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.
I don’t understand the logic of the application of the words ‘so-called’ (if there is any).
Can you enlighten me?
Ritter | 28.12.07 – 6:33 pm | #
Probably because the War on Terror is seen more as a specific campaign rather than simply some words in a sentence trying to describe a situation (as Brown was in that article).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html
Hence why its capitalised in the heading.
That’s why Benn’s speech was important, as it was referring to this campaign and the specific phraseology. To act otherwise I think is somewhat disingenuous and would have thought even most ardent B-BBC’ers would accept the differentiation, that it’s not merely a quote from Bush.
David Preiser (USA) | 28.12.07 – 7:31 pm,
Well, thanks for that. I can see I’ve got quite a bit of catching up to do.
I wonder where Reith is. Perhaps he’s drowning his sorrows.
Bovver for the BBC over the foul Catherine Tate Christmas Special
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/421441/bovver-for-the-bbc-over-the-foul-catherine-tate-christmas-special.thtml
Frank Gardner (BBC Security expert my arse) waffling on about how Bhutto was killed by banging her head, not shot or the bomb (which killed 30 others)
Yes Frank like many mates of mine who have died recently in the Middle East in RTA’s shortly after something went bang next to their vehicle.
Where do they get him from?
The BBC and its coverage of the death of Benazir Bhutto.
Has he BBC gone OTT on the death of the above?
Its UK coverage paints the picture that all British Muslims are in mourning
Muslims offer prayers for Bhutto
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7162409.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/uk/video/141000/bb/141825_16x9_bb.asx?ad=1&ct=50
Muslims unite in Bhutto prayers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7163127.stm
Brown to ‘step up’ terror fight
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7163327.stm
FO warns against Pakistan visits
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7162867.stm
The Big Picture.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/uk_enl_1198855468/img/1.jpg
The fact remains she was a Pakistani, Not Indian, Not African, Not Middle-Eastern But A Pakistani. So why is the BBC promoting this image that all Muslims in the Uk are in Mourning. I mean lets be serious here how many Indian Muslims are going to mourn the death of a member of the political elite of their enemy. (I was taught at the Mosque never to speak to Pakistani people and that they were evil) But hey my family did come from India. But that isn’t the direction I wish to dwell on.
The image I see the BBC promoting here is that British born people whose families came from Pakistan in the UK hold more allegiance to Pakistan than to the Uk. The fact the BBC uses the glue of religion in which to colour that allegiance highlights a dangerous precedence that the BBC (since the MCB debarkle) refuses to debate.
A precedence which if applied to the Tory party, the BNP ,Catholics, the Police or even jews living in the UK would have the BBC holding up the racist card. So why are Pakistani Muslims in the UK allowed to hold crooked politicians in a foreign land to a higher regard than our own crooked politicians?
Bryan | 28.12.07 – 5:12 pm
Yes, the Arabs came out of the demise of the Ottoman Empire with 80% of Palestine….. Not a bad deal for those who had backed the losing side.
Go back to your history books again, Bryan. The Arabs actually backed the winning side (i.e. Britain) against the Turks. There was this bloke called Lawrence of Arabia………. Remember now?
I guess you meant then known as Palestine. Under the Ottoman Empire or not, it still doesn’t diminish the area under discussion
After the Ottomans took over, the name ‘Palestine’ disappeared as the official designation of any political or administrative entity. The area nowadays comprising Israel, the WB and Gaza then came under the province of Damascus. But the term ‘Palestine’ • according to Wikipedia continued to be used in documents to describe ‘the area to the west of the River Jordan’.
Certainly, it was never envisaged under Balfour to give any land East of the Jordan to the Jews as part of their national home. As I’ve already pointed out, that had already been promised to the Arabs as payback for their revolt against the Turks.
Transjordan didn’t in any case exist as such until the various tribal territories had been taken by the British. They had previously been part of a number of different Ottoman provinces.
What sometimes causes confusion here is that for a short period Transjordan was put under the British Mandate of Palestine. You can find the details here. Note Balfour’s explicit memorandum of exclusion from the Jewish National Home :
In the summer of 1921 Transjordan was included within the Mandate, but excluded from the provisions for a Jewish National Home.[102] On 24 July, 1922 the League of Nations approved the terms of the British Mandate over Palestine and Transjordan. On 16 September the League formally approved a memorandum from Lord Balfour confirming the exemption of Transjordan from the clauses of the mandate concerning the creation of a Jewish national home….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Boundaries_and_name
Transjordan….. then became free of Jews Many Jews had previously been driven out by Arab violence. Now they were forbidden from living in Transjordan by law.
Are you sure of your facts here? I know that Jews were banned from settling in Jordan after 1921 under Winston Churchill’s rules (relating to the Mandate exemption above), but I have never heard of any Jews being expelled from Jordan or driven out by violence. (Though I wouldn’t be terribly surprised).
