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.
ForJohn Reith to claim it was the best QT for a long time says it all.
Why was the Brown bum licker on at all? Normally we get some sort of arty or media type as the spare guest.
The question on the Teddy bear was clearly loaded (i.e. are WE at fault for not understanding Islam) to give the leftie limp wristed BBC the impression of being nice and tolerant.
John Reith
RE: Question Time. You may perceive last night’s episode to be the best in a while, but it certainly wasn’t the most impartial to the panel. How can you explain that Nigel Farage (who didn’t come across particularly well) had to wait from 10.41 until 11.08 in order for a second question to come his way, in between which time Caroline Flint (who I must admit did a good job) was able to speak on at least five occasions, and Gordon Brown’s PA, sorry, local businessman was asked to speak four times. Sarah Teather for the Lib Dems was similarly neglected.
The reason I started to become an anorak and look at these things quite simply came from the response to the first question, where Flint’s defence of Gordon Brown and the businessman’s first Party Political Broadcast (it was his second broadcast that brought a murmured censure from Dimbleby, who then let him carry on anyway) drew a surprisingly big round of applause, far larger than Alan Duncan’s measured, factual put-down. One only has to look at HYS and talk to people up and down the country, look at Brown’s 28% Approval Rating, to see how disaffected the country is with Gordon Brown, so to see a groundswell of opinion supporting him stuck out like a sore thumb. Put simply, I think the audience was loaded.
Does anyone know if there is a way of making a FOI request to get a breakdown of the QT audiences, or at least a breakdown of how they have filled in their forms?
For Dimbleby to exacerbate this by ignoring one of his panel for fully half the programme is totally unacceptable, as his attempts to control Caroline Flint’s constant interruptions and the nameless businessman’s constant attempts to do Brown’s political advertising for him were at best feeble, and at worst, non-existent.
Question Time has improved this time around but not here. I disagree with those who suggest the panel was biased – I thought it reasonable. But when the left wing guest (businessman) is allowed to speak for around 5 times longer than right wing guest (Farage), the initial balance of the panel was irrelevant.
Seeing as you watched and enjoyed the programme so much, John Reith, you will of course be happy to explain to me why Farage was ignored for half an hour, and why Flint spoke significantly more than any other guest?
I thought the programme was abysmally handled with a loaded audience. But I’m glad you enjoyed it.
“Does anyone know if there is a way of making a FOI request to get a breakdown of the QT audiences, or at least a breakdown of how they have filled in their forms?”
Not a chance. ‘Freedom of Disinformation’ will claim that they are unable to disclose the material due to “The Data Protection Act”.
FOI blocks any request that may pull back the curtain on Al Beeb, illegally I’m certain.
For Ben, who seems to think that there was no Islamic element to the latest French riots:
Divisional Commissioner Sarcelles (Val), Jean Illy was seriously injured Sunday in the first night of violence, Villiers-le-Bel. He arrived on the spot shortly after the traffic accident that claimed the lives of two teenagers, he was beaten by the young men who he tried to calm down.
This was said by one of the youths just before he was attacked “Keufs have killed our friends! This is the enc … ! ”
Keufs = Kufir = infidel = non-Muslim scum who dared to crash into their brother Muslims. Their right was to kill the police for this.
Tell me Ben, this was about social exclsuion wasn’t it, wake up and smell the coffee.
The BBC website is carying the headline “Brown had no idea about donors”!
Now why would they carry that headline? as it is clear that no evidence has emerged YET that he did OR did not know about the funding scandal.
Is the BBC trying to push his supposed ignorance? OR trying to hide his supposed guilt? The fact is that the BBC dont know whether Gordon Brown knew or whether he didnt, so why are they peddling that headline?
Out of all the headlines they could have chosen to lead with ie,
BROWN IMPLICATED IN FUNDING ROW?
WHAT DID BROWN KNOW ABOUT FUNDING?
WILL BROWN BE QUESTIONED ABOUT DODGY DONATIONS?
