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.
Yep. John Reith: meggoman’s Times link clearly shows that race is an issue here. So why aren’t the BBC mentioning it?
Half a million to ‘train’ staff not to lie. Only at the BBC.
BBC to spend £500k on trust classes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/04/bbc.television1
“Two-hour classes to teach the BBC’s editorial staff how to avoid deceiving viewers are likely to cost around £500,000, the corporation revealed today.”
So two of the most regular posters to a blog with a raison d’etre of combating intellectual dishonesty need outing as living outside the UK, rather than fronting up with that information themselves. Speaks volumes.
BBC ‘took terrorist trainers paintballing’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3001102.ece
Truly shocking.
If I am correct, a crime may have been committed by this (and possibly other) BBC employees under the Terrorism Act 2000. BBC Editorial Guidelines confirm this.
BBC Editorial Guidelines
The Terrorism Act 2000
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/war/theterrorismact.shtml
“We have a legal obligation under the Terrorism Act 2000 to disclose to the police, as soon as reasonably practicable, any information which we know or believe might be of material assistance in:
preventing the commission of an act of terrorism anywhere in the world.
securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a person in the UK, for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.”
A criminal offence with up to 5 years in prison no less.
I hope the police throw the book at them all.
Roland Thompson-Gunner
Whatever it shows, it doesn’t show that the BBC is unbiased…
RT-G, third-party commenters are not posters, let alone regular posters. The fact that you should try to smear Biased BBC on the basis of the location of third-party commenters speaks volumes about you.
That aside, the BBC’s influence and effect, for better or worse, is not limited to the shores of the UK, so it seems reasonable that those outside the UK should also be permitted to complain about the BBC.
Ritter – I have complained about that story. They will probably change the comment just as they move it into the archive…..
Roland Thompson-Gunner:
So two of the most regular posters to a blog with a raison d’etre of combating intellectual dishonesty ……..
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 05.12.07 – 5:02 pm | #
If that’s the best you can do to defend the bias on BBC you shouldn’t really bother.
Andrew. I have absolutely no problem with people who are not obliged to fund the BBC being allowed to comment on it and complain about it. But if I felt strongly enough to take regular issue with the policies of the public broadcasters of Cyprus or Israel while resident in the UK, I’d have the intellectual honesty to let people know where I was coming from, (in both senses rather than just the transferred one) rather than wait for someone else to point it out.
Well left wing losers in the UK and BBC are always attacking Fox News. So is it not fair that those outside the UK should be able to attack the BBC?
Pick up any newspaper the world over, Allan, and you’ll find stories without by-lines. There are any number of reasons for this and I don’t really see the relevance.
Whoever it’s written by, the BBC is accountable.
Rob Clark | 05.12.07 – 3:51 pm | #
Rob; given that the BBC is not impartial, I want to see the name of the person has written the biased article in order that I or others may check that person’s journalistic history and political affiliations. The BBC is all too aware of this and so does not enforce accountability. How much does it really take for the drafter of an article to add his/her name?
So two of the most regular posters to a blog with a raison d’etre of combating intellectual dishonesty need outing as living outside the UK, rather than fronting up with that information themselves. Speaks volumes.
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 05.12.07 – 5:02 pm | #
RT-G, I’ve only been coming here a matter of a few weeks and I was aware that Bryan lived in Israel.
You can’t have been paying attention!
Allan, you raise a very interesting question, in fact.
As I’m sure most commentators here are aware, a piece of journalism is subjected to an editing process involving several editors/deputy editors/sub-editors cutting and re-writing.
So even where a journalist might be a freelancer and not necessarily to the left of centre personally, any copy • whether for broadcast or website • will be filtered through the hands of numerous BBC employees who are likely to ensure the party line on any given subject is adhered to.
Unless there is added the standard disclaimer of ‘The views of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the company blah blah blah’ or words to that affect, then the BBC can be held accountable for anything it publishes. This is publishing 101.
meggoman thanks for linking to the Times article on the pimping of young White girls.