“Are you sure of your facts here? I know that Jews were banned from settling in Jordan after 1921 under Winston Churchill’s rules (relating to the Mandate exemption above), but I have never heard of any Jews being expelled from Jordan or driven out by violence. (Though I wouldn’t be terribly surprised).”
Well as somebody who has actually visited Jordan I can say that Jews are forbidden from owning land in Jordan. Something that is written in the Jordanian constitution. As for never hearing about Jews been driven out by violence. Read up on how Jews of the West Bank were treated by their Jordanian masters from 1947-1967. Read up on how they were forbidden to even visit the temple mount. Read up on how the Jordanians affixed urinals into the Wailing Wall. How they used Jewish grave stones as material for their road building. Why even the Pals had enough of the Jordanian occupation in 1967. That may explain why King Hussein sent in the army in 1967 to stamp down on Palestine dissent. For you to say that Jews are not the victims of Muslims anywhere where Islam is the majority merely reinforces my POV that the BBC is Islamic driven.
P.S
My sister who is a Muslim visited Egypt/Israel and Jordan a few years back. She told me she got a much harder time in the Islamic countries than in Israel. Why? They thought she was Jewish.
David Preiser (USA) | 28.12.07 – 7:31 pm
I don’t really know what to say about this post. Although you adopt a high-handed and somewhat aggressive tone towards me/what I have previously written on this subject, you then go on to agree with pretty much everything I said. Your Sykes-Picot purple zone excludes the whole of Transjordan.
You also draw attention to Curzon’s plea for a ‘minimalist’ form of Zionism……yet weirdly seek to use it to suggest that the Cabinet intended to give all of Palestine west of the Jordan to the Jews.
In doing so, you overlook this objection on Curzon’s part –
There arises the further question, what is to become of the people of this country, assuming the Turk to be expelled, and the inhabitants not to have been exterminated by the War? There are over half a million of these, Syrian Arabs – a mixed community with Arab, Hebrew, Canaanite, Greek, Egyptian, and possibly Crusaders’ blood. They and their forefathers have occupied the country for the best part of 1500 years. They own the soil, which belongs either to individual landowners or to village communities. They profess the Mohammedan faith. They will not be content either to be expropriated for Jewish immigrants, or to act merely as hewers of wood and drawers of water to the latter.
Further, there are other settlers who will have to be reckoned with. There are 100,000 Christians, who will not wish to be disturbed….
And that remains the problem really, doesn’t it?
John Reith,
I didn’t intend to be overly aggressive. I also didn’t agree with you as much as you think. Just because my comment showed Bryan to be partially incorrect doesn’t mean that you are automatically completely right.
Bryan was incorrect that the Jews were supposed to get land on both sides of the Jordan, but you were way off base with your analogy of a “house in London.” I took that to mean that you felt that Israel had claim to very little of the entire territory. In the context in which the Balfour Declaration was written, the Jews would be granted control of territory that extended from the Jordan to the Sea, and included the Golan Heights, until the French let it go to Syria when they handed it over. In any event, you seemed to be interpreting the Balfour Declaration in a purely chronological context, which is wrong. Even if Balfour was writing before Britain got past Gaza, he would still have been thinking along the lines I have suggested. Everyone knew that it was only a matter of time before the Ottoman Empire went down, and plans for a British Mandate were already forming.
Churchill’s deal with Abdullah wasn’t on anyone’s radar at the time, and Balfour may very well have been thinking of a larger territory. He was certainly not thinking about a very small one, and was not thinking that all of Transjordan would be ceded to the Hashemites.
Also, the West Bank is most certainly within that purple zone, which was made part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, so Bryan is at least partially correct about present-day Israel not having all the territory originally intended.
In fact, arguments have been made that until Churchill decided to buy off the Hashemites, the Jews might have gotten the bulk of what became known as Transjordan. In my opinion, that was never going to happen anyway, which is why I indicated the Purple Zone, but what Balfour, Lloyd George, and others intended was significantly more than what ended up as the 1948 borders. That’s what made me react strongly to your unfortunately analogy, which seemed to be a gross misrepresentation. Which is really my main gripe about BBC coverage of the region in general.
My point about your failure to understand the larger picture is only supported by your comment about Curzon’s concerns about the Arabs left in what was to become the Jewish state. This is also the elephant in the room which the BBC conveniently ignores in all reports about Jews versus Arabs.