The BBC chose to use a headline that they cannot verify or prove.
Even a thicko prole like me knows that the BBC should not be telling people that ‘Gordon Brown knew nothing’ before the full facts are known!
A better question would be, ‘has the Labour party put pressure on the BBC to trumpet Gordon Browns innocence?
Stephanie,
Ease off the CAPITAL LETTERS and the exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!
They smack of green ink on lined notepaper.
Beeboid advice:
DOS AND DON’TS ABROAD
Do respect the culture
Do be aware of classroom etiquette
Don’t forget your research
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7119287.stm
Methinks the BBC regards the onus as being on us to conform, rather than the Sudanese to not act like barbaric prats.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7115821.stm
“British teacher Gillian Gibbons has been jailed for 15 days after insulting Islam’s Prophet by allowing her pupils in Sudan to name a teddy bear Muhammad. What are the rules on using the name?”
No doubt the dhimmis at the BBC want to know the rules so that they can apply them strictly to their own output.
Note the Beeboid use of the capital P in Prophet. You’re getting there, Beeboids (PBUYOU).
What angers me is the lengths that the BBC go to to “explain”, “contextualise” and otherwise excuse all manner of barbaric and lunatic religious views and customs (from one certain religion), but they would never do this for other religions. Why? The threat of the throat-slitters aside, what is the real reason?
John Reith
Are you sulking because I pointed out your malapropism (or misspelling)? Please don’t. Hubris is not an attractive thing, especially in a man who in employed as one of the nation’s Thought Commissars.
Anyway, back to our conversation. Please explain your kneejerk switch from a discussion about Muslim French rioters… to one about Jewish wheeler dealers. It seems to me your indecent delight in making this parallel is relevant, because, as in the case of much of the BBC’s coverage of matters Jewish, I don’t quite get it.
Let me spell it out: why does a discussion about the BBC’s reluctance to specify the Islamic nature of the French rioters IMMEDIATELY and gleefully prompt you to raise “the Jewish question”? I am happy to talk about Jewish wheeler dealers, but I don’t quite get the parallel? Maybe I’m just thick, so bear with me.
John, I respect your intellect. I am not being rude, or cryptic, or insulting. I am asking a very direct question and your continuing failure
to answer raises is very confusing.
Talk to me, Mr Reith.
PS I think you probably work in QT.
Dear Chuffer,
Two exclamation marks are hardly excessive are they? and the Capital letters where suggested HEADLINES. So what is the problem?
Do you not like the message OR the messenger, which is it?
If you cant respond to the issues why do you feel the need to criticise my delivery?
I think such unwaranted critisism marks you out as a BEEBOID?
This forum isnt an Oxbridge spelling contest is it?
PS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PPS Just what is wrong with green ink and lined paper? are you a snob?
I note that the BBC have failed to post any direct reference to Hain & his forgetfulness over his £5000 gift (an interesting amount)on the news website? Protecting our masters again?
I thought Montague’s approach to Straw amounted to giving him enough rope to hang himself, after first laying the ground for it, and giving him the odd prod to that end.
If he did indeed say “Gordon Brown knew nothing about it” as many as five times, that would suggest to me “I bet he did” rather more strongly than if he said it only once.
And he would have said it five times because the interviewer painted him into that corner.
Correction, I see the story has just appeared, only 12 hours after the rest of the mainstream media.
Abandon Ship! | 30.11.07 – 10:57 am |
Never heard the phrase ‘When in Rome…’ [ducks for cover helmie] 🙂
Sarah Montague (sp?) on The Today Programme interviewing Jack Straw.
‘You say that Gordon Brown’s hands are completely clean on this, do you think it’s a hangover from Blair’s time’.
Awful, awful question, and part of the whole ‘machine’ that is trying to lay the blame for all the shortcomings of this administration on the previous administration.
Who told her to ask this question?
And the lead story on TTP’s website – Conrad Black; followed by Jazz Legend : Sonny Rollins.
This on the dawn following the announcement that the police are being called in to investigate donations to the New Labour Party.
