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.
Dr R | 28.11.07 – 4:06 pm:
I recall a recent UK poll which basically found that America was one of the most hated and least democratic countries in the world. My question is, how come people believe such crap? … You see, my view is that the BBC – with its completely undeserved power – actually influences what people think.
I take it you’ve read THIS
If not, you should!
Muslims are quick to demand that their prophet is not demeaned, but they don’t seem to give a shit when burning our flag or planting bombs to kill us.
It’s OK to teach kids to become suicide bombers but not to call a toy Mohammed?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1446003.stm
The very attitude of the likes of john Reith show how dangerous liberals are in society.
Rob:
It IS trivial relative to anything we would convict for (i.e. injury / murder or damage to property). Anything else is just false moral equivalence. You can argue in favour of just about any fascistic set of values if you take that approach. And the vast majority of muslims don’t seem to be offended or made to suffer by this anyway.
Being a teacher is a difficult, stressful job. I’ll go along with you so far as to say she made a mistake, but that’s it.
Anyone know when the next BBC Blue Peter phone in competition is going to be to name a new pet?
Jonathan: Oh, I agree with you. I’m just not sure what gives us the right to impose our values on their country.
I do see what you’re saying about moral equivalence, but moral superiority is a difficult position from which to negotiate.
You’ve got to remember that the current Islamic year is 1428, which equates to the late Middle Ages in the Christian calendar. That sounds about right to me…
Tim
“Anyone know when the next BBC Blue Peter phone in competition is going to be to name a new pet?”
How about… Mohammed?
John Reith:
“Okay, so far you’ve shown that history, psychology and wit aren’t your strong suits.
Are you holding any talent cards at all?”
Comments like these don’t do you any favour Reith. You just come across as an impotent troll.
Martin | 29.11.07 – 5:35 pm | #
John Reith: Please explain why some religions should be taken seriously?
Too big a question to be dealt with in depth here, but here are a few of many reasons:
They command the allegiance and affection of billions. They have been the fountainheads of cultures and civilizations. They form the basis of morality. They are an intrinsic part of what it is to be human. They posit a moral horizon higher than the material, which means we are judged by something beyond ourselves. They are part of our tradition, which is just as important as our present and future. One of them is true, but even the false ones have lessons for us all. They should be treated with respect.
Do you think Witchcraft should get treated the same as Christianity?
No.
The Churches in the UK are hardly bursting at the seams are they?
Some are, some aren’t. The one I go to is full to bursting most Sundays.
So it’s OK to hang homosexuals in Iran then?
No.
You think because Iran is a barbaric country we should just accept it?
No. As I’ve argued above, I think barbaric regimes should be made to comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If they’re members of the UN, they have, after all, signed up to it.
Human Rights should have the SAME STANDARD across the world if hanging homosexuals is not acceptable in the UK or the USA then it should not be acceptable in Iran or Saudi Arabia either.
On this we agree.
Dr R,
You got it, I can’t wait.
Lets see em fix that one, the way the British public are feeling now, it will win hands down!
Rob Clark: “If you choose to go and work in a foreign country, be it France, Japan or the Sudan, it behoves you to be aware of, and sympathetic to, the laws and customs of that country.”
Would this be like, say, the Muslims who parade on our streets with placards calling for the death of people who “oppose” them?
I think that the BBC should judge Islamic countries to te same standard as us, this reverse racism is just not good enough, don’t you believe in the UDHR, I certainly do and if the BBC was reporting on the basis of that for all and not just the USA, Europe and Israel we would feel a bit better.
I was told on Harry’s Place once by a liberal that it was quite right to judge non-western countries to a lower standard, I have always thought that was rubbish.
Rob:
I wouldn’t want to impose on them either, which is why I wouldn’t be in favour of going up the Nile and bombing them! But that doesn’t mean that I would describe the Sudanese authorities’ behaviour as equivalent to ours in a discussion.