When I said that Lord Curzon’s statement was insightful and prescient, what do you think I was talking about? This is perhaps the greatest misconception of the whole story. The granting of territory to the Zionists was not intended to allow Jews to rule over any Arab residents like the British ruled the darkies under Colonialism. Since Curzon had some…er….experience with that kind of thing, it’s only natural that he would think along those lines. Nor was the intent that the Jews could expel them, suppress them, or deny them their religious rights. The intent was to create (re-create, for those with elephantine historical longings) an integral territory wherein Jews could live without fear of oppression, mistreatment, or wholesale slaughter. Since the ghettos of the Papal States and the pogroms of Russia, the Ukraine, Poland, and the Pale were still fresh in everyone’s minds, this seemed like a fair idea at the time.
Really, the elephant in the room is this: the Arabs were allowed to stay in the Jewish area, and everyone involved (except David Ben Gurion and his gang later on) took care to see that the Arabs were granted citizenship, maintained property and other legal rights, etc., under the eventual Jewish authority. This is vastly different from what happened to the Jews in all surrounding Arab countries. From the pogroms in Syria to the violence in Egypt to the expulsion from Armenia, Jews were severely mistreated and lost the vast majority of any rights and safety they had enjoyed under Arab regimes up to that time.
You later tell Bryan that, so far as you know, no Jews were expelled from Jordan. You are correct, but not for the reasons you think. The fact is, there were basically no Jews left by the time Jordan became its own state because in 1921 Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill banned all Jewish migration and settlement from Transjordan. Any Jews in the area either quickly left or were killed (Hebron massacres of 1929 and the attacks of 1936-39). The Arabs want ethnic cleansing, and the Israelis don’t do that (even if some of them wouldn’t mind so much). No Jews allowed to live in Arab areas, but Arabs are allowed to live – and have full legal rights – in the Jewish area.
Curzon’s concerns were that the Arabs – not to mention the Christians – should not get kicked out or subjugated in anyway. He was right about that, but the way you talk about it you seem to think he meant that there shouldn’t be any Jewish rule (if not presence) in any area where Arabs resided, and so the Jews shouldn’t get much real estate at all. That’s clearly not the case. Curzon really nailed it, though, didn’t he? He must have learned at least a few lessons from the Bengali Partition, etc.
I actually believe you have a far greater knowledge of the facts of history than the average very, very young person being paid very, very low wages at the BBC (or at least you bother to look things up, which they obviously don’t). Certainly you show a better grasp of basic history than any of the BBC correspondents in the region, judging by their reports. However, historical facts without the larger context are not history. I was being condescending towards the BBC reports on the region more than towards you.
But I still think you misinterpreted the Balfour Declaration, and now Curzon’s memorandum. It is this constant misinterpretation, or even outright misrepresentation, of the subject at hand by the BBC in general that provokes me.
“The British case is a some egregious example of how unification of Church (or Mosque, Temple or Synagogue) with the State can and does collapse due process of law, the civil rights of minorities, the rights and freedoms of all citizens to seek redress against the Government and the State, freedom of speech and expression and the principle of limited government by democratic consent of the governed.”
What utter balderdash and,I might add, piss poor cut and paste.
When was this “unification” of the Church and State?
Has that hideous crone Barbara Plett been shedding any tears for Benazir Bhutto or is that behaviour only reserved for scumbags like Arafat?
Anonymous | 29.12.07 – 12:04 am |
The BBC has already shed the collective crocodile tear: “another victim of the war on terror”. Or, “so-called war on terror”. There’s no personal emotional connection to Pakistan and Bhutto like there is to the Palestinians, so it’s just an excuse to blame Bush. That’s all she’s worth to them.
One line that sticks in my memory from the seemingly endless telephone interviews with British Pakistanis on Radio 5 news today was that of a professor who mentioned that it was particularly shocking because the killing of a woman was regarded as contemptible in an Islamic society.
“I know – it’s terrible the way that these infidels barely protest when one of their number beheads an Indonesian schoolgirl, murders their daughter to protect the family ‘honour’ or kills women in Basra for not wearing appropriate headgear.” commented the presenter, Asma Miah(actually, I may have imagined that last bit.)
One line that sticks in my memory from the seemingly endless telephone interviews with British Pakistanis on Radio 5 news today was that of a professor who mentioned that it was particularly shocking because the killing of a woman was regarded as contemptible in an Islamic society.
Nonsense. Old Mo ordered “hits” on several women, include a mother of five whom he had killed while she was nursing her newborn infant at her breast.
Yes but, let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. And in that light Old Mo truly is an everyman.
In other news it was announced today that the War on Terror has ended.
Arming Iraq ? – funny how the BBC latches onto the purchase of non-combat equipment from Britain when virtually everything that Saddam owned which was actually capable of going ‘bang’ and killing somebody came from the former USSR.
Apart, of course, from their night vision equipment which was supplied by a now defunct Dutch company called Oldelft, in violation of toothless UN sanctions.
Night vision is an important ‘force multiplier’ on the battlefield, and if the Iraqis had chosen to use it, rather than dropping it and running away then the coalition may have taken more casualties.