Should ‘beggar belief’, but of course it doesn’t. This is a form horse.
The BBC won’t release information on the brekdown of QT audiences as that data will contain things like addresses.
However, I make the point I’ve made before. The Sun and Daily Mail are probably the two most read papers in the land, yet how many in that audience last night do you think would own up to reading either of those papers?
As I suspected the audience was made up of the unemployed, social workers, teachers and spotty students.
Jeo Bonanno,
They are not just trying to lay the blame on the previous incumbent Blair, they are trying to deflect blame onto ANYBODY and EVERYBODY they can. I think the term ‘fighting like rats in a sack’ springs to mind? First the guilty ones will try to plead ignorance, then it was somebody else(preferably junior), then, try and dig up dirt on the Tories & Libdems, then try the old ‘lessons will be learned/time to draw a line and move on’ blah blah!
In 1997 frank Field said that “dirty ££££ would be the undoing of the NuLabour project”, but what is interesting is the lengths the BBC will go to in protecting their political masters and how far their fellow travellers will go to smear those who dare to criticise ‘project NuLabour
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_7120000/newsid_7120100?redirect=7120161.stm&news=1&bbram=1&nbram=1&bbwm=1&nbwm=1&asb=1
Texan vigilante kills 2 burglars.
This is the kind of report Beeboids have wet dreams over.
American Vigilante (Racist psycopath)
Black burglars (Social victims)
Guns (American sickness)
This one minute report was so laden with weasel words: “Some say, others claim” ad nauseum, I’m amazed they found anytime to report the facts…
Erm…the facts being that one of the burglars was a loving family man and this is yet still proof that American gun laws are wrong.
Beeboid opinion disguised as a report. When will they ever stop?
Dr R | 30.11.07 – 11:08 am
I am asking a very direct question….. Talk to me, Mr Reith
Sure, no problem.
Your own comment that the BBC was being unduly reticent about identifying the French rioters as Muslim was not the first. The same point had been made by half a dozen or so other posters on various threads. Some had, predictably, implied that the reticence was deliberate and in furtherance of a pro-Islamist agenda. I had retorted that a more likely explanation lay in the PCC/NUJ/BBC common guidelines stating that ethnic identifiers should only be used when ‘directly relevant’ to the story. One poster, Connell, I think, had made a good argument that there was a clear and direct relevance. I was ruminating on the subject, wondering whether Connell may not be right and that the BBC might be over -scrupulous in its adherence to the guidelines.
I then looked in on Guido’s blog to see what he had to say about the entirely unconnected matter of the donor scandal. As I read his posts remarking on the Labour Friends of Israel connection, the thought occurred to me ‘what would Biased-BBC say if a BBC journalist had written that?’ I’ve been here long enough to be able to mimic the approach of some commenters here. As a kind of thought-experiment, I began to compose in my mind a version of just how it would be deconstructed (I use the term loosely) on this blog if it had been written by Frei/Bowen or any other of the stock villains of B-BBC. Something like this I’d say:
The phrase ‘Labour Friends of Israel’, used not once but twice within a few lines, was a cynical underhand trick by Al-Beeb to point up that the protagonists are Jewish.
The passage: Mendelsohn is a friend and protege of Sleazy Lord Levy. After he cashed in his LLM stock his days at the office were spent on the phone on behalf of Labour Friends of Israel, plotting with Levy, using all the same hustling tricks as Levy makes lavish use of tropes from traditional anti-semitic discourse: Jews as plotters, Jews acting in clandestine collaboration, Jews as hustlers. The grainy B&W photo of Abrahams with top Jewish layman Sir Sigmund Sternberg is chosen to represent the subjects as somehow sinister and is evocative of the Protocols. The information that Sternberg was instrumental in getting Abrahams into the Rotary Club also draws on a well used anti-semitic theme • ‘these Jews help advance one another socially and professionally’. Moreover, Al-Beeb knows very well that the effect of the Rotary Club mention is to convey the message:‘not just a Jooooo but practically a Freemason too.’
