The BBC is always carrying water for the interfering nanny state in Britain, and today is no exception, with an article where they manage to reinforce stereotypes of Britons and Americans as prime fatties:
UK and US ‘keenest on fast food’
Trivial it isn’t, when you consider that “lifestyle change” is socialism’s new frontier.
The annoying part is that it’s probably not even true, if the experience of that greatest of fast food providers Macdonald’s is anything to go by: “the market where McDonald’s is weakest in Europe is… Britain”
The market where it’s strongest? Go on, have a guess. (Info here)
Yep, that’s right, France. Now why might be an interesting story, and with what effect, but alas don’t suppose we’ll hear about it from the 3bn per year Beeb.
Actually, very far from ‘carrying water for the nanny state’, BBC News has been almost alone among the MSM in raising a sceptical eyebrow at the obesity-myth.
See these recent examples and catch the podcast.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7105630.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7106219.stm
Always = generally, persistently
and certainly I generally find the BBC carrying water for the interfering nanny state, especially on this topic. Raising an eyebrow at scary headlines which they have done their best to promulgate as per the requirements of neo-fascistic pols does not qualify as balance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6206036.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6206572.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5399762.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7142176.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7137311.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7136583.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/7125397.stm
Ed,
I have pointed out the problems with many of the articles you post here already.
I tried to post about them on (D)HYS.
I officially complained about them to the BBC.
I got nowhere.
Perhaps the BBC has realised the misleading line it has been given and we can look forward to more reporting like the articles John Reith highlights.
Perhaps, but given the track record I still doubt it.
If so I would see the retractions going round I don’t see any.
If so I would expect to see some posts on HYS to this effect not just the usual (low recommended) slating off anything to do with fat people in a way the BBC would instantly ban if it was said of say gay people, but I doubt it.
If so I would confidently not expect yet another fat Americans story not to appear at first opportunity, frankly I doubt it a lot.
Instead I expect to see more of the usual Mcdonalds fat American fat burden on the health service fat die earlier fat articles. That I don’t doubt.
Ed | 02.01.08 – 1:44 pm
So far as I can see the stories you cite have little to do with supporting the nanny state.
Nor are any of them examples of the BBC editorializing on the issue.
On the whole, they’re reports of studies by Cancer Research UK, Leeds Metropolitan University, the US National Academy of Sciences, Dutch Scientists writing in the journal Human Reproduction, UCL, Boston University and the last one is a story about a former marine who put on weight because he had crushed vertebrae.
To take one at random • do you really think the BBC should NOT be reporting a study suggesting that women who are overweight are less successful conceiving during IVF than those of normal weight? Seems to me the sort of thing IVF patients would want to know.
JR
Speaking as someone not so long ago who ballooned up, had my medical condition diagnosed (privately and no thanks to the NHS), and then promptly lost 5 stone again I think I have a particularly good look at these biased fat stories from ‘both sides’.
It made me realise that most prejudices against fat people are just that prejudices held without evidence, I acknowledge I may have held some of those myself for which I am truly sorry.
Of course that doesn’t mean some stories aren’t valid, they clearly are.
However I became particularly suspicious of ‘medical’ articles reported by the BBC on the matter because they always came to the same conclusions whatever the actual evidence.
Most of those links are of that type.
I have to agree with the point about IVF however to say you picked that “at random” JR is more than a little disingenuous isn’t it?
Looked more like cherry picking.
If not why not select another “at random” and show me wrong.
Climate Change is a giant con
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
You don’t always promote state action then John, eh? And if you look like it then it must be a neutral response to some other lefty organisation like “Leeds Metropolitan University”. Yeah, right. I don’t notice you picking up the clarion call of groups like, for instance, the tax payers’ alliance or migration watch. You are fully paid up members of the lefty brigade and, actually, you know, we know it and you know we know it.
Try these then. Two stories seen on BBC News 24 over the weekend.
1) Private plane crash at East Midlands airport. Second line out of BBC man’s mouth, “we have discovered to our surprise that private planes do not have to file flight paths. That is an interesting piece of information to come out of this incident”. Apart from the, sigh, quite usual and normal ignorance about everything displayed by our little BBC man, the plain inference of his report was that some rabble rouser should be found to take these private plane owners in hand for every minute they’re in the air.
2) Dog kills toddler. Anchorwoman plus all reporters display staggering ignorance – again as usual – about the nature of dogs. Anybody who leaves any dog with excitable children may very well come back and find someone bitten. If the dog feels the lack of pack authority then it may try and assert its own. So, zero knowledge on the part of the intrerviewer from the start. But, again, she repeated again and again and again in shocked tones that rottweilers are “not on the dangerous dogs list”. Not meaning to suggest that she was surprised that a legally safe dog hurt someone but the plain implication was that they should be added to the list pretty damn quick.