As for 1428, most muslims I know live in the 21st century with the rest of us, at least I hope so. I wouldn’t mind betting the (pretty devout) guy in the Asian shop round the corner from me would see this as an innocent mistake, unjustly punished. Maybe I should ask him….. 🙂
John Reith:
Martin | 29.11.07 – 4:11 pm
You complain that the US is held to a higher moral test than Iran. Don’t you think that’s a compliment to the US? In fact, wouldn’t it be rather insulting to one of the most developed societies in the world to have the same expectations of it that one has of a backward, Islamic republic?
So John Reith, is it now the job of the BBC to be America’s moral guardian? Where does it say it has to in its charter? Or are you just spinning? You are quite good at it.
It seems that BBC’s obsession with America is imposing anti-Americanism on the political debate. Do you deny this John Reith?
Reg Hammer | 29.11.07 – 6:11 pm
Oh don’t you start.
You and Andy are the ones behaving like trolls here.
Neither of you has posted a single comment in this thread that makes any point of substance about BBC bias or anything else.
All either of you have done is post childish insults directed at me. Or in one case, at Aoun.
I won’t be intimidated by your double-act of course yobbery, but I don’t see why everyone else should have to be distracted by these exchanges.
I shall simply ignore you from now on.
John Reith
“history, psychology … aren’t your strong suits.”
Never pretended to have expertise of these subjects. They are not your strengths either, any idiot can Google stuff.
“Are you holding any talent cards at all?”
It appears I have one – pricking pomposities! given that you are still smarting from some of the mild comments made earlier.
noobie | 29.11.07 – 7:28 pm
So John Reith, is it now the job of the BBC to be America’s moral guardian?
No, but as the world’s major power, the US and its actions are bound to be held up to scrutiny in BBC current affairs programmes, just as they are by newspapers and other broadcasters across Europe and around the world.
It seems that BBC’s obsession with America is imposing anti-Americanism on the political debate. Do you deny this John Reith?
I don’t think the BBC has an obsession with America. If anything, I’d like to see more coverage of US politics. For instance, I’d like to see the candidate debates re-broadcast in full.
Reith
“All either of you have done is post childish insults directed at me.”
There are some staggering double standards at work here. Or just the paranoid bleating of an overly precious Beeboid given a taste of his own medicine.
No insults have been thrown and nothing like the sarcasm and condescension you have dished out in bucketloads in previous blogs.
John Reith:
No, but as the world’s major power, the US and its actions are bound to be held up to scrutiny in BBC current affairs programmes, just as they are by newspapers and other broadcasters across Europe and around the world.
I agree that major powers should be held to scrutiny. But it doesn’t mean countries that continually violate human rights shouldn’t be held in the spotlight at America’s expense. Furthermore, what makes a superpower? Don’t the actions of the EU, Russia, China, or Iran for example have far reaching effects as that of America? If the BBC provides the same news narrative as other broadcasters, what makes it special that it deserves the licence fee?
I don’t think the BBC has an obsession with America.
Well certainly it has, especially with religious Americans.
BBC load the panel for this week’s Question Time. Not only do we get Caroline Flint representing Labour (fair enough) but they’ve also tracked down Gordon Brown’s favourite businessman Paul Myners, whose CV reveals he is the ultimate nulab insider:
He is a Trustee of the Brownite think tank The Smith Institute and has been dubbed “Gordon Brown’s favourite businessman”.
He is also part of the management team put together by US private equity house JC Flowers which is bidding to take control of Northern Rock.
Good man to tell the truth in a scandal about illegal donations then.
John Reith,
I’ll accept that the US deserves scrutiny for the reasons you suggest, but your organization has absolutely no business trying to influence our elections. Your colleagues in Washington, DC, crossed that line long ago and, like the pigeons do there, have crapped all over the monument upon which you perch.
If you want to see what more coverage of US politics by the BBC would look like, just contact Matt Frei’s office. I think they have just enough pennies in the budget to pay the phone bill. Only don’t bother calling until Monday, as he’s not in on Fridays.
And I wouldn’t bother watching the recent candidate debates either, as CNN has apparently hired the ex-producers of Blue Peter. Just last night in the Republican debate, they planted Decmocrat political activists in the audience posing as innocent questioners. They also had at least one Hillary plant in the Democratic candidates’ debate. You’d only be wasting your time.
