Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.
John Reith…. With your remarkable access to BBC archives you will find it from about 2:30 to 5:00 pm R4 and R5 headlines.
Sad bugger that I was doing family washing and ironing and switching from channel to channel trying to pick up the news.
BTW before anyone says anything I have a disabled child and yes it does
take a lot of time to do the laundry.
No volins please. Just have a lot of time to listen.
Just watched a report by A Mynottt on the jailed teacher in Sudan and noticed how the Labour Peer Ahmed was given all the airtime while Barroness Warsi didnt speak once! There was one quick shot where her voice was blanked out. Why would the BBC do this? Are the BBC trying to give Labour some positive propaganda? it certainly looks like it to me!
The Teacher has been jailed for 15 days and will be free very soon AND she is being well looked after, so what is the ‘news’ about?
Why the ‘negotiations’?
All I see is an ‘isnt Labour great’ propaganda report.
But the worst part was to blank out Warsi! That was plain rude and cynical wasnt it?
Are the Labour party/BBC so desperate for Brownie points that they try this dirty trick?
I have just watched Mynotts ‘report’ again on BBC world and it is really despicable that the Tory peer is edited out and made to look(in Muslim terms) like a silent and unimportant sidekick! Mynott felt he had to mention Ahmeds Labour connections FOUR times. Any muslim looking at this report will conclude that the Labour Peer Ahmed is the person doing all the work/talking, while Warsi is along to serve the drinks!
I hope that the BBC are taken to task on this ‘report’ as it shows the BBC sinking to new depths of bias, it is truly terrible journalism.
Talk about reinforcing ‘inferior women’ stereotypes!
Even by current low BBC standards, this report is truly disgusting in its pathetic attempt to make Labour look good.
Stephanie clague | 02.12.07 – 6:24 am,
The bias is simply endless. But I don’t believe I’ve seen the BBC quite as submissive and dhimmified as in Mynott’s alleged reporting. He’s setting a new low.
John Reith: “So, here’s a tip: if you’re looking for a politics story – particularly on a weekend, go to the politics page.”
A cynic might observe this is an admission from our State broadcaster that the BBC orders news stories – not on importance or relevance – but on whether items can be tucked away out of the immediate public “front page” gaze, perhaps in case they cause offence to King Bottler and his incompetent minions.
watcher | 02.12.07 – 12:04 pm
Well a cynic would be wrong.
The point is that the front page changes to accommodate new stories as they get put up.
So many stories may appear on the front page, but few stay there for a long time (more than a day) unless they ‘move’ – i.e. something happens that requires a re-write/addition.
The front page also strikes a balance across the various subject areas that have their own front pages – politics, entertainment, foreign affairs etc.
It also has to strike a balance between what is objectively important in terms of news value and what is popular.
It also takes account of what you might call the ‘don’t you tell me what’s important, I can choose for myself’ spirit of the web.
By contrast, a news bulletin on a network will have a running order that is much more closely governed by editorial decisions about relative importance – albeit tailored to the audience of that particular network.
John Reith: You really are full of it.
Just watching the BBC News 24 loser presenting the so called news. “He” claimed to a Scottish MSP that people didn’t really care about this story and that after all the money spent on cash for Honours investigations that it was a waste of time.
So that’s the BBC deciding on what crimes should or should not be investigated then?
Oh and the idea that people don’t care? Well the opinion polls would seem to say otherwise.
Funny that when Labour were up in the Polls the BBC spun how great Gordon was, now he’s behind we are told by the BBC that the polls are “fluctuating” and that they can’be relied on.
Oh really. Well lets wait till Labour are up in the polls again shall we?
John Reith:
“The point is that the front page changes to accommodate new stories as they get put up. It also takes account of what you might call the ‘don’t you tell me what’s important, I can choose for myself’ spirit of the web.”
Utter tripe Reith, as per usual.
If the BBC news page is reflective of this fictional ‘don’t tell me what’s important, I can choose for myself’ spirit, that you have just concocted to support your argument, why am I seeing a big thick banner in the center of the BBC news page doing the very opposite.
Here we see 3 ‘reports’ specially comissioned by the Beeb to keep the PC flame ever alive.