That, in a nutshell, encapsulates both the tone and substance of the likely Biased-BBC critique had the piece been written by a BBC hand.
My next thought was: ‘would Guido’s copy get past a BBC editor anyway?’. I concluded that it would not • because a BBC editor would anticipate some, if not all, of the misinterpretations above. The BBC editor would expect complaints from Jewish licence-fee payers and would self-censor rather than cause offence. He would do this even if the original intention of the writer was wholly innocent and there was no question of anyone intending to insult Jews.
My mind then returned to the question of the French rioters. Wouldn’t copy that alluded to Muslim ethnic/religious background often read a bit like Guido’s copy? Factually correct, innocently intended, quite without intention to give offence, but open to the accusation that it was dripping with innuendo, if a reader was minded to take it that way? I thought so. And that pace Connell, the BBC was probably right to hold back. This led on to the observation that there was something hypocritical about the Biased-BBC pack demanding this be done to Muslims, whilst being sure to be outraged if the same were to be done to Jews.
As I said to Guido • I’m absolutely sure he’s no anti-semite and intended no offence, and the same would go for any BBC journalist writing exactly the same words, but his text did prove to be remarkably open to misrepresentation. As a free agent, he doesn’t have to care about that. If people choose to put a sinister construction on his words • they can get stuffed. He owes no special duty of care to mind his ps and qs. For the BBC, it ain’t so.
The fact that it was so remarkably easy to do this to what was effectively a random piece of text (Guido’s blog) made me think maybe this could be done to any piece of text.
Then it hit me. That’s exactly what happens on Biased-BBC every day. It’s the stock-in trade of these comment threads. The technique, in short, is this: first ascribe a sinister or malevolent motive to the author/speaker ( he’s a covert Islamist; she’s doing damage limitation for NuLabour… etc); then pick a few sentences that, with a little spin, can plausibly be argued to exemplify this malign ‘intention’ and then …bob’s your uncle…..you flourish the whole piece of (mis-)interpretation as ‘evidence’ of ‘bias’. Of course, copy can be proofed against this technique • but it takes a lot of time and probably ends up being so over-qualified as to lose any pithyness or force as a piece of writing.
Anyway, Dr R • there you have your answer in full. I dare say you’ll be able to re-present it as a manifesto for Bolshevism in a trice. 🙂
PS No, not QT.
John Reith, do you feel that the comment made by a youth just before they beat the French commisioner with iron bars does or does not have any relevence to the riot or not.
Let me repeat it:
“Keufs have killed our friends! This is the enc … ! ”
Keuf is the word that French Muslims use for non-Muslims, its staring you straight in the face.
PCC/NUJ/BBC common guidelines stating that ethnic identifiers should only be used when ‘directly relevant’ to the story, well that seems to be directly relevent, in that the attack on the police commissioner kicked off the riots, to me that means it is an Islamic riot…
So the BBC what does the BBC think now?
BBC at it again?
On Sky News Kay Burley was taling to an independent reporter (Rob Crilly) in Khartoum who said that the demonstration was quite ugly and that people had gestured to him by making slitting throat actions across their necks. He said he had to leave the area. He also mentioned that the Sufi sect of Islam were the ones runing the protest (their flags were seen)
Now don’t our poncy left wing politicians keep saying that Sufi Islam is the version of Islam that is the most peacful?
Then switch to BBC 1 news. Adam Mynott claimed that the demostations were small in number and “good natured”. So that’s OK. You can call for the beheading or shooting of a middle aged woman for letting kids name a teddy bear “Mohammed” so long as it’s in good nature.
Thing was Rob Crilly was on a mobile and had been at the demonstration, but the poncy BBC reporter was in a studio. Who do you believe?
I don’t have to pay for Guido Fawkes on pain of going to prison.
Rueful Red | 30.11.07 – 1:23 pm |
True. Indeed, a point I made myself 2…. perhaps three… times in comments above.