David Preiser | 29.11.07 – 8:15 pm
last night in the Republican debate, they planted Decmocrat political activists in the audience posing as innocent questioners. They also had at least one Hillary plant in the Democratic candidates’ debate.
I guess if the BBC had reported those facts it’d be accused of stirring up anti-Americanism and trying to discredit the US political system.
In what ways do you think the BBC is trying to influence the outcome of US elections?
John Reith:
In reply to your comment below
“…They command the allegiance and affection of billions. They have been the fountainheads of cultures and civilizations. They form the basis of morality. They are an intrinsic part of what it is to be human. They posit a moral horizon higher than the material, which means we are judged by something beyond ourselves. They are part of our tradition, which is just as important as our present and future. One of them is true, but even the false ones have lessons for us all. They should be treated with respect…”
No one should get respect by default. You earn it. I don’t respect the BBC because it doesn’t deserve it for the most part. I don’t respect politicians because they’ve done nothing to earn it either. If respect is got earned it is of no value. Just like your religion.
You seem to assume that without religion we thick human beings would be incapable of living decent lives. How dare you suggest that. The Greeks did rather well without your religion and YOUR God as did many other cultures..
I don’t need your silly biggoted religion to know right from wrong.
Most of the so called “good ideas” of religion (at least Christianity and the other middle eastern ones) have simply been stolen from other cultures that existed LONG before your make believe God existed.
I notice you made no mention to the billions slaughtered in the name of YOUR religion and many others? Why not?
As for tradition. We used to send children up chimneys, execute prisoners and drown women, all using the excuse of “God” or “Gods laws”. Just because something is a tradition that doesn’t make it right in the 21st century.
Religion is simply there to exploit and supress free thinking. Why does every major religion supress the rights of women for example?
Why should we allow Christianity to have a place in making laws in this Country, when other religions and non believers don’t get specific posts in the House of Lords?
The very fact you admit to being a God botherer simply says it all.
And why do you deny that Witchcraft should get equal treatment to your daft religion? To me both are full of mumbo jumbo and lies.
The Bible is about at truthful as a BBC report on America or the Labour Party financial accounting.
Oh I’m sure the BBC will pack out QT tonight with plenty of Guardian reading Social workers, the unemployed and spotty suudents dragged out of the £1 a pint night in the Uni bar.
What sap tory have they dug up?
Oh and on a good point did anyone see the total kicking Andrew Neil gave fatso gob spitter Roy Hattersley on the Politics show the other day?
Brilliant.
JOhn Reith
“Course” yobbery???? I think you mean “coarse”.
Hmm. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you do work for the Jonathan Ross Show.
😉
It’s OK to teach kids to become suicide bombers but not to call a toy Mohammed?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world…ast/ 1446003.stm
Martin | 29.11.07 – 5:40 pm | #
The piece is typical BBC — it starts out promisingly enough by describing an Islamic Jihad-run summer camp indoctrinating 12 to 15 year olds on the benefits of becomming suicide bombers.
But of course our intrepid BBC correpondent doesn’t stop at just reporting the facts; he needs to insert some “context” into the piece to make it clear where the blame for this shocking state of affairs actually lies. Thus, we are told in the last paragraph that “…the people in Gaza insist that this is a direct response to the Israeli occupation and if and when the Israelis leave Palestinian territory, the children will no longer be taught violence or dream of becoming suicide bombers.”
Notice how the fact that Israelis are no longer present in Gaza is not mentioned; instead the goal posts have now been moved to include all ‘Palestinian territory’ (by which he means what, exactly: the West Bank? East Jerusalem? All of Jerusalem? The Zionist Entity known as Israel?)
But such questions are beside the point — to the BBC what matters is remaining faithful to the party line, no matter what sort of picture the actual facts on the ground may reveal.
Oh and on a good point did anyone see the total kicking Andrew Neil gave fatso gob spitter Roy Hattersley on the Politics show the other day?