John Reith (or any other Beeboid or fellow traveller) would you care to comment on the BBC’s lack of coverage of the false accusations of racism and Anglophobia at the heart of this story. In case you missed it here are a few examples from the Times article:
“Police seem to be very cautious about this. They fear being branded racist,”… “All of a sudden Sally was only interested in hanging out with Pakistani boys,” says Jean. “She started saying I was racist, and that is why I objected to her hanging out with them.” …”The pimps are adept at trading on teenage rebellion and use similar methods, according to Crop, of convincing the girls all white people are racist”… “says Gemma. “Amir told me they didn’t understand me and were racist and ignorant”…”Hussein says he took “great pleasure” in having young white girls at his beck and call”…” A number of families affected by Pakistani pimping gangs have said that police inaction and the refusal of white liberals to acknowledge the problem has resulted in more girls being at risk than ever before”…”However, he does believe some young Asian men “hold very disparaging attitudes towards white girls”…”Sally’s photographs and profile were posted on a website. She was posing with the flag of Pakistan. There were 97 names of Asian men posted on it who had made contact with her. She was asking for Asian men to “date”. She said she hated white people.”
I don’t think it stretching things too far to say that the BBC shares an MO with these Pakistani pimp gangs
Mugwump,
Frei just moves from strength to strength, doesn’t he? After trying to (mis)lead the reader into thinking the lead paint issue is the reason for China giving the US Nay the two-fingered salute, he reluctantly admits that some experts think it was about Taiwan. He tells a little white lie of omission when he says there was just a “recent announcement” and does not mention that there was a meeting with US Def. Sec. Gates specifically about the Tawain missile defense issue, and the US held firm. That’s what pissed off China, everyone knows it. Yet Frei brings up the lead paint scare, which is getting past its sell-by date.
We’ll just ignore the rest of it the article, as it is opinion and not news. After all, he’s just a journalist with stories to tell, so I can’t expect him to realize that China was keeping the yuan artificially pegged to the “Greenback”, which has been part of the problem, and puts quite a different light on the subject.
Oh, except there’s a bit at the very end worth pointing out. Matt closes by telling that if we can’t be with the China we love, we should love the China we’re with. No connection to the constant pimping for China I see on the BBC, I’m sure. Matt tells us to calm down about the lead paint (no sympathy for all those whose pets died from tainted Chinese kibble, since that might mean something). Then he informs us:
“…if you really are worried about lead poisoning, there is a handy stocking-filler from a company called IDenta coming soon.
Made in Israel – phew! – it will allow you to test for lead poisoning in the comfort of your home, costs just $15 or so and fits snugly into every party bag.”
I know from watching his low budget US affair just what old Matty thinks of Israel. So y’all pardon me if I infer a bit of sarcastic venom in that “phew!”
John Reith, who is the stock Principal Boy to Frei’s Demon King? Or his he just an Ugly Sister? Or maybe Pulchinello?
“ThinAndBritish:
Yep. John Reith: meggoman’s Times link clearly shows that race is an issue here. So why aren’t the BBC mentioning it?”
John? John?
Korova,
With all the adverts I see from the China tourist bureau during BBC World News America broadcasts, it looks like a portion of your license fee supports the Communist government of China.
Thought you might enjoy that.
“As an aside, I suspect the young girls in question have been left dreadfully vulnerable because of some of the “citizenship lessons” which are now compulsory in school and which paint the Asian/Muslim population as being very family orientated, and that criticism or even suspicion of Asians is Islamophobic or simply racist. Any parent trying to rescue their daughter from the clutches of these paedophiles will also be fighting against the school indoctrination of their daughter.”
There it is, right there. This website is racist.
ThinAndBritish | 05.12.07 – 6:09 pm
Well, ain’t that just typical of B-BBC commenters?
Instead of comparing like with like, you compare the Times’s coverage of a trial back in September with the BBC’s coverage of a Home Office Report today.
Other media – Lord Rothermere’s Metro and ITN-Channel 4 have covered the same HO report. Compare their coverage with the BBC’s and we may be having a sensible conversation.
The Times, interestingly, doesn’t seem to have covered it at all.
http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1124525661
and…..
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=78273&in_page_id=34
So the BBC wins its case and trumpets it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7128552.stm
“The BBC called the ruling an important decision in defence of free speech.”
This despite the fact that “The corporation received a record 63,000 complaints”
After all “It also received many messages of support for screening the musical” you note numbers undisclosed because they werent in the same ballpark as a figure even though the article clearly implies they were.