John Reith, come on answer the question, is shouting “Keufs have killed our friends! This is the enc … ! ” before attacking a police commisioner with iron bars causing the riot directly relevent or not?
I noted from your tone that you do not seem to be pro-Islam, but I think that any reasonable man would think that using a term that denotes unbelievers in Islamic terms is relevent.
Go and check this out, I am sure that there is a French desk somewhere which has the necessary translation skills.
I live in France, so I have the information on this, come on is this directly relevent or not?
The article is in La Figaro, come on John Reith, check it out.
AJukDD | Homepage | 30.11.07 – 1:31 pm
Yes the statement is relevant. But you have to take care what you read into it.
If a white Englishman from a poor district said ‘a ni**er stabbed my brother’ I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion he was a BNP activist or had any political programme in mind.
I would like to thank John Reith for his time in providing a much more detailed explanation, of his previously somewhat ascerbic comment.
Indeed I agree in part with his conclusion. Some people, but not all, who post here do seem operate in the way described.
However, the use by the BBC of the PCC/NUJ/BBC common guidelines that ethnic identifiers should only be used when ‘directly relevant’ to the story. does seem to be used in a very partial manner leading to the conclusion that certain groups get much more ‘benefit of the doubt’ than others. This then leads to inevitable conclusions about BBC Bias.
If a white Englishman from a poor district said ‘a ni**er stabbed my brother’ I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion he was a BNP activist or had any political programme in mind
I believe you but I guarantee that the BBC would report it like that.
Heron | 30.11.07 – 9:56 am
you will of course be happy to explain to me why ….Flint spoke significantly more than any other guest?
Because the donor scandal was one of the main issues and the government was on the spot. She was the first minister to break cover yesterday so DD, the other guests and the audience were putting stuff to her for answer.
I suspect that if you put the donor issue to one side and examine Flint’s contributions on other subjects, it wouldn’t seem so out of kilter.
I didn’t notice Farage was ignored for a long stretch. He seemed pretty chipper to me when he did speak.
I’m puzzled by your perception of the studio audience. I’d say Alan Duncan got the most applause. Pretty well every time, in fact.
By contrast, there was one moment where Paul Myners came to the end of a long squawk with a peroration that seemed to be inviting a rousing cheer…..but he looked puzzled, stunned even, when no applause came.
John Reith
Thanks for your very, very considered comment which I enjoyed more than the entire BBC1 output for November (with the exception of the brilliant The Street – what a brilliant series!).
Your wriggling is starting to justify the license tax. Many thanks and well done.
Until next time
Dr R
PS I think it IS QT. My spies are on the case. 😉
Thanks for your reply, thank you for agreeing the relevence, OK I will be fair to the BBC in that this detail came out after Sarkozy spoke to the injured police, but it should impact the reporting of this in that it should not be reported solely due to social exclusion.
The example you have given does not really equate to an incident between a estranged citizen of a state and agents of a state, but a nice try, someone using the N word is likely to be either an actual racist or someone over 50.
These people have been looking for another death to start the riots again, that is the whole reason that they have been ambushing the police for the last two years and we have had some very close calls, surely the BBC has that sort of information, I am not being sarcastic, I have seen this information hidden away, but still there if you look close enough.
I will also add that 99% of the injured police were injured by fire arms, one from a high velocity round.
Update from Adam Mynott. On 5 live his report said that the demonstation might have had 3 or 4 hundred, but it might have been double that… or even more.
A nice accurate report then. Perhaps he watched the Sky News report so he could get his facts right?
John Reith
Thanks for your response. Of course I accept that Flint must be given opportunity to defend her corner, which I thought she did very well, considering how little defence she had. By the same token, Duncan, Teather and Farage should have been given every opportunity to attack the government, yet the first half of the programme was totally dominated by Flint and Myners. You are right about Myners – basically, he overplayed his hand; rather than speaking as an authority on the business community, he acted as Gordon Brown’s spokesman, which in the end went down like a lead balloon. Duncan came into his own with the Freedom of Speech issue, and he gave a typically good performance throughout – I feel he’s a good politician who’s in it for the right reasons.