No need to add that fact as balance, or mention that France handed Saddam a nuclear reactor ( now a huge crater in the ground of course, courtesy of the IAF )
Instead of getting your heads all messed up in endless historical details. Which I am sure go way over the average Israeli citizens heads and the average Arab citizen as well.
Try to look at it this way.
This situation has been going on for at least 59 years. Israel is a very small place. The world represented by the UN is very large, relatively very rich, powerful and influential.
I have visited the region a countless amount of times. I have also spoken to many ordinary Jewish and Arab people around the general middle east and in the UK.
My impression is that virtually all ordinary people not only want peace and do not support any type of violence. They have no fundamental objection to each others religion whatsoever either.
So ask yourselves this question.
If the vastly rich and resourceful international community represented by many Arab countries the UN the EU and the USA, REALLY want peace.
And
The vast majority of ordinary people in the region want peace. Mainly because they have to live in the region and have wives and children to consider.
Why do we still not have peace after 59 years trying to obtain it?
Something should tell us that someone, something, or some organization with a vested interest. With loads of cash and influence around the world does not want peace at all.
One might even come to the conclusion that there is a massive world wide conspiracy to stop peace from happening at all costs. Possibly because they want all this nonsense to ultimately result in a wider middle east war, possibly involving the threat to use nuclear weapons.
Politicians may be greedy self interested and dishonest but they are not stupid. They are also advised by the largest minds specializing in the conflict available.
Therefore I find it inconceivable that if the will was even half there, a peaceful solution could not have been found, enforced, or bribed to happen, many years ago. If as I say, some kind of unseen hand was not deliberately trying very hard to stop it from happening.
Absolutely fascinating, I take my tinfoil hat off to you. I expect it’s all the fault of the Freemasons, the Illuminati and Pinky and the Brain.
What’s that got to do with BBC bias though ?
Yet another disgusting BBC report, this time about the Australian convicted terrorist and ex Gitmo prisoner.
It was just another opportunity to bash Ex PM John Howard? The BBC reporter(propagandist)called Howard a “former Conservative PM”! Er, I tought he was a Liberal PM? but that just would not fit the leftist agenda would it?
The idiot reporter said “some have critised the former Conservative PM of not helping the Australian citizen”
But it WAS John Howard who negotiated the transfer of the self confessed terrorist!
How many lies and perversions can a BBC scumbag cram into one ‘news report’?
AS MANY AS IT TAKES! Its what they do, with our money of course!
The BBC are a truly despicable shower of liars and arrogant bigots.
The Grauniad is getting stuck in to the beeb lately – must be since Jasmin denounced their “lurch to the right”:-
Lavish lunches and nights at the opera for BBC executives…..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/29/bbc
Or is it, as I suspect, that the Anglosphere offers us the prospect of national adventure that in our cultural funk we find too exciting – preferring to go back to the sleep of the subsidised?
The sleep of the subsidised indeed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=B2LHQ4KOONAHVQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2007/12/29/do2902.xml
David Preiser (USA) | 29.12.07 – 12:35 am
Thanks for that fascinating clarification. I’ll have to concede to Reith that Balfour did not propose a state of Israel on both sides of the Jordan.
Having another look at your 7:31 pm comment of yesterday, I couldn’t detect the high-handed and somewhat aggressive tone that Reith apparently picked up. I sometimes wonder exactly what would satisfy the BBC. A return to the ’48 boundaries? That certainly would not satisfy many of the BBC’s Arab friends, so perhaps not.
Fairly OT but quite funny (well ATLASSHRUGGED gets away with it….except for the funny.)
Baiscally the US “Peoples Cube” satire site photoshopped an Iranian demo (demanding the right to nuclear weapons) and changed the wording of a banner to “we love Jews”.
The Iranian state news service promptly used the pic to prove that Jews weren’t persecuted in Iran.
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1657&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=43b5258a03ebd26fc604dc1d05338ca8
Cassandra: Your point about John Howard only stands up if “Conservative” was used in print. If it was in a report you heard, your point is nonsense as there are no capital letters on the radio.
In terms of making quick sense of Australian politics, conservative with a small c is bang on the nail.
Howard’s party is the Liberal Party but conservative in terms of where it stands. If there was a mirror-image blog, people could equally complain if he was described as “liberal”. The general view seems to be that he was voted out partly because he was perceived as too illiberal.
Very strictly speaking he was never even a Liberal PM but a Liberal-National PM as it’s a coalition of many years’ standing.
As for “The idiot reporter said “some have critised the former Conservative PM of not helping the Australian citizen”
But it WAS John Howard who negotiated the transfer of the self confessed terrorist!”