I suppose you do have a point about this though. You ain’t the bag carriers – you are the instigators plain and simple. The BBC always calls for more and more state interference in our lives and has done for as long as I can remember.
You don’t convince John. Not at all.
Absolute howler on BBC News 24 at 10.44 this morning:
“Oil giant fears loosing license”
Morons.
Good point
However contributors to this site would do better to start thinking as to HOW and WHY American fast food is becoming so big in what we are constantly being told by the BBC is a communist country?
Any countries people, INCLUDING OURS, whose mind body and spirit are NOT bedded in liberty freedom and individual human rights. Like the right to property, freedom of speech, freedom and independence of the media, and true democracy. In other words TRUE conservative ideology.
Gets what they are given and likes it, or else.
However instead of worrying to much about the diet of a small minority of lucky Chinese that can afford such a thing as American fast food.
A little more appreciation for the millions of poor Chinese people the Chinese government is deliberately murdering on a yearly basis, would be a fine thing.
BBC is trying so hard not to ruin Hamas’ image as choir boys.
No mention yet that the entire Fatah leadership has gone Britney in solidarity with Fatah supporters in Gaza tortured by Hamas.
“Palestinians shave heads in sign of solidarity with Gaza supporter”
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/02/africa/ME-GEN-Palestinians-Shaved-Heads.php
But, yet another article on the Hajj “pilgrims” (8th or 9th in the line).
Some of these pilgrims are Hamas military commanders that received money and training in Saudi Arabia and Iran:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7168189.stm
Ups. sorry – my previous comment should be in the general thread.
How are the Beeb defining ‘fast food’ here? One of the main developments in the London restaurant trade in the last couple of years (which will presumably filter out if it hasn’t already done so) is quality, healthy (expensive) ‘fast’ food chains – Wagamamas, Giraffe, Feng Sushi, Busaba Eathai, Strada….
Obesity isn’t the fault of eeeevil corporations, it’s the fault of the education system. Grossly overweight people (without medical issues) are fat because they’re poor and stupid. There’s only one way to remedy that and it isn’t banning advertising or McDonalds or through earnest government leaflets.
its fast food this week, next week it’ll be the catastrophic effects of dangerous human induced global warming, followed by a week of trying to make us feel guilty if you drive anything with a bigger engine than a push bike with the occasional global warming story thrown in, then back to fast food again
Mr Anon – you forgot alcohol. That is the favourite of the authoritarians at the moment, and the BBC breathlessly reports each and every ‘report’ issued by state-funded lobby groups calling for massive curbs in the freedom of individuals.
The BBC is most certainly “always carrying water for the interfering nanny state in Britain”.
In France, not only is the country full of McDonalds, it is also rare to see an obese person.
Obviously the hated American corporation is not responsible for “Britain’s obesity crisis”.
But that will never do for the Biased BBC, so you will never hear a “balanced” word about it.
Or about alcohol consumption.
Or about Labour corruption.
Or about man-made “climate change” where the BBC “experts” between them will be lucky to possess a degree in media studies.
What would be a balanced view of alcohol consumption?
A pint in each hand ?
I quite like McDonalds food. I’m not fat, and I love the freedom to buy McDonalds food without having to pay the government to provide me its own version of junk food first. If only broadcasting was financed in the same simple manner – I wouldn’t have to pay for junk like Eastenders then before I view my personal chioce of TV, football on Sky.
A balanced view of alcohol consumption might include the fact that there are many studies linking it, particularly red wine consumption, with increased health and longevity.
But that won’t fit “the narrative”: talk up the bad; get any number of quangos to push for increases in alcohol taxation (particularly wine tax, since that is an easy middle-class-bashing cash cow); and reluctantly Brown “agrees” to increase the tax “for the public good”.
Actually, the balanced view of alcoholic abuse is that there still isn’t a medical set limit for what is good and what is a bad level to drink in a week.
Most studies outside the government funded nanny research studies can’t agree on a figure. The studies have come back with figures from 8 units a week to 65 units a week as a safe limit. Interestingly, the only similarity being that a zero limit of alcohol is actually bad for you!
When qualified medical researchers can’t agree, that is when the BBC jumps in to help the government funded abolitionists with their cause!
IIRC The figure is completely imaginary,those who came up with it thought that they couldn’t just say “Dunno!”,at the same time the had to sound responsible and satisfy the government.
Amazing how there should be no stereotypes,unless it is for social control.
Jim Carr | 03.01.08 – 6:37 pm
A balanced view of alcohol consumption might include the fact that there are many studies linking it, particularly red wine consumption, with increased health and longevity.
But that won’t fit “the narrative”…
Oh really?
Those seeking a longevity-boosting tipple should turn their attention to red wines from Sardinia and south-west France……..