More ‘Islam’aint so bad’ propaganda…
Anti capitalism pro charity tripe…
And a bit for the disabled.
NONE of them represent news stories published anywhere else, nor are they of immediate importance to anyone other than the team of leftie writers who use the BBC news page as a platform to air their tired, bunny hugging views.
John Reith
By contrast, a news bulletin on a network will have a running order that is much more closely governed by editorial decisions about relative importance – albeit tailored to the
audience of that particular network.
Relative importance JR? How is the Yeti more important than the Labour scandal?
I thought that since the UK is some world superpower, we need to apply higher moral standards against the British government? Shouldn’t it be the case then that whatever happens in the UK is of interest to the rest of the world?
Martin | 02.12.07 – 1:17 pm
“He” claimed to a Scottish MSP that people didn’t really care about this story and that after all the money spent on cash for Honours investigations that it was a waste of time.
You shouldn’t confuse the questions a BBC interviewer asks a guest or the points he/she may put to an interviewee with the personal views of the journalist concerned – still less those of the BBC.
Playing devil’s advocate and examining a question from a wide range of perspectives (particularly those absent from the table) is part of the job description.
John Reith spins in his grave | Homepage | 01.12.07 – 10:50 pm
I don’t think Mr Ageh has any responsibility for the content of the BBC News website.
Peter Horrocks is currently taking over responsibility for the News content of the News Website as part of the newsroom restructuring, in which the website is being merged with Radio and TV news teams to form one multi-platform news operation.
Horrocks reports to Helen Boaden, who, in turn, reports to Mark Byford (Deputy DG and Head of Journalism).
The editor of the news website is Steve Herrman.
John Reith: Utter rubbish. The BBC has no right to ask what should or should not be investigated by the Police nor attack it for investigating something.
Funny that I don’t remember the BBC criticising the West midlands Police for the investigation of Channel 4’s Undercover mosque?
‘Funny that I don’t remember the BBC criticising the West midlands Police for the investigation of Channel 4’s Undercover mosque?’
Actually, I think the BBC does have a right to attack the police for investigating something, but only after it has been proved that such an investigation was futile, misguided, and politically motivated.
For instance, why, on an issue as important as the television censorship case, wasn’t the BBC asking the following:
i) whether Anil Patani of West Midlands Police should resign for wasting tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money on an outrageous attempt to restrict criticism of Islamic extremism?
ii) whether the public is fed up by futile police investigations into television programmes when they should be investigating religious hate speech.
Oops, sorry, doesn’t fit our agenda, or the ‘audience’ to whom we are broadcasting…
Matthew:
“i) whether Anil Patani of West Midlands Police should resign for wasting tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money on an outrageous attempt to restrict criticism of Islamic extremism?”
Funny that. I e-mailed West Midlands police with that very question, but didn’t get so much as a dicky bird.
If I’d been a reporter from Al Beeb I’m certain I would have got a response pronto, but Al Beeb have bigger fish to fry…
I see a giant truffle has set a record price at the moment.
The Beeb has woken up to TPB rather late
It is a real threat to global copyright holders
BTW check out the legal pages, rather amusing
The BBC Sudan coverage justs get better: a little bit of APARTHEID promotion from the BBC now, giving airtime to the view that ‘Muslim pupils need Muslim teachers’:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7123723.stm
We have juicy propaganda for some Islamic segregationalist group:
‘But many Muslims believe it is at best injudicious and at worst dangerous to allow western teachers to educate Muslim children – particularly when they are very young. A non-Muslim teacher is not in a position to provide any kind of Islamic guidance to very young children
I
Iftikhar Ahmad, of the London School of Islamics, an educational trust, campaigns for state-funded Muslim schools because he believes that “Muslim children need Muslim teachers. “A non-Muslim teacher is not in a position to provide any kind of Islamic guidance to very young children” he said.
Yes, just like we need Muslim doctors for Muslim patients, and Muslim police for Muslim crime. The BBC seems to think that being impartial means giving airtime to every lunatic under the sun. I wonder if they would ever have dreamed of giving space to a BNP official telling us that we need ‘Christian teachers for our Christian children’?