This is (or at least was)a place for debating perceived bias in the BBC rather than the small print of other countries’ politics, but these points are not mutually exclusive. He was criticized for doing nothing for years until it became clear he was on thin ice electorally and his reputation as too subservient to GWB was contrbuting to this.
Is it any wonder readers are abandoning the Daily Mail when again today it insults its readers with two pages of rubbish from the BBC Lefty Andrew Marr.
If we wanted to read this nonsense we would buy The Guardian. Can we PLEASE have the old Daily Mail back,the Daily Mail that used to be a beacon for Conservative values.???
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=505024&in_page_id=1770
For Christmas, my son gave me Peter Obornes’s “The Triumph of the Political Class” and I’ve just finished reading it.
IMHO it’s overtaken Nick Cohen’s “What’s left?” as the most significant political book of the year and it touches widely on a lot of the things we discuss here.
His premise is that, as “modernising” politicians have ditched both loyal supporters and principles to squeeze onto the middle ground and used media manipulation rather than parliament to present themselves to the public – democratic rule by parliamentary debate and the civil service has been replaced by a new ruling class of politicians, advisers, consultants, quangocrats and media people whose main interest is keeping their snouts in the trough.
These paragraphs give a flavour:-
By the 1990s it was noticeable that the two activities had become to a significant extent interchangeable. It had become natural for the Political Class and Media Class to go out together, dine together, holiday together, flirt together, sleep together.The two professions lived mainly on expenses, with the exception of their most successful members they had ample spare time, they were never required to do productive work, their jobs mainly involved talking. They were fascinated with each other. BBC journalists began to aquire the same mannerisms and tics as those they reported…….
…As they professionalised and and grew more homogeneous the Political and Media classes began to restrict membership to the middle classes, and increasingly to each other’s sons and daughters………
….The Media Class and Political Class share identical assumptions about life and politics. They are affluent, progressive, middle and upper-middle class. This triumphant metropolitan elite has completely lost its links with a wider civil society – farming, the professions, small business, trade unions, the shop floor – which characterised British public culture throughout the most confident period of parliamentary government….
He makes the point that the rot actually started when Margaret Thatcher took some liberties with Civil Service and media control in order to free us fron the post war “welfare state” consensus – but then, disastrously, New Labour used the same techniques to permanently bypass the Civil Service and parliamentary scrutiny in the hope of staying in power indefinitely.
It’s left me thinking that getting rid of the BBC is only one step towards getting back to proper even-handed poliical debate in this country.
Maybe the activities of the political parties themselves need serious attention.
Definitely worth a read.
Cassandra: Your point about John Howard only stands up if “Conservative” was used in print. If it was in a report you heard, your point is nonsense as there are no capital letters on the radio.
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 29.12.07 – 1:49 pm
In this case, it was TV:
Australia’s former C(c)onservative Prime Minister John Howard…
is how the reporter put it:
Click on Guantanamo Australian freed under VIDEO AND AUDIO NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Cassandra is probably correct that the reporter doesn’t know his Liberal from his Conservative in this instance. However, even if he does, we’ve seen enough of the BBC trumpeting the affiliation of its political rivals when it wants to say something negative about them (while conversely hiding the affiliation in negative stories of those it supports) to feel that the BBC doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt here.
To the BBC, conservative, whether with a big or small ‘c’, is a dirty word. The BBC cannot kid us that it is impartial. Perhaps you’ll recall the inadvertent admission Jane Garvey made about the BBC’s enthusiastic support for Labour:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/search?q=empty+champagne+bottles
‘Nuff said
Meanwhile there is an interesting development re the pilgrims returning to Gaza:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517236823&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
And here is the BBC’s take on it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7164261.stm
Complete with strange contradiction:
Senior Hamas officials have accused Egypt of bowing to Israeli pressure by refusing to let the pilgrims cross into Gaza through the Rafah border crossing, which is the only entry-point into Gaza not controlled by Israel.
As opposed to this:
In early December, Israel allowed some 2,200 Palestinian pilgrims to leave Gaza through the Rafah border-post.
Great, so here we have the Israelis allowing the Gazans through a border post they don’t control. Funny, I thought those 2200 were the ones Israel was insisting go through Israel en route to the Hajj, since there were terrorists among them that needed arresting, and made its concerns plain to Egypt:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7131457.stm
Hell, the BBC can’t even get its bias straight.
One might even come to the conclusion that there is a massive world wide conspiracy to stop peace from happening at all costs.
Atlas shrugged | 29.12.07 – 5:32 am
There is such a conspiracy. Its called Islam
An interesting article concerning the state of the UK from Bloomberg:
– The U.K.’s current-account deficit widened to a record in the third quarter…the current-account gap was 20 billion pounds ($40 billion), the most since records started in 1948.
– The shortfall is the largest among the Group of Seven nations.