Then it goes on from the BBC “We, of course, believe that broadcasters should continue to exercise great care and sensitivity when dealing with potential religious offence, and that has not changed” which is less than factual, exactly what great care and sensitivity was exercised here – none. what they mean is it wouldnt have been allowed if it had been about islam. If it was Mohammed not Jesus would we have seen it – answer no. I defy a beeboid to come on here and lie that it would, we all know what a laughing stock they would be.
Its outrageous bias and they know it, they just dont seem to care who does know it.
JR: True enough – I should have checked the other sources.
It’s clear from the original Times report that there is a race issue here – looks like all sources are covering it up to appease the Asian contingent.
Of course there’s only one source which we are forced to pay to do the appeasement….
John Reith:
ThinAndBritish | 05.12.07 – 6:09 pm
You seem to be suggesting that the 2 are not linked.
Quote from the TIMES article:
‘Research, conducted in 2005 and involving 106 families seeking help from the Leeds-based campaigning organisation Coalition for the Removal of Pimping (Crop), found that in Yorkshire alone more than 30 girls were sexually exploited, with some being forced into prostitution, by what Crop says are predominantly Asian networks. As many as 200 families have gone to the organisation for advice.’
So Mr Reith if the 2 are not linked then why did Nicky Campbell interview someone from Crop on his programme this morning (Radio5) and ask if the ‘internal trafficking’ was being carried out by any particular element of society. To which she gave a very similar response to the above naming Pakistani Asians as the main culprits.
ThinAndBritish:
JR: True enough – I should have checked the other sources.
ThinandBritish
Don’t give in so easily to the Anonymous poster posing as John Reith. The BBC and the other beeboids on here think we’re all fick and stoopid. So we couldn’t possibly have the intelligence link the 2 stories. See my post before this one re Nicky Campbells interview.
Jawdropper of the decade!
Speechless.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3001102.ece
David Preiser,
Wonder if Frei’s reporting would have had a somewhat different tone if the US (or Israel – phew!) had been caught exporting lead-tainted products as opposed to China.
I have a hunch he wouldn’t be treating the whole thing as some kind of joke.
What is it with the BBC and canooists?
The lead story on the news page relates to the man who was believed drowned and the possibility of a fraudulent insurance claim for a few thousand
Meanwhile, the Standard and other outlets are running articles on £2 1/2 million that seems to have evaporated from London ratepayers in the direction of some of Ken’s pals. Maybe our friend Jr can point us at the story, because I’ve just clicked through half a dozen of the likeliest pages without a glimpse. Oh hang on I haven’t looked in the arts section yet…
A poster from outside the UK, makes these criticisms of the BBC’s international political coverage, which includes coverage of his own country, the USA:
“Clean out the BBC” (by Hugh Fitzgerald):
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/11670
Following on from ritter’s comment above.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7129277.stm
A typically balanced BBC assessment of the proposed Titan “super-prisons.”
The furthest right person we hear from is Jack Straw. At least half the story is full of lengthy objections from a LibDem Councillor and “Criminology” Professor; and the Howard League, who are on their usual track of “let’s send fewer people to prison.” For balance we get a short comment from the president of the Prison Governors Association…. who also seems to be hostile. And, er, a second spokesman from the Howard League.
Causing offence
==============
The BBC is in triumphalist mood today as it was deemed by the High Court that Jerry Springer the Opera could not be banned simply because it caused offence.
I wait with baited breath as every HYS or MessageBoard post that has been banned because it criticised sodomy or Islamism is restored to public view.
And while the Beeb is today celebrating over the Jerry Springer Opera affair, they are at the same time apologosing to muslims.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/05/bbc.radio
BBC apologises for Muhammad joke
The BBC was forced to broadcast an on-air apology today after a local radio presenter in Nottingham joked that freed British schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons had a dog named Muhammad.
I think the BBC, like all cowardly liberals, supplicate to Islamists in the hope they will eat them last. Which explains why they spit bile at Christians.
LDA “funding disputes ” are becoming very common.
please see ongoing investigations
http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/bmac/2007/nov27/item04.rtf
and
http://media-newswire.com/release_1057441.html
of course to question how the bernie grant arts centre has spent it’s £4.5 million would be a “hideously white” thing to do so it’s best left to the evening standard and daily mail isn’t it beeboids…
Reimer | 05.12.07 – 12:03 pm,
They had a piece on the World Service today which carefully avoided any racial description of the young girls and their predators, using the passive voice a lot, as in “They were approached by/groomed by young men…”
The BBC is incurably sick.