Nick Cohen, author of ‘What’s Left?’, a book which criticises the liberal/left, has written a up-dated Postscript to his book.
In this up-date, which is available on his website, he makes several critical references to the BBC, e.g.
1.) he’s critical of 2006 series of ‘Spooks’;
2.) he notes the anti-Western version of ‘Robin Hood’.
On ‘Multiculturalism’, Cohen says:
” From Foucault’s different standards of truth to the BBC’s different ideas of democracy, supposedly liberal or leftish relativists betrayed the very people who were entitled to expect their support, abroad and at home.”
It’s worth reading it all, here:
http://www.nickcohen.net/?p=272
Peter Horrocks is currently taking over responsibility for the News content of the News Website as part of the newsroom restructuring, in which the website is being merged with Radio and TV news teams to form one multi-platform news operation…
John Reith | 02.12.07 – 1:38 pm | #
Ah… Peter Horrocks.
The man who brought us “Power of Nightmares”.
I’m sure at the Beeb he’s considered “edgy, challenging and provocative” for that load of dross.
What was the premise again? George Bush’s neocons and the Muslim Brotherhood were two morally equivalent sides of the same coin and Al Qaeda was a myth dreamed up by the government to keep us all in line.
All the Beeboids, Guardianistas and Independables loved it – until 7/7 came along and it didn’t look so clever any more.
Does it not occur to you that having a Michael Moore wannabee in charge of news and current affairs might sit badly with your charter obligation of impartiality?
Can’t you see that, for many of us, appointments like his completely destroy the BBC’s credibility as a source of serious news?
@ matthew 10.13pm
i agree – this report is utterly mental. how can the bbc leave this quote unchallenged ?
“Muslim youths are being searched in the streets and hundreds are in prison without trial. At least she (Mrs Gibbons) was given a fair trial and a lenient punishment,”
1. we don’t know if it was a fair trial as it was in camera – usually a pretty good sign in the legal world that it definitely was not a fair trial.
2. “hundreds in prison without trial”
the idea that there is mass internment of muslims is simply reported as a fact without challenge. they don’t seem to realise that some foreign readers will probably not know the UK and will believe this c**p
JR Spins in his grave writes: “Can’t you see that, for many of us, appointments like his completely destroy the BBC’s credibility as a source of serious news?”
No they can’t see it, which is why they will blithely do it. Part of the mindset of the Beeb is to consider the views of “ordinary people” – ie the people they dispise – as completely irrelevant. We may pay their telly tax, but our views (unless they concur with the Beeb/Guardian worldview) count for absolutely nothing.
the definitive muslim view on cuddly toys….cut their heads off or stick them in a fire.
report that al beeb !
http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=23445&ln=eng
“Muslim youths are being searched in the streets and hundreds are in prison without trial. At least she (Mrs Gibbons) was given a fair trial and a lenient punishment,”
Partisan on their behalf eh? Al Beeb indeed.
The trial wasn’t fair because no crime had been committed, the sentence wasn’t lenient because no crime had been committed.
Muslim youths are held in prison without trial? By which she insinuates that they are in prison because they are muslims, and she would be right, for jihad is an Islamic doctrine.
Feedback BBC R4 finally tackles the issue of calling spades spades in respect of just WHO was involved in the latest rioting in Paris.
Its the first item and you can listen here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/feedback.shtml
with regards the above post I forgot to mention that Fran Unsworth says that the BBC failed to mention that the rioting “Youths” were Muslim because “we didnt have time”.
Brilliant.
The Guardian (no less!) give you Chavez in his own words
in his own words
‘The cardinal and the bishops are dolts, mental retards’
‘President Uribe is lying in a shameless, horrible, ugly way. I think Colombia deserves another president, it deserves a better president’
Student protesters are ‘spoilt brats’ and ‘fascists’
General Raul Baduel, an ally-turned foe, is a ‘traitor’ and ‘should be taken to the execution wall’
‘Before the world, I accuse the imperialist government of the United States of promoting my assassination’
‘Hitler could be the boss of the CNN’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2220803,00.html
The Times give you news of 100 000 protesters
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2976631.ece
The BBC Big Up his manifesto
KEY PROPOSALS
Indefinite re-election of president, term increased from 6 to 7 years
Central Bank’s autonomy ended
Structure of country’s administrative districts reorganised
Maximum working day cut from 8 hours to 6
Voting age lowered from 18 to 16
Social security benefits extended to workers in informal sector
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7123365.stm
One proposal is to allow the president to stand for re-election an indefinite number of times.
The opposition camp has mounted a vocal campaign
Under the current constitution, Mr Chavez would have to stand down when his term expires at the end of 2012.
Other changes up for approval include giving the president control over the central bank, the creation of new provinces governed by centrally-appointed officials, and a reduction in the voting age from 18 to 16.
There are also proposals to expand presidential powers during natural disasters or political “emergencies”.
On the social front, changes include establishing a maximum six-hour working day and 36-hour working week, and widening social security benefit to workers in the informal economy.
I Love that last bit “On the social front………………………” Sound like Gordon Brown reading the 2001 mini budget.
Brilliant!
The Telegraph hated Cranford
The BBC costume drama Cranford bore almost no resemblance to the book
The script is a clear case of funk. The BBC were afraid of the book’s treatment of sex and class.
If anything, you might have thought this scene of innocent transvestism would have appealed to the BBC, but it has all been censored in favour of the absolutely leaden subplot.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/03/do0305.xml
CNBC Reporter Apologizes For Calling Bush A ‘Monkey’
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b88_1196526130&p=1
Good news: Venezualen news agencies are reporting that Chavez has failed in his attempt to become el Presidente for life. Will be interesting to see how the BBC reports this one.
@ George R 11:07 pm
Thanks for the link. Cohen is right that the kind of lazy journalism which the BBC sometimes exhibits is not liberal at all, but a reactionary nihilism, which provides apologies for autocrats and their ideologies. This is how we explain Humphrys’ belief in the merits of Iranian ‘democracy’, or reporting which describes suicide mass murderers and car bombers in Iraq as liberators and freedom fighters. It has nothing at all to do with classical liberalism of the stripe of Mill and Gladstone. At best we should call it pseudo-liberalism.
It also explains the BBC editorial policy where anything that displays Western ideas and systems as in any way superior to any other must be avoided.
@ jimbob 11:31
Yes, this report is completely one-sided, and a case in point about BBC editorial policy. It is outrageous. Would they have given such space to a British Christian parent who claimed that no Muslim should teach their child because they might learn that dogs and bacon are filthy and unclean?? I think not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7123723.stm
It is extraordinary that Iftikhar Ahmad’s absurd statements, are not challenged or balanced by the BBC in any way.
Some quick research on the web reveals that this man spams many websites with prewritten messages. Here are some more of Ahmad’s segregationalist beliefs:
http://forums.icwales.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=12585
“In my opinion, 7/7 bombers were the product of the British education system. They were mis-educated and de-educated by the native teachers who are not interested to understand their needs and demands. British society is reluctant to open up its sense of citizenship to all those that have come to live here. Muslim parent do not want their children to become integrated into such barbarity.”
‘De-educated’ by native teachers? ‘Their demands’? Can anyone please explain why this imbecile is being paraded by the BBC as some kind of educational expert? John Reith would indeed be turning in his grave.
Did anyone catch the mournful tones this morning on Today reporting the stifling of Chavez’ dictatorial ambitions? None of the extended trumpeted triumphalism of say, the rejection of the Liberals in Australia.
John Reith spins in his grave | Homepage | 02.12.07 – 11:08 pm
Does it not occur to you that having a Michael Moore wannabee in charge of news and current affairs might sit badly with your charter obligation of impartiality?
I can’t imagine anyone less like a Michael Moore wannabe than Horrocks.
Perhaps you’re confusing him with someone else. (Adam Curtis, maybe?) I suppose Horrocks was in charge of current affairs when PoN was commissioned, but he was also in charge when John Ware’s MCB programme was commissioned.
Horrocks, you will recall, was one of those who recently put a spoke in the wheels of the awful Save the Planet Day or Climatefest or whatever it was to be called.