UK researchers discovered chemicals called procyanidins were responsible for red wine’s well-documented heart-protecting effect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6195220.stm
Scientists may have discovered the reason why red wine appears to protect the heart.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1719675.stm
Studies suggest that polyphenolic compounds in red wine may play an active role in limiting the hardening of the arteries which begins when blood vessels being to lose their ability to relax.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/humanbody/truthaboutfood/young/wine.shtml
It really is true that wine – particularly red wine – does contain several antioxidants, such as quercetin and resveratrol, which may play a part in helping to prevent heart disease and cancer.
http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/content/wellbeing/features/wine-health/1/
Chemicals in red wine can help prevent and treat gum disease, a study says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4782826.stm
Drinking red wine may help to ward off lung cancer, a study suggests.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3959121.stm
A chemical in wine, resveratrol, appears to damp down inflammation in the potentially fatal lung condition chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3217527.stm
Another health benefit has been attributed to red wine – fighting off the common cold.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1986514.stm
An ingredient of red wine could prevent the spread of herpes, according to scientists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/931850.stm
Drinking red wine may help to protect against the harmful effects of smoking, a study suggests.
Researchers have found that two glasses of red wine counteract the damage to the arteries caused by one cigarette.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3197365.stm
Wine ‘can protect women’s hearts’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4263417.stm
Scientists say they have found a way for coronary patients to minimise the risk of a second heart attack – drink wine every day.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2232934.stm
A doctor has named what he thinks is the best wine for a healthy heart – Cabernet Sauvignon..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/328916.stm
People who drink wine occasionally may have a lower risk of developing dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, research suggests.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2440835.stm
John Reith
The articles that you link are dated from 2001 to 2008 inclusive. Hardly the flood of “evidence” that you seem to think it is.
Given an eight year period and a bit of Google you could probably make any point at all.
Jim Carr is right.
Lurker in a Burqua | 04.01.08 – 1:37 pm
The articles that you link are dated from 2001 to 2008 inclusive.
That’s right. Proving that the BBC has consistently reported such studies as they have been published in academic journals over a long period.
Jim Carr’s thesis that the BBC ignores/suppresses these studies because they ‘don’t fit the narrative’ is clearly false.
John, one thing that is not clearly false is that I have to pay for the BBC’s reporting of junk food matters and for its vast output of junk TV like Eastenders, Flog It and Jonathan ‘do you masturbate while thinking of ex-prime ministers’ Ross just because I want to watch football on Sky.
Why am I forced to buy junk TV?
John, why do you work for a junk supplier?
Pete | 04.01.08 – 2:12 pm
Why am I forced to buy junk TV?
But Pete, no-one forces you to subscribe to Sky. 🙂
No, I’m not forced to subscibe to Sky. I do so voluntarily, just as I voluntarily buy McDonalds food from time to time. Why do I have to buy junk like Eastenders from the likes of you just to be allowed to watch football on Sky?
John, why do you work for a junk supplier? Are you proud of junk like Eastenders, Flog It and Jonathan ‘do you masturbate while thinking of ex-prime ministers’ Ross? Perhaps you are, or maybe you just think of the mortgage and school fees and grit your teeth while you peddle tax funded junk to your fellow citizens.
Let’s scrap the licence fee. Any BBC staff who lose their jobs as a result would easily gain employment in other sectors of the junk industry such as burger bars or kebab shops.
“The articles that you link are dated from 2001 to 2008 inclusive.
That’s right. Proving that the BBC has consistently reported such studies as they have been published in academic journals over a long period.
Jim Carr’s thesis that the BBC ignores/suppresses these studies because they ‘don’t fit the narrative’ is clearly false.”
No it isn’t.
The “narrative” has changed over the period you mention.
The government, in the shape (spew) of Red Dawn Primarolo, clearly is now “narrating” that middle-class wine drinkers “need to be tackled”.
How many BBC articles singing the praises of wine have been published since then?
None, that is how many.
Because you are your master’s voice.
“The articles that you link are dated from 2001 to 2008 inclusive…….
The government, in the shape (spew) of Red Dawn Primarolo, clearly is now “narrating” that middle-class wine drinkers “need to be tackled”.How many BBC articles singing the praises of wine have been published since then?
None, that is how many.”
Primarolo’s campaign was in 2007. If the BBC have a 2008 article defending wine, it must post-date Red Dawn, surely?
todays health propaganda from al beeb is eat 5 portions of fruit and veg a day, play table tennis and you will live for an extra 14 years.
suppose the logic from Al Beeb is the longer u live the more telly tax you pay and theyre just trying to protect their income that they rob off us every single second of the day
Jim Carr
your wish is our command:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7177506.stm
One day you lot will realise that the camp/hysterical ‘I bet they have never published one single article on X’ argument just opens the door to prove that the beeb has.
But I won’t hold my breath.
In the meantime keep firing the cheap shots:)
But the problem, as you well know Sarah-Jane Beeboid, is the disparity in prominence given to pro and anti stories.
Just like a newspaper apology tucked away on page 19.