I am right on Farage, and though I have little time for him he should have been given more opportunity to speak.
The audience still troubled me. I understand what you’re saying, but I felt a truly representative audience would have given Flint and Myners an incredibly tough time last night, and they didn’t. Right from the start they were sympathetic to Flint, yet looking around the country, sympathy for Brown and Labour is in pretty short supply.
I do appreciate your response though.
“Don’t Have Your Say” is going particularly crazy right now on the Teddy Bear Scandal.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3873&edition=1&ttl=20071130144406
Trust the Beeb however to invite comments and then excuse themselves from not being able to handle the response.
Of almost 11,000 comments posted, only 3000 have been published.
The question posed is typically sedate :-
“Do you agree that this it was an innocent misunderstanding?”
Foregoing the bad grammar, I would say that’s as safe a question as you could possibly pose on the barbaric actions of a savage state.
I have just complained to the BBC about this led story on their website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7120511.stm
The relevant biased passages read:
1. “The prime minister’s spokesman said he was “fully supportive” of Ms Harman and “focused” on running the country.”
Is this ‘news’? Does ANYONE believe it?
2. “Police have launched an inquiry into Mr Abrahams’ Labour donations.”
This is factually incorrect. Police have launched a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION into the Labour Party’s finances, which Gordon Brown himself says are ‘illegal’. Quite different.
3. “Mr Brown has said all the money will be returned, as the donations were unlawful..” The BBC say this without comment, ignoring the fact that if Mr. Brown says this it is a SENSATIONAL story in that what he is advocating (‘returning the money’) is itelf illegal under the 2000 Act, which states that all such donations are ‘forfeit’.
Bias is hardly the word…
My God, the BBC actually had the courage to create a headline thus:
“Shoot UK teacher, say protesters.”
Alright, no ‘M’ word as predicted, but I think Al Beeb’s ‘Most E-Mailed’ says more about the sort of people who rely on the BBC website for their news than the BBC themselves.
When ‘Puppy Rescued From Watering Can’ and ‘Police Hunt for Stolen Guiness’ are numbers 1 and 2 respectively in the ‘Most E-mailed’ charts I think it’s safe to say this country is in serious trouble.
Still, at least Al Beeb can safely pack in Newsnight and replace it with “The Dancing Kittens and Puppies Show” to fulfil their audience’s demanding needs.
If a white Englishman from a poor district said ‘a ni**er stabbed my brother’ I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion he was a BNP activist or had any political programme in mind.
John Reith | 30.11.07 – 2:10 pm | #
What about even reporting when it is the other way round.
http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/online_archive/?name=John+Payne&place=stepney&courts=0
Machete mob in race hate attack
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=ELAOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED03%20May%202006%2017%3A35%3A48%3A163
But plenty of room for this..
Woman priest receives hate mail
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7120699.stm
Please explain John
Reg Hammer | 30.11.07 – 2:55 pm | #
Of almost 11,000 comments posted, only 3000 have been published.
Want to take odds on this DHYS being closed, in a day or so, with several thousand messages still un-moderated?
Anyone remember the Iranian 15 threads?
Stuck-Record:
“Want to take odds on this DHYS being closed, in a day or so, with several thousand messages still un-moderated?”
Posing this question on HYS on a Friday also means they have the entire weekend to ignore the whole moderation, so yes, I’m betting it’s closed by tonight even.
All those billions of pounds and Al Beeb still can’t afford to hire a couple of temps from “Office Angels” to come in and sort the backlog out for them. How hard can repeatedly hitting the delete key be?
However, the only bone tossed in that even on the 18 pages of comments they have bothered to publish the contributers are UNANIMOUSLY outraged by the whole thing. I’d like to say that not even Al Beeb could ignore the public’s point-of-view on this one, but we all know better than that don’t we?
Talking about QT audiences, have people been following the Michelle Malkin expose of the plants in a CNN debate, all the undecided Republican voters were in fact Democrat activists.
You advocate spending licence money on paying people to delete “have your say” messages?
More to the point, why should the Beeb even get into this line of activity in the first place? One of my major gripes is the whole “everyone has something equally valid and interesting to say, so email us” mentality.
They don’t. I couldn’t give a four-x if Mrs Smith in London agrees with Mr Jones in Birmingham about whatever issue, or disagrees with Mr Patel in Leeds.
It’s like funding “if you have been affected by the issues in this programme” helplines. If you think you might be affected to the extent of needing a helpline,don’t watch!
Roland Thompson-Gunner:
I think HYS could be of importance if only all these insular lefty twats at the BBC were willing to regard them as the consensus of public opinion.
They don’t – therefore your point is entirely validated, if unfortunately for the wrong reasons.
I’m not sure I entirely go along with that, Reg, though I agree with the gist of your argument.
HYS is an important indicator of the bias at the BBC. How often do you see the Most Recommended views not even covered by the BBC’s broadcasts? The Israel-Palestine question is repeatedly a good example of this – frequently the Most Recommended views are along the lines of “There will only be piece in the regions when the Palestinians learn to stop hating”, yet this is never a view I hear broadcast on the BBC.
It is possible, as John Reith has asserted, to put too much emphasis on comment recommendation, but for a view to be the Most Recommended it has to have some validity as a view, and as such should be covered by the BBC in the interests of balance. As I have said before, the BBC should not be trying to find the “middle ground”, it should be covering all angles of the debate. And Most Recommended comments on HYS are one such angle the BBC should be looking at.
Too often, it fails to do so.
Now bbcnews.com is saying:
“Some news agencies reported protesters had called for her to be shot.”
Even the Guardian is sticking to the headline that the mob is baying for blood.
Quite impressive progression of edits for this article. Unusually for the BBC, the time code has been changed. Nonetheless, I think I preferred the original. The edits sole purpose seems to be an attempt to make the Sudanese protesters looks less bad (although not good either).
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/81796/diff/6/7
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/81796/diff/8/9
The word “keuf” used by young rioters in France to designate the police finds its origin in a form of slang called verlan. It is something like pig latin and involves inversion of sylables and much more. Here is a link http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verlan . If you scroll down you will see that the word in question is derived from “flic” which is the normal pejorative word, anywhere in France, for a policeman.
To get to the point, I do not think that Islamofascism is an important factor in these riots. The areas concerned are “criminal republics” dominated by drug gangs, vandals and delinquents of various types. You can find similar examples in Manchester etc. They are overwhelmingly of North African Moslem origin, but those involved are not in any sense religious although they may well shout “Allah akbar” to lend a spurious justification to their criminality when they throw a molotov cocktail at the police.
The intractable problems of these ghettos is in fact due to the persistance of African family practices which are incompatible with a successful life in a modern western society.
One might expect that the BBC with its three billion pound budget could be able to give us a basic insight into this subject?
Now as far as the “Teddy Bear” incident is concerned, it did cross my mind that, since “Mohammed” is one of the most common names used in the moslem world; whether a parent who so named a child, that when grown up became a violent pedophile, should be punished for insulting the name of the Prophet?(joke).
They just don’t seem to be able to help it. Even when they do present a story which supports a right wing point of view, in this case “prison keeps dangerous people away from the public” they produce a left wing PC version of it :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7119322.stm
Early release ‘putting women at risk’
For certain crimes • rape, violence against women, racial hatred etc, lefties come over all right wing and pro-prison. For all the others, they stick with their community sentencing delusion.
What’s wrong with a story just about early release putting everyone at risk ?
Anonymous:
Did I actually hear Adam Mynott correctly?:-
“One man was waving a ceremonial sword and approaching the school…Others were shouting ‘Death to those who insult Islam’…but my sense was it was fairly good natured as well.”
If John Cleese was saying this whilst doing a silly walk through the crowd it STILL wouldn’t be funny.