Brilliant.
Martin | 29.11.07 – 8:59 pm
Yes, for us oldies Hattersley’s level of hysteria was on a par with Quentin Hogg’s spluttering over Profumo.
It is interesting how NL is spinning a ‘we are all in this together’ line – which the BBC seems to be buying
I thought Brillo and Huhne did an excellent job putting Hattersley and Bradshaw in their place
Interesting test of BBC impartiality due on tonight’s Question Time.
Current topical subjects:
A Bear Called Mohammed
More revelations on the mishandling of personal information.
The ongoing Northern Rock debacle.
Dodgy donations.
Nigel Farage’s presence invites a question on the referendum promise that wasn’t.
Vanishing prisoners.
Wonder what we’ll get?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7118287.stm
BBC reports on the CNN Republican debate yet manages not to mention (a) CNN apologising at the end for allowing a member of Hilary Clinton’s team (Retired General Kerr) to plant a question about gays in the military (b) discovering that in fact there were several Democrats planting questions. Funny that. CNN getting all sorts of rockets from right AND left in the States!
John Reith | 29.11.07 – 8:21 pm |
I guess if the BBC had reported those facts it’d be accused of stirring up anti-Americanism and trying to discredit the US political system.
No, I don’t think so. Since one of the main defenses you guys use is “everyone else is/isn’t”, I would say that in this case everyone is talking about it so the BBC may as well. This particular incident is down to one particular broadcast network, and the uproar is not directed at any one candidate (except Hillary is getting the worst of it as it seems to be her people who have been a larger percentage of the plants). If the BBC were to report on this as the US media is doing, I don’t see how criticizing sloppy partisan hackery by CNN is influencing the elections. On the contrary, I would suggest that pointing out such trickery is in fact defending the virtue (so to speak) of our election process. If Fox News got busted for planting shills in their own broadcast of a Democrat debate who were on Fred Thompson’s payroll, I would expect the same.
That would be proper non-partisan reporting.
Reporting this story is promoting anti-Americanism? I know, you’re just being silly.
In what ways do you think the BBC is trying to influence the outcome of US elections?
I have already pointed out in posts passim several incidents from Frei’s broadcasts. The love fests for Hillary in panel discussions and other talking-head segments is unbearable, and that’s not a vague impression. Both Matt and various guests have stated quite clearly that the world wants Hillary, getting Bubba as an Ambassador to the World would be brilliant because everyone still loves him, and that the only way to redeem the US in the eyes of the world – not in the eyes of only the BBC, not only in the eyes of the UK, not only in the eyes of our allies, but in the eyes of the world – is to elect a Democrat, specifically Hillary. They have said it, and no mistake.
When a responsible reporter interviews a candidate for public office, the reporter is certainly entitled – expected, even – to ask tough questions and challenge dithering. If the reporter and the network are partisan, the reporter is also expected to ask questions about issues important to either the viewers of that network. Alternatively, if the reporter is attempting to be non-partisan and speaking on behalf of the interests of the entire nation, then the questions should reflect a broad range of topics. Yet your colleagues over here do no such thing.
That reporter should not harp on the same issues every time he or she gets in the same room as the candidate. The reporter should not ask the exact same questions every time, coming from one corner of opinion only. Yet your colleagues here do exactly that. We are told time and again that the world does not want someone overtly Christian as President. We are told that the world wants a US President who is pro-gay rights and in favor of gun control.
Your colleagues in your own neck of the woods are fond of reports of polls and such which show that the majority of Americans are Christian believers. Yet your colleagues over here tell us that electing a Christian President would be a bad idea. I put it to you that a proper, responsible news organization would not allow a reporter to tell a candidate for President that his Christianity is a problem. If, that is, said news organization cared about the interests of its viewers rather than its own. If the BBC thinks that most Americans are Christianists, then what Matty and Katty are doing makes no sense as professional behavior. Unless they have a specific agenda against it.
When a reporter is interviewing a candidate for public office, the reporter may challenge an answer from the candidate. That reporter should not tell the candidate that the country would prefer to elect one of his competitors, never mind referring to that competitor by name.
