti-semitism with more respectful attention if I had not read one of your hate-filled rants against Christianity on another blog.
You know, the one where you describe the Christian faith as a ‘con-job’ devised to secure power and money; the divinity of Christ as ‘son of god rubbish’ designed ‘to make him {Jesus} more appealing to the masses’ and more besides.
You must have made a close study of anti-semitism because you have caught the rhetorical style of Der Sturmer to a T.
I can’t remember whether Parliament, in a fit of multi-culti relativism, abolished our historic blasphemy laws. If so, it’s a pity.
Now, please would you stand-up your charges of anti-Semitism by pointing to a single anti-semitic thing that I have said?
http://duggmirror.com/offbeat_news/Scholars_discover_a_hidden_image_in_Da_Vinci_s_The_Last_Supper/
I did NOT choose either A or B because the question is dishonest and twists the real question you should have asked.
I see nothing dishonest or twisting about it at all. But let me try another way:
Do you believe the destruction of the Khiam post was an accident (as Olmert, Livni, the IDF and I say) or do you believe it was a deliberate attack (morally defensible in the terms Bryan and David S have outlined • i.e. justified by the presence of Hezbollah missile crews)?
I dont even know what “filfar” is
Odd that. If you Google yourself, you’ll find a load of blog and HYS style posts come up ‘Stephanie Clague, Larnaca, Cyprus’.
Filfar is the national liquor of Cyprus, prominently for sale in every bar, restaurant and supermarket in the republic. ‘Nuff said?
Stephanie / Reith / Bryan et al.
Can we elevate the dialogue a little please? It seems a lot of people here are quite hysterical over the issue of Israel. I, like most sane folk, think the BBC has an obvious pro-Palestinian / anti-Israeli bias. There is plenty of evidence to support this.
I, like the majority of people here, am also disgusted at the constant attacks on Israel in the media (especially the BBC) and other places (such as the UN). It does the discourse no favours though when things are made personal.
I started looking at this site because I was so sick of BBC bias. It was refreshing to find a blog dedicated to exposing the organisation for what it is. If this is just a forum for those with similar political / religious beliefs to slap down quickly and in a pack-like mentality any opposing view then what’s the point?
Has John Reith ever had a valid point on this site – ever? Can anyone post a link to an example of where people have conceded a point to Reith? A lot of the criticism levelled at Reith is rude and personal yet he is time and again accused of the same behaviour.
The specific issue of the IDF attacking the Al-Khiam observation post and killing the UN observers inside (see posts above • sorry don’t know how to link) is one where I think Reith has a point. If that leads to a chorus of anti Poor Boy comments then so be it • I’m man enough to concede a point to JR.
Rampaging youths rioted overnight in Paris’ suburbs, hurling Molotov cocktails and setting fire to dozens of cars.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/ 0,2…,313024,00.html
Ben | 27.11.07 – 10:36 am
Ben, You link to Fox News but Fox state that it is an Associated Press report. Fox are not so idealogically driven that they alter agency copy. The BBC take the copy witout atribution.
Ben:
I don’t really see what religion has got to do with the rioting in Paris. Neither do many other people by the look of it. I’ll give you “children of immigrants” if you still want to show your prejedices though.
——————————————–
The majority of the ‘youths’ are children of north African immigrants who happen to be Muslim, this can happen when you allow uncontrolled immigration of people who live in ethnic ghettos and don’t assimilate.
Same can happen here.
Haha, I give you four pieces of evidence and that’s the best you can do?
Please, keep it up, got any more gems?
“More than 70 police officers were injured in running battles with gangs of hooded youths as riots spread across the Paris suburbs early today.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=496422&in_page_id=1811
“The majority of the ‘youths’ are children of north African immigrants who happen to be Muslim, this can happen when you allow uncontrolled immigration of people who live in ethnic ghettos and don’t assimilate.
Same can happen here.
Connell | 27.11.07 – 12:11 pm | # ”
And that’s a fact! Really. I thought this blog was supposed to be about bias?
Ben has a point with regard to the BBC’s and the rest of the UK’s media interest in the correct labelling of the rioting ‘youths’ for the third year running. the UK media as a whole shows a noticable reluctance to identify anything remotely bad about muslims worldwide, and are conversely embarrassingly keen to show them in a good light. I suspect that this is based on the volitile reaction to the Danish cartoons and perhaps as far back as the Rushdie affair?
A ComRes survey suggests that Labour has suffered a six-point slump to 27% in a month, giving the Tories a large lead despite falling one point themselves to 40%.
According to Al-Beeb the survey ‘suggests’ a six-point slump for Labour whereas the Tories one point fall reads as a definite fall. Poor wording or insitutionalised bias?
Chris | 27.11.07 – 12:31 pm
I suspect that this is based on the volitile reaction to the Danish cartoons
Isn’t it more likely to be down to the fact that the press complaints commission, the national union of journalists and the BBC all have similar guidelines warning against drawing attention to the race/ethnicity of people unless strictly relevant to the matter being reported?
Obviously there is room for subjective judgment in deciding on that.
In this case, some like Connell would argue that their north african Muslim identity is relevant.
Others might say – if they’re demanding the reconstitution of the caliphate, then it’s relevant; if they’re venting their rage about a motor bike accident, it isn’t.
As promised the update from PM yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/pm_mon
Starts 34 minutes in.
Transcript – might be the odd word missed
Rita Chakrabarti
“We are told he thought it was perfectly permissible that he should know of this situation and that David Abrahams should be able to give the money in this way.
What is slightly unclear is whether or not it was illegal – the fact that he should know and not inform the Electoral Commission”
BTW it took me 30 minutes yesterday afternoon to find two websites listing chapter and verse of the relevant law.
http://thehuntsman2007.blogspot.com/2007/11/labours-criminal-donations.html
http://www.iaindale.blogspot.com/
Well chaps and chappesses take your choice
a…. bias
or
b…..utter journalistic incompetence?
JR which would you go for go for?