Glad to hear a senior BBC high executive/commisar who realises just what a big mistake that ‘save the planet’ nonsense actualy was! Just like the Heathrow save the world(damp squib)camp? or the all expenses paid holiday in Bali for the commisars and camp followers? more hot air coming out of Bali in that week than a shedload of Chinese power stations?
And all the time the Earths natural climate cycle turns colder again!
You really couldnt make it up could you?
Well, GP/FOE/IPCC/BBC does, but they live in cloud cuckoo land dont they?
I can’t imagine anyone less like a Michael Moore wannabe than Horrocks.
Perhaps you’re confusing him with someone else.
John Reith | 03.12.07 – 10:03 am | #
You’re making smoke & zig zagging JR.
You know as well as I do that Horrocks was Executive Producer of “Power of Nightmares” and is still proud of his role in broadcasting it.
From a profile in the Indie when he took over his news role in 2005:-
Recently Horrocks was in the audience at the Edinburgh Television Festival when one prominent speaker glibly suggested that – in the wake of London bombings that had made the nightmares a reality – the programme did not now seem so clever. But Horrocks has no regrets…
The strength of the programme was to get the viewer to challenge the “received wisdom” of governments, and indeed journalists, claims the new chief of BBC television news.
Horrocks also believes that the BBC is big enough to incorporate an increasing breadth of views (including extremist ones), while subjecting each of them to the same level of rigorous scrutiny and then leaving viewers to judge the merits of the arguments…..
In the appointment of Horrocks, the BBC has chosen a journalist who is unlikely to back down from controversy in a period when the corporation is anxious to show it has recovered from the trauma of the Hutton inquiry.
It’s quite clear from this profile that Horrocks’ is proud of “challenging received wisdom”, “incorporating extremist views” and “not backing down from controversy” – and of course no one would disagree that there’s nothing wrong with these traits in someone seeking a career in polemical journalism – hence the Michael Moore comparison.
What is completely unacceptable is to put someone with these views in overall charge of news and current affairs at a national broadcaster with a statutory obligation to impartiality.
Incidentally, I saw no evidence of “rigorous scrutiny” of the views expressed in the PON broadcast I saw.
Why can’t you understand that there’s a huge sector of the news & current affairs audience which wants its news served straight – without a side order of 1960’s student agitprop?
Sorry – Anonymous 12.10 was me on a different PC.
Lurker in a Burqua | 03.12.07 – 12:23 am | #
“Feedback BBC R4 finally tackles the issue of calling spades spades in respect of just WHO was involved in the latest rioting in Paris.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/fact…/ feedback.shtml
Many thanks for that.
The BBC lady’s sophistry was stellar! Well up to the usual responses from BBC staff called to account on Feedback: black is white; white is black etc.
Very amusing quote in response to the original complainant saying he had to get the real news for the daily Mail…
“We don’t want anyone getting their news from the Daily Mail.”
Yeah. Right.
Playing devil’s advocate and examining a question from a wide range of perspectives (particularly those absent from the table) is part of the job description.
John Reith | 02.12.07 – 1:23 pm | #
Hmm – I haven’t see much of it in J Humphrys’ interviewing (of tories and other people he so obviously dislikes) over many years – perhaps he could be sent on a training course in professional journalism?
Press Release
BBC contributes to Global Warming and obesity!
Recent Government sponsored research has found a definite link between the amount of sleep people take and their obesity levels. Less sleep equates to a greater tendency to obesity. The BBC – particularly the TV channels must face up to their responsibilty for this – potentially the most serious problem of our times. “The proliferation in the number of BBC channels and their ever extending hours of late night transmission means that people are staying up longer, losing sleep and getting fatter as a result” says and expert (me)
“Also we must not forget the Global Warming consequences of this irresponsible action” says the same expert. “The amount of extra energy that is needed to support this extension of broadcastng hours, but especially the extra energy used in the homes of those who stay up late, especially in the winter is enormous” “If this thoughtless and selfish practice were to come to an end, we would save enough carbon emmissions to almost cover the carbon cost of 15000 experts flying out to another Climate Change Conference in Bali” “It’s quite simple really; close down BBC transmissions at 10.30 – people will get more sleep, won’t be fat and we’ll be doing our bit to save the world”
It is reported that a panel of experts will be asking the European Union to look at banning all broadcasting after 10.30 pm once the results of a further, wider reaching study (for which the EU is requested to provide research funds) has been concluded.
This in response to You and Yours latest “outrage story” that airlines are taking the long way round to the Canaries and “putting profit before consideration for the climate” – the BBC is of course fortunate in this respect. As it gets its funds from a compulsory tax it does not have to worry itself about such mundane matters (a bit like the Aristocracy’s hatred of “Trade” in earlier times)
The BBC laps up this stuff
The government’s approach to tackling child poverty has lost momentum and is in “urgent need” of a major rethink, a charity has said.
A Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) report said there has been no sustained progress in the past three years. One in three UK children live in poverty.
they search out other organisations to bolster the case
The Child Poverty Action Group agrees that “more radical policies” are necessary.
“The culture of inequality in Britain has a high cost to individual lives and the whole nation,” added the charity’s chief executive, Kate Green.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7121667.stm
The Times notes bias in the methods of these organisations committed to ever higher taxation.
Yet the problem of poverty, and the problems it causes, will not be helped by selective use of data and sloppy analysis.
More attention might be paid, too, if politicians, and foundations like Rowntree could be trusted not to present information to suit themselves or their increasingly political wishes.
Absurdly, the Government’s most recent tax changes have punished those most keen to lift themselves higher. Their reward has been a higher tax bracket.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article2988463.ece
The last sentence refers to Brown’s bizarre budget decision, effective next April, to double the tax take from those with income between c. 5.5-8K by doubling the initial tax rate from 10p to 20p in the £.
| 30.11.07 – 3:16 pm | #Reg Hammer:
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.
Guess what? It’s gone.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3873&edition=1&ttl=20071203124508
Surprise, surprise.
Even better though, look at the stats…
DEBATE STATUS
Total comments:20443
Published comments:10888
Rejected comments:1179
I make that 8366 comments ‘missing’.
I know they don’t do honesty, but don’t the BBC do maths either?
Did anyone hear Feedback (R4) last week?
Roger Bolton, in a short piece (Listen Again, about 9 or 10 minutes in), said many listeners had felt that Alastair Cooke’s death had left a “gaping hole” in the R4 schedules and wanted regular reports from the US to fill the gap. A listener had left a message suggesting Matt Frei to replace him. Bolton asked for comments on the suggestion – this was the last edition of the present series but comments would be passed on.
I’m inclined to make a comment! Perhaps other BBBCers would like to do so as well: the Feedback email address is: feedback@bbc.co.uk
Outrageous partisanship on today’s World at One.
Martha Kearney had a piece on changing the rules on party donations.
For it, she interviewed 3 people – Matthew Taylor (who used to work with Blair at No. 10), a Labour MP and Hazel Blears. All made party political points.
I can understand if they had just one person speaking on behalf of the Labour Party but how can they justify not just having 3 Labour Party supporters but also having no one putting the Opposition point of view?
Very strange!
They do at least mention this guy was in the Labour party this time, but it’s tucked in the middle of the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7125046.stm
Not sure what they mean by ‘ex-Labour’ either. Has he been thrown out, or should the ‘ex’ actually refer to him being a councillor at one point?
Stephen Pollard on the Yazzmonster
Even in her intro – some of her best friends are Jews, you know – she’s at it, decrying how she’s had to weigh up whether or not to reveal the truth lest she face “the wrath of Moses”. Ah yes, Moses, short hand for ‘the Jews’ (the sort of short hand, by the way, that Nazis used).
http://www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard/384826/yasmins-got-lots-of-jewish-friends-so-thats-ok.thtml
This blog needs a proper messageboard.
Although rather technical I found this rather interesting (details of the Beebs website technogly fubar)
http://iamseb.com/seb/2007/12/perl-on-rails-why-the-bbc-fails-at-the-internet/
This thread has been one of the most informative in the history of this site. Why? Because this:
Controller of Internet activities at the Beeb is one Tony Ageh:-
Seee Wikipedia entry and pic:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Ageh
explains this big lie being unchallenged –
“Muslim youths are being searched in the streets and hundreds are in prison without trial. At least she (Mrs Gibbons) was given a fair trial and a lenient punishment,” he adds.
I’ve always wondered how such anti-British propaganda could be emitted from a ‘British’ Broadcasting Corporation. The BBC actually is a nest of lefties – what say ye, JR?
Some time ago, when I was posting here as “foxgoose”, I tried to explain to JR that new technolgy would soon make “broadcasting” redundant – as people could get all their news and entertainment direct from their preferred sources “on demand” and uncontaminated by third party selection or editorial input.
I was interested to read this in today’s Telegraph Business, in a profile of Intel VP Sean Maloney, talking about their new ultra high speed hafnium/silicon processors:-
The new generation of chips are also designed to enable WiMAX, the evolution of the traditional Wi-Fi technology, but what gets Maloney most excited is the prediction that the internet – and the new generation of chips – will bang the nail in the coffin of traditional television. Despite the publicity over sales of high-definition (HD) TVs, Maloney believes most television channels will be broadcast in the existing standard definition for many years to come. But at the same time, the cost of HD consumer video cameras is falling fast.
“That is a profound change,” he says. “User-generated content is going to become higher quality than professional content. Professional providers may sneer and say it’s not what it looks like, it’s the quality of the content, but that would be to ignore the lessons of the past few years and the emergence of the likes of YouTube.
“Over the next two years you are going to have an explosion in high quality video broadcast on the internet. The same thing that happened to print media in the 1990s with the move to the web will happen with broadcast media.
“People no longer have the patience to sit in their chairs in front of the TV and wait for it to happen. That whole way of life is going to change and it will completely unravel the traditional television model. The era of TV is drawing to an end.”
And we can all thank hafnium for that.
Looks like “broadcasters” will soon be going the same way as travel agents and we’ll have to think of ways of re-employing 30,000 redundant beeboids.
Anybody got any suggestions?
Mynott (BBC1 News 6pm)considers that the presence of only a small crowd of protesters outside the British embassy in Khartoum indicates that the majority of Sudanese are relieved that Gibbons is on her way home.
HTF can he assess the feelings of the majority of Sudanese on the matter?
Stuck-Record:
“Even better though, look at the stats…
DEBATE STATUS
Total comments:20443
Published comments:10888
Rejected comments:1179
I make that 8366 comments ‘missing’.”
Yup, the Beeb PC police have tumbled the general publics game and shut it down lest the outraged majority offends the religion of peace.
With only half the comments published, most of which flatly condemned Islam, it makes you wonder what was in the comments that were rejected.
News Sniffer hasn’t been much help on this. I could only find 3 examples of rejected comments and they were no different to those that were published.
A classic case of DHYS moderation, where they clearly moderate their comments with a blindfold and a pin, just to give the impression they aren’t silencing debate…before shutting the whole show down to prove conclusively that they ARE silencing debate.
Wankers the lot of them.
I have just spent a few minutes listening in amazement at an item on the Radio4 Six o’clock news about a survey of children undertaken by Newsround. This showed some very surprising numbers particularly with regard to happiness, optimism, need to do well at school etc etc. This was reported without a blush as being representative of UK Children as a whole.
Clearly the words Selection Bias had never entered the mind of either the Newsround presenter nor the interviewer. Anybody of even average intelligence should have noted at the very outset that the children who sit down and watch Newsround might not be completely representative of the UK population of children.
This is a more than usually blatant example of the inability of BBC journalists to understand even simple examples of bias.
Yet more crap from the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7125501.stm
So poor Gordon is getting bullied? What a joke. This is the man that stole our pensions, has treated the armed forces like s**t and made up a lughing stock around the world. He deserves ariht good kicking. He’s snug little coward who runs and hides at the first sign of trouble..
And the poxy BBC think that David “posh boy” Cameron should be careful in case we dumb voters make them all look bad.
I wonder if the BBC ever did a similar piece when the likes of Bliar, Brown and Prescott were sticking the boot into the Tory pary back in the 90’s?