Only those with the same political leanings as BBC insiders take “world opinion” into account when considering for whom to vote for President. We care about issues which affect our lives and our country. We don’t care what Europe thinks about Rudy or Fred or Hillary or Barak. Yet Matty and Katty tell us what the world wants as if that is of paramount importance. Again, a specific story to tell.
You can do stories on the candidates, you can do stories on the scene. You cannot tell us for whom to vote. Yet your colleagues here are doing exactly that, week in, week out.
This is not an impression, I am not imagining bias just because they don’t mention my favorite candidate, or because they don’t harp on my favorite issues. This is an accurate representation of what your colleagues do over here. They state their preferences, they state their desires. They do not report so much as propagandize and preach.
It’s bad manners, and is most likely against the BBC Charter.
Good ‘ole BBC… pack Question Time with two Labour people and Nigel Farage to shout at Alan Duncan.
Question Time is toe curling. Two Nu Labour luvvies. That bloke that is Gordon Brown’s personal bottom wiper is simply allowed to spout Nu Labour propaganda.
Oh and every time Caroline Flint opens her gob there is a massive round of applause. Nice balanced audience then.
The Labour government, notably in the person of Foreign Minister, David Miliband, has failed in its soft/ appeasing attitude towards Islam and Islamic Sudan.
This attitude of the Labour government earlier today was reflected in the tone of the BBC’s reporting of the case of Ms. Gibbons, where a presumption of ‘moral equivalence’ was apparent.
The Foreign Office tone has changed late in the day (and maybe that of the BBC is being re-appraised too). Apparently the F.O. is now annoyed with Sudan’s hard- line of imprisoning Ms. Gibbons for 15 days.
The Labour government does not have a clear, consistent principled line of opposition and resistance to the imposition of Sharia law, because it does not understand Islam. Apparently the Labour government prefers the Karen Armstrong/Mary Poppins version rather than that of Hirsi Ali, as does the BBC:-
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/376476/we-are-at-war-with-all-islam.thtml
QT. What a shock. The question that is posed about the woman in the Sudan is “are we ignorant about Islam!!!!!!!!”
What a joke.
How about this question BBC. “Is the treatment handed out to the teacher in the Sudan proof that Islam is a barbaric and backward religion that has no place in the world in the 21st Century?”
Reckon they’d have run that? No neither do I
Martin, it really is astounding isn’t it? DD has also asked the bottom wiper to answer more questions directly than he has Alan Duncan.
John Reith:
“I won’t be intimidated by your double-act of course yobbery, but I don’t see why everyone else should have to be distracted by these exchanges.”
Ooooooh, get you! Mwwwahhhhh!
“I shall simply ignore you from now on.”
Thank you John. This makes me very happy. 🙂
Actually David it’s not surprising really. I think people here expected the BBC to load the QT panel with Nu Labour luvvies.
It’s not Gordon’s fault about the missing disks or Northern Rock or the dodgy Nu Labour loans.
But the same two Labour luvvies then claim that his leadership over the terrorist attacks, Foot and Mouth etc was great leadership!!!
You can’t have it both ways.
No one was killed in the terrorist attacks and foot and mouth was nothing compared to the previous outbreak.
The way DD simply allowed that bottom wiper for Brown to spout pages straight out of the Nu Labour spin book was a disgrace.
Talking about influencing elections, World Have Your Say had a disgustingly partisan show on the eve of the Australian elections:
IS THIS THE WORLD [sic] FIRST GREEN ELECTION ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2007/11/green_election_indian_intolera.html
I sent them this e-mail:
Knock, knock, Peter Dobbie, anybody there? The BBC is supposed to be impartial, remember? Why then were you pushing your “green election” agenda so strenuously during the programme? And why was the very first e-mail you read out critical of Howard for not signing Kyoto?
You weren’t trying to influence the voters on the eve of an election, were you? The BBC would never do something that underhand, would it?
They didn’t publish it. (But I didn’t take it personally since they didn’t publish any other comments either.)
The BBC doesn’t simply report or host programmes in a balanced fashion. It campaigns.
Telegraph poll has satisfaction rating for Brown of 23%.
Gosh that’s even lower than the ratings achieved by Bush – I wonder whether the BBC will make more of the UK story than they repeatedly did of a foreign story.
BBC News at it again (10pm). They seemed to think the shooting of two thieving scumbags in Texas was more important that this little piece of news.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/26/world/main3539203.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_3539203
I had a look on the BBC News website in the middle east section to see if it’s reported.
Of course nothing. However, they still have the link that the Saudi Girl gang raped and due ot be flogged was “having an affair”
Nice balance BBC.
Martin | 30.11.07 – 12:28 am
I had a look on the BBC News website in the middle east section to see if it’s reported.
Then you probably missed the segment where Andrew Neil and guests discussed this on The Week.
The way DD simply allowed that bottom wiper for Brown to spout pages straight out of the Nu Labour spin book was a disgrace.
He didn’t. He interrupted him and told him to stop making a speech. Or was it ‘a party political broadcast’?
I thought it was one of the best QTs in some time.
Contrary to what David said, Nigel Farage and Alan Duncan were on the same side of pretty well every issue. The only time they had a bit of argy bargy between them was when Farage insisted Duncan was in favour of state funding for political parties and Duncan tried to cut in to say he wasn’t. Lasted all of half a minute.
Amazingly, all of them took a firm line against the Islamic whip – except perhaps for Sarah Teather – who took a rather wobbly line against it, leaning on advice from one of her local imams to the effect that it ‘wasn’t true sharia’ or some such. Mmmm.
Taken together with The Week – a generally good and lively evening of debate.
David Preiser | 29.11.07 – 10:56 pm
Well frankly I’m shocked by your descriptions.
Are you sure you’re not exaggerating?
for instance:
Both Matt and various guests have stated quite clearly that the world wants Hillary….. They have said it, and no mistake.
Has Matt or KK actually said this as their own opinion or simply ventured it as a provocative line in a Q to to some guest who’s then disagreed?
with regards to question time and the teddy bear crisis (hahaha never thought i would write that)
I found all of them (panel and audience) fairly contemptible and completely at odds with most of the british public veiws. As for the LD , she was a disgrace.
How the question was posed shows ahell of a lot about BBC bias. Who else wouls start a debate with a question like that other than the bbc.
All questions are approved by the bbc before thay are asked. It shows their moral relativism and pro bias to islam very clearly.
John Reith | 30.11.07 – 1:05 am |
Has Matt or KK actually said this as their own opinion or simply ventured it as a provocative line in a Q to to some guest who’s then disagreed?
They most certainly have not. There can be no question. At no time did the first person singular pronoun or possessive pass either of their lips. Neither one of them has ever given any indication that they are giving personal views. I’m not dim, and I’m not complaining about opinion segments, or “Now let’s hear some commentary from our Katty Kay,” or anything of the kind. They like to make statements of “world opinion”, which is not personal commentary, but a form of intimidation. And since when is personal opinion appropriate or relevant in interviewing political figures, unless you’re Oprah or Graham Norton? No, JR, telling Mike Huckabee that “other people find (a US President with admitted Christian beliefs) scary“, that is neither a statement of personal opinion or a provocative statement intended to get a good response in an interview. That is mendacity, and you can guess which religion wouldn’t get such treatment.
Even if every single incident that has bothered me turned out to be a case of one of them stating a personal opinion, then at the very least this is a most unprofessional news programme, if not biased as all hell.
If you had seen any of my previous posts on this, you would have noticed that I generally quote verbatim (as much as humanly possible), and don’t usually summarize or paraphrase the main items. But never mind. You have access to either video files on a server somewhere, or can request similar, and you might even be able to find a transcript somewhere. No problem there of pre-existing biases seeing a sneer or hearing sarcasm where there is none. I don’t generally rely on such things as proof of bias anyways. It’s all the words they use and the stories they tell (and at least one instance of an insulting video montage).