David Preiser:
Korova,
With all the adverts I see from the China tourist bureau during BBC World News America broadcasts, it looks like a portion of your license fee supports the Communist government of China.
Thought you might enjoy that.
David Preiser | 05.12.07 – 6:09 pm | #
Not really. Try and get your tiny little brain around the idea that just because I am ‘left’ doesn’t mean I support communist regimes. Tricky I know for the small minded imbeciles that comment here, but give it a try.
And as for the comments regarding advertising and Sky, I quite literally pissed myself at that one. It’s quite simple. There is a ‘tax’ on every product we buy that goes towards advertising on Sky. It is not exactly an e3asy task to purchase an item and be confident that that company doesn’t sponsor/advertise on Sky. In fact, practically every majotr brand does advertise on Sky. The fact is, even if I didn’t have a TV, I would still pay money to keep Sky operation.
The bottom line is that the BBC defends the capitalist system all the way. That you fail to see this suggests a high degree of illiteracy at best and at worst utter ignorance.
I call that bias. No more no less.
Ritter | 05.12.07 – 3:44 pm
They keep on doing this. That’s how they “rebalance” a HYS that has gone wrong – in their eyes.
Those busy little propagandists on the BBC website really need to be confronted with this.
Maybe I should complain….
Korova,
Then you ought to be protesting the license fee as much as you are complaining about having to support SKY when you buy toothpaste.
I was just reminded that my own government funds the BBC according to your logic. NPR is supported by my tax dollars, as is PBS, both of which broadcast BBC World News. I’m not happy about that at all.
So two of the most regular posters to a blog with a raison d’etre of combating intellectual dishonesty need outing as living outside the UK, rather than fronting up with that information themselves. Speaks volumes.
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 05.12.07 – 5:02 pm
You should engage you brain before you comment. How do you think Reith knew I live in Israel? Because I’d been hiding the fact?
RT-G, I’ve only been coming here a matter of a few weeks and I was aware that Bryan lived in Israel.
Rob Clark | 05.12.07 – 5:54 pm
Thanks for pointing that out.
John Reith | 05.12.07 – 1:12 pm,
No, they didn’t dump comments into the “rejected comments” category right at the end. I was following the debate quite closely and the rejected comments steadily increased over the course of the debate.
HYS is quite specific about the categories of comments. Here’s the breakdown people see on their personal page:
COMMENT STATUS KEY
Published
Your comment has been published on a debate.
Awaiting moderation
Your comment is in the moderation queue.
Unpublished
As the debate is now closed your comment will not be published.
Rejected
Your comment broke the house rules so was rejected by the moderators.
I have come to know how these people operate. Though I must admit they sometimes surprise me – as in the huge number of highly critical and insulting comments they allowed through on Islam and Sudan re the teddy bear.
Ben | 05.12.07 – 11:51 am,
I take your point and I see that the issue is a little more complex than I at first imagined.
But the BBC is a public service broadcaster. And it seems a trifle unbalanced for it to be able to spread bias worldwide through distortion and omission of facts and then blithely ignore or dismiss complaints that arise from outside the UK as a result of its actions. The BBC has a tremendous amount of power and influence. And so often it uses it for evil, rather than for good. It needs to be continually reined in and challenged.
A self-confessed incontinent said…And as for the comments regarding advertising and Sky, I quite literally pissed myself at that one.
Ugh!
Korova: loads of stuff never gets advertised on Sky. Buy only that stuff. Don’t buy stuff that does get advertised on Sky. Easy • no funds get passed along to that nasty Wupert chappie.
The bottom line is that the BBC defends the capitalist system all the way.
😆
Steve Edwards:
I think the BBC, like all cowardly liberals, supplicate to Islamists in the hope they will eat them last. Which explains why they spit bile at Christians.
Not at all. A beeboid, aka John Reith, will spin this one as evidence that beeboids treat christianity in a higher regard, thus with a higher moral standard, than they do Islam!
“Not at all. A beeboid, aka John Reith, will spin this one as evidence that beeboids treat christianity in a higher regard, thus with a higher moral standard, than they do Islam!”