– The household savings ratio fell close to lowest level since the 1960s.
– Labour Party’s popularity…19-year low. (lowest since 1988)
– Former Bank of England policy maker Richard Lambert said the panic at the mortgage lender (NR) made Britain resemble a “banana republic.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aGsojSddn8Ng&refer=uk
While none of this is perhaps that surprising, it’s telling that the Beeb never puts together articles like this when it concerns Labour’s abundant failings. They spread the bad news – when reported at all – through a number of articles; softening and massaging the message. Reports of catastrophic political failings buried in para 6 and usually prefaced with “Tories accuse…” These same articles always finishing with a glowing report on rising tractor production…
david S write “These same articles always finishing with a glowing report on rising tractor production…”
My local Beeb TV news channel actually had a story the other night which was prefaced “And more good news, this time the site of the former (Rover*) car works may be redeveloped, with a possible 200 jobs…” (*my brackets..not sure of the car plant name they mentioned.)
Who says it’s good news? They neglected to say how many people LOST their jobs when the car plant closed, and the story was full of weasel words like “may” and “possible”.
But hey, the Ministry of Truth has to keep pretending that all is well in NuLabour Land and that business is thriving under Comrade Gordon Bean.
Roland Thompson Gunner,
I thought that someone would come and post silly semantics “small c”? stretching it a bit arnt we? You and I both know that the BBC reporter knew exactly what they were doing!
Quibble over tiny details if you will but to be quite honest if thats the best deconstruction you can manage then I am a very happy bunny!
Happy new year to all!
Happy New Year also to one and all.
That is a Happy 2008 in CE or a mere 1428 AH in the Islamic/BBC world. Only another 600 years to go and you catch the rest of the world up guys…..then again it is 5768 in the Jewish calendar so doubtless some people will claim that since theirs is longer by 3000 years they really do have first claim to Jerusalem! Maybe we should push for a new worldwide date system. How about 1 ABBC (After BBC) to celebrate the golden years to come once we get rid of The Beeb and a front room without bias, propaganda and NuLabour swill.
Whatever. Enjoy.
Just a quick note to Roland T Gunner,
Your silly double speak would bring a smile to ‘Sir Humphrey'(YPM)
The welfare of a SELF CONFESSED TERRORIST and CONVICTED TERRORIST was hardly an urgent priority for John Howard was it?
Do you realy think that the Aussie PM(Liberal) or anyone for that matter, would care about a convicted terrorist when Aussie troops were fighting and dying to help destroy the Islamist evil?
And for the record, to call John Howard “subservient to Dubya” is just about the most stupid and ignorant comment I have heard in a long time! But it does tell me that you put the welfare of terrorist vermin above the vitims of the Islamist terrorists.
Why not ponder on the fates of the victims of terror a little? But that doesnt interest you does it? You would far rather carry on your small minded and pathetic vendetta against one of the longest serving and successful democratic PMs in history.
You leftists really are sad arnt you?
Bryan | 29.12.07 – 1:00 pm |
JR didn’t appreciate my sarcastic remark about GCSE and A-levels, especially since he was partially right about his basic facts. I took his poor analogy and laying out of historical details as yet another “BBC presenting things out of context”, and reacted strongly.
It was mostly the “in Palestine” bit that got me, since those two words have been taken out of context and scrutinized, worried over, and broken down in Derrida-like fashion for so many years. The key is the context in which the Balfour Declaration was written, and the circumstances under which the British Mandate of Palestine was created. Without knowing what was going on at the time, the words themselves are vulnerable to po-mo Derrida wankery. That’s where JR was going, even if he didn’t mean it that way.
The BBC presents incidents involving Israel and Arabs out of context, or in the wrong context, too often. That’s what prompted my original comment which started this discussion.
dave t | 29.12.07 – 7:44 pm,
I’ll drink to that.
David Preiser (USA) | 29.12.07 – 7:53 pm
JR didn’t appreciate my sarcastic remark about GCSE and A-levels…
Well, JR can dish it out but he sure can’t take it.
As EastEnders got a massive, stunning 15 million viewers on Christmas Day, I’d not begrudge them a party. The likes of Lacey Turner are worth every penny. Much better than ITV’s mediocre soaps.
As for the Doctor…
Russell T. Davies should bow out and let Stephen Moffatt, Paul Cornell, or Mike Gattiss take the helm. Davies endless pushing of his own agendas is tiresome, and the fact is all the quality Dr Who episodes were not written by him.
I am struggling to understand one very important point, this website is devoted to BBC bias, yet it seems to me that many of the posters on this site are as guilty as the BBC in how they spin any topic to fit personal opinions.
Yes the BBC is in dire need of reform, yet I find myself shaking my head at some of the idiotic comments from some of the anti-BBC posters.
The BBC is clearly anti-Israeli, listening to the BBC World Service this is very clear, in fact it is impossible to pretend otherwise, for me the more the BBC attacks Israel the more I find myself supporting Israel and it’s raison de vivre.
My suggestion to some of the posters is rather than allow people such as John Reith to pick which comments he or she answers, you should instead keep asking the same questions to the BBC beeboids, namely why do you think that so many people think that you (BBC) have a MMGW, Pro-Islam & Pro-Labour bias.
IF you allow yourselves to be sidetracked than you deserve the BBC that you currently get!.
“Roland Thompson Gunner,
I thought that someone would come and post silly semantics “small c”? stretching it a bit arnt we? You and I both know that the BBC reporter knew exactly what they were doing!
Quibble over tiny details if you will but to be quite honest if thats the best deconstruction you can manage then I am a very happy bunny!”
Cassandra: It’s not silly semantics, it’s the entire point of your post demolished by pointing out the no-brainer (or it should be) that “conservative” isn’t the same as “Conservative” and unless it’s in writing you can’t tell the difference.
Quite how pointing out that Howard’s perceived subservience to Bush was a factor in his election defeat – it was a strong theme in the election platform of the party which won, for heaven’s sake – means I “put the welfare of terrorist vermin above the vitims of the Islamist terrorists” will bemuse any intelligent reader here, whatever their politics.
Have you been drinking?
Flawed Logic | 29.12.07 – 10:49 pm:
My suggestion to some of the posters is rather than allow people such as John Reith to pick which comments he or she answers, you should instead keep asking the same questions to the BBC beeboids, namely why do you think that so many people think that you (BBC) have a MMGW, Pro-Islam & Pro-Labour bias.
IF you allow yourselves to be sidetracked than you deserve the BBC that you currently get!
Hear hear. Or, to put it another way, why, when you’ve got them over a barrel, do you allow them to get off the barrel by changing the topic?
I was kicking around on Christmas, you know, like you do, and I happened to catch a few moments of Doctor Who. Don’t worry, I wasn’t purposely watching the BBC, but you know how old people – your grandparents – can be. Bless their cotton socks, they still think the BBC is th same institution is used to be in the 1950s or something.
Anyway, I was appalled with the shoddiness of the special effects. And that was a ‘Christmas Special’. God knows what the vanilla episodes are like. You’d’ve thought with all of that extorted money, they’d be able to have special effects that don’t look like the sort of stuff Hollywood was churning out in the early nineties.
I guess Jonathan Ross’ space-time-bending salary, champagne and Guardian subscriptions all add up these days.
Happy New Year everyone.
Interesting comment off the beaten track down on the December 6th open thread re the latest barrel-scraping from the BBC:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6557695849270166481/#378668
IF you allow yourselves to be sidetracked than you deserve the BBC that you currently get!.
Flawed Logic | 29.12.07 – 10:49 pm
True, we do get sidetracked, but we also sometimes repeat the same questions until at times Reith or others will answer them, usually inadequately. But how often can one repeat oneself? The advantage that people like Reith have here is that they can simply ignore the big, inconvenient issues and hammer away at the small stuff.
In a face-to-face debate he wouldn’t be able to do that.
I don’t know about us deserving the current BBC. This site has done a lot to bring bias to the attention of the unaccountable crew. We have submitted formal complaints, which, even if they don’t acknowledge them most of the time, one assumes that at least they read them. And there have been instances where the BBC has modified its bias due to what people like Nick Reynolds have read here.
I sometimes wonder what the BBC would look like if nobody opposed it. Certainly as regards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it would look much like propaganda out of the mouths of Palestinian radicals. We do our bit to keep it getting quite that bad.
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 29.12.07 – 11:53 pm
Cassandra: It’s not silly semantics, it’s the entire point of your post demolished by pointing out the no-brainer (or it should be) that “conservative” isn’t the same as “Conservative” and unless it’s in writing you can’t tell the difference.
As an Australian citizen (expat) I would say Cassandra is closer to the point than you. Howard was the leader of the Liberal Party of Australia. The ‘big L’ Liberals share a certain amount of ideological space with Britain’s ‘big C’ Conservative Party (and much less with the Labour Party) but also with The American ‘big R’ Republican party. However, had the BBC reporter described Howard as ‘big or little R’ republican he would have been laughed at, as Howard is in fact a strong monarchist. It is the Australian Labor Party (note the American spelling) which is largely republican i.e wants to replace the Queen as head of state.
There are ‘small C’ conservatives in both parties (a left and a right wing?) but the Liberal Party never describes itself as such.
It’s hard to see much ‘small C’ conservatism in what the Liberal Party see as national achievements in their long term of government:
National Achievements
Lower, Fairer Taxes
A Sustainable Environment
Better Roads and Rail
Encouraging Small Business
Productive and Prosperous Australia Industries
Support for Older Australians
Encouraging Retirement Savings
Better Aged Care
Supporting Families
Domestic Security
Water Sustainability
Fighting Terrorism
Standards and Values in Schools
Investing in World Class Universities
Advanced, Accessible and Affordable Telecommunications
Investing in Training and Skills
Addressing Climate Change
Results for Indigenous Australians
More Focus on Mental Health
A Stronger Defence Force
A Fair Go for Regional Australia
Secure and Sustainable Energy
Building Better Infrastructure
Improved Information Technology
Encouraging Exports
A Stronger Economy
Better Workplace Relations
Opportunities for Young Australians
Encouraging Tourism
Preparing for an Ageing Population
Quality, Accessible and Affordable Childcare
A Stronger Health System
Protecting Our Borders
A Sound Immigration System
Investing in Science and Innovation
Describing John Howard as ‘big or small C’ conservative was at best sloppy writing. The journalist should have realised the ambiguities and described John Howard as Liberal party leader. I suspect, as did Cassandra, he didn’t because in his own mind he saw this as a much desired defeat for George Bush and David Cameron.
Only slightly OT
Tatsuya Ishada found a seasonly appropriate use for global warming in a favourite cartoon strip, Sinfest
http://thumbsnap.com/v/qfAeW2WW.gif
“However, had the BBC reporter described Howard as ‘big or little R’ republican he would have been laughed at, as Howard is in fact a strong monarchist. It is the Australian Labor Party (note the American spelling) which is largely republican i.e wants to replace the Queen as head of state.”
What on earth does this have to do with the original point? (And I’m very familiar with the spelling used by the ALP. Cassandra, however, seeks to debate niceties of language without having mastered “aren’t” and “really”.)
How on earth does any of us know what the reporter must have been thinking?
Two or three times recently the debate here has sunk to the level of “X might have said this, but everyone knows that’s not what he meant”.
Absurd – and very damaging to the blog’s main thesis that instances of genuine bias need tackling.
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 30.12.07 – 7:46 am
Cassandra, however, seeks to debate niceties of language without having mastered “aren’t” and “really”.)
Never heard of typos?
Note how Cassandra spells “really” here:
You leftists really are sad arnt you?
Cassandra | 29.12.07 – 7:47 pm
And as for this:
Have you been drinking?
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 29.12.07 – 11:53 pm
You should lighten up on the abuse. Unless you think John Reith needs some competition.
Nothing you have said changes the points made by Cassandra, deegee and myself (at 5:55 pm). I note that you avoid evidence of habitual BBC bias in this instance. See my point on Jane Garvey.
Hell, give us a challenge.
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 30.12.07 – 7:46 am
What on earth does this have to do with the original point?
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. The point I was making was that the Liberal Party of Australia and the Conservative Party of Great Britain have many things in common. That doesn’t mean that describing John Howard as conservative, whether with a small or a big C is not misleading.
There is a great ambiguity in the meaning pertaining to the related British party and the adjective meaning disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. Neither description is really accurate for the former Aussie P.M.
I brought up the Republican/republican reference because the Australian Liberals also share a great amount of political ground with the American party. In many ways John Howard and George Bush are intellectual soul mates and Australian support in Iraq is a reflection of this. That said, calling John Howard republican would be obviously misleading and should be avoided for the same reasons as avoiding calling him conservative.
The conclusion is that the BBC journalist or the editor should have picked the ambiguity and written the description differently.
Absurd – and very damaging to the blog’s main thesis that instances of genuine bias need tackling.
It has been long established on this blog that instances of poor writing and poor research are fair game for the blog and the commentators whether or not they can be proven to be ‘genuine’ bias or simply ‘unintentional’ bias.
How on earth does any of us know what the reporter must have been thinking?
Unless the reporter is writing a shopping list, it should be quite decipherable from the tone of the report. There is a whole science of semantics devoted to whether wording is neutral or weighted. Every good student learning English or literature is encouraged to extract the author’s point of view and intentions from a text.
Also there are statistics. If potential ‘errors’ are distributed more or less randomly in a reporter’s or broadcaster’s output we shouldn’t charge bias. Unfortunately in the case of the BBC, on certain subjects, ambiguous, weighted and misleading language predictably falls on only one side of the argument.
Have you been drinking?
I wish! Are you buying. 🙂
:o( Sorry,
The grammar police may be watching.
Are you buying:?:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=3990&start=15&tstart=0&edition=1&ttl=20071230115733#paginator
Another highly suspicious HYS thing going on here. 13 out of the 15 comments published are anti-Brown, which is a strong indicator that a decidedly large portion of the 250 total comments would be. But the poor moderator has only gotten around to putting 6% of them up. Bless.