If you haven’t read any of my previous posts describing the various offenses, then you can’t understand the full effect. You’ll have to watch for yourself.
“They command the allegiance and affection of billions. They have been the fountainheads of cultures and civilizations. They form the basis of morality. They are an intrinsic part of what it is to be human. They posit a moral horizon higher than the material, which means we are judged by something beyond ourselves. They are part of our tradition, which is just as important as our present and future. One of them is true, but even the false ones have lessons for us all. They should be treated with respect.”
Well they finally layed their cards on the table. So why can’t you extend this same courtesy to… Christianity? Instead of subsidizing rubbish like the Jerry Springer version of Christianity.
But really though, what you describe is the defining aspect of monotheism. It’s not really even Islam, more like its formula but without content. But why so partisan anyway? I think I know why.
Hatred of reality, caused by an experience of objective impotance, has given you a poor self-image. You don’t really like yourself, and you can’t really identify with your life. It just isn’t you. But this poor self-image is felt to be undeserved, you didn’t do anything to be impotent before existence, you just kind of grew into it, and one day realised you had lost an important part of yourself but you couldn’t put your finger on what it was.
For this reason you grow to identify with the embattled and violent, for they resemble your own view of yourself. Hurt, but undeserving of this hurt and basically good.
I’ve seen this in neo-nazis, communists, social activists. They all seem to do the worst things imaginable to extricate themselves from their psychic quandry. It’s as though they want the train to run away and crash.
re: Mo-Teddy issue. Why I love the British:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270192422059
Current bid at over 300 bucks! Go Mo-Teddy, go!
ian said: I found all of them (panel and audience) fairly contemptible and completely at odds with most of the british public veiws. As for the LD , she was a disgrace.
At times I thought it was The Sarah Teather Show. Dimbleby allowed her to ramble on and interrupt other panellists, but cut everyone else off pretty sharpish, especially Farage and Duncan, of course
BBC’s Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme had an excellent report this morning on the violent, Islamic jihad insurgency which is on-going in Thailand.
The BBC reporter in Thailand, Angus Stickler, provided a brave, informative account of the assault by the Islamic jihadists on buddhists and others; he also gathered information on the international support which the jihadists there get from jihadists in Indonesia and across the Middle East.
The report (9 mins.) is available on the ‘Today’ site and here. An extended version is available on BBC World Service at 12 noon today (UK time).
Realistically, there was no place for Karen Armstrong bromides in this reporting.
[audio src="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/today/today_20071130-0732.mp3" /]
Jack Straw on the TOADY show is stuttering his way through an interview with S Montague trying to shift the blame on to one scapegoat, ably assisted by Montague of course! Straws line seems to consist of ‘I never knew nothing about nothing Etc and Gordon Brown is cleaner than clean Etc and only one person is to blame Etc!
Nothing surprising about a bent commisar trying to worm his way out of trouble by spouting rubbish, any old rubbish BUT why is it the job of the BBC to help hide the facts and lay false trails? Nick Robinsons line consisted of everyone of the higher Labour commisars are simply too thick to know whats going on and its all the fault of one underling/scapegoat.
I heard the phrase “Gordon Brown had nothing to do with any of this” five times!
Smokescreens/false trails/convenient scapegoats/loaded questions? is this the role of the BBC?
This corruption scandal is so devastating to NuLabour that they are faced with a stark choice of making themselves look stupid/ignorant/illiterate OR putting up their hands to breathtaking corruption and criminal behaviour, which would you choose?
If Sarah Montague had asked the right questions instead of giving Jack Straw free airtime to ‘blow smoke’ then we would be in a much better position to judge events.
The BBC, protecting their political masters? its what they do!
Now I’ve started… In the fairly pointless follow-on programme on News 24, the presenter stated that there had been something like (IIRC) 17,000 text messages received during Question Time. AS 16,900 of these were unused, how interesting that one that was selected to show said “UKIP = BNP” Libel Alert, John Reith? Perhaps you could tell us which level of the Beeb ‘lowerarchy’ is responsible for making the selection?