Touché!
“Not really. Try and get your tiny little brain around the idea that just because I am ‘left’ doesn’t mean I support communist regimes. Tricky I know for the small minded imbeciles that comment here, but give it a try.”
Yeah you bloody student anarchist. Communism is the apotheosis of leftism, it all ends up there. Read up on the Ukraine famine to see where lenins ideas on the “national” “question” end up.
korova:
And as for the comments regarding advertising …….There is a ‘tax’ on every product we buy……..
But shouldn’t I only pay that tax if I WANT the the product and decide to buy it.
The BBC is NOT a product
It’s a state imposed institution that has no place in todays free society. An dthe sooner it dies the better.
Korova: So refuse to buy products that get adversised on TV and Sky in particular.
Plenty of people manage to buy things that don’t contain animal products so why can’t you manage to do the same?
Write to the companies that sell the things you buy and ask where they spend their advertising budget.
I for example strongly object to the likes of the BBC only advertising jobs in the Guardian newspaper. Why don’t the BBC advertise jobs in the Sun or the Daily Mail? Why should the Guardian be propped up by a huge wedge of public money from the likes of the BBC and local authorities?
Of course the BBC is capitalist!!!!! It’s run by Champagne Socialists the very same lot that run Nu Labour and most of the media.
You’re probably on eof those idiots that thinks the BBC is “great value for money” Of course it is when your leftie viewing pleasures are paid for by everyone.
Would it not be fairer then to make everyone pay for Sky as well?
Oh and without paying for a Sky HD box how would you watch BBC programmes in HD??????????? Nice of the BBC to shaft the viewing public.
Not on Newsnight
Kirsty Wark’s husband loses court battle as judge frowns upon his email hacking
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499935&in_page_id=1770
Bryan: I have read probably hundreds of your postings here but never one where you disclose that you live in Israel. I would recommend that if someone wants to express opinions like…
“If the Labour government had any backbone it would be investigating the BBC with a view to charging them with…well, whatever’s left to charge them with…”
… and wants to be regarded as intellectually honest by people who do fund the BBC and have a vote for the British government, they should front up with that information on a pretty regular basis.
As for Andrew’s distinction between people posting to the blog and third-party commenters like us, I think that’s a bit of a fine point as far as entries which consist solely of solicited comments is concerned.
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 05.12.07 – 5:02 pm
So two of the most regular posters to a blog with a raison d’etre of combating intellectual dishonesty need outing as living outside the UK, rather than fronting up with that information themselves. Speaks volumes.
Only two? 😆
Your complaint is important to us even if it comes outside of the UK
http://thumbsnap.com/v/MwLi9Qc9.gif
The BBC is a world broadcaster and proud of the fact. As well as the World Service in English (for the last 75 yrs), it broadcasts in 33 separate languages with separate websites in those languages. No one tuning in from outside the UK is forced to pay a license fee and all are asked to have your say in response to questions posed by the BBC. Much of the World Service material is rebroadcast in the UK and vice versa.
The BBC World Service Trust receives funding from many organizations (Our funders). Some of these institutions are British such as the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, UK (FCO) but many are not. In other words, UK citizens pay for some of it. Citizens from other countries (directly and indirectly) pay for other parts.
In addition many of these countries broadcast BBC material on cable. In Israel (oops – I’ve outed myself :o( ) the two cable networks carry BBC Prime and BBC World News. We do pay for them albeit indirectly as we pay the cable companies who then pay the BBC for broadcasting rights. In addition, a slew of BBC product appears occasionally on other channels including Channel One (originally modeled after the BBC and funded by a compulsory tax as in the U.K.)
If the BBC didn’t constantly propagandise for people whose stated aim is my destruction perhaps I wouldn’t read and contribute to this group as much as I do. On the other hand where, other than Biased-BBC, would I post?
korova | Homepage | 05.12.07 – 10:38 pm
The bottom line is that the BBC defends the capitalist system all the way. That you fail to see this suggests a high degree of illiteracy at best and at worst utter ignorance.
It also suggests, unlike much of its output, that the BBC takes a position here overwhelmingly supported by its British viewers and listeners; the UK population as a whole; and although I can’t prove it empirically, the BBC worldwide audience.
The BBC defends capitalism – I hope so.
:+: