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.
This story was a main one, now after three days it has become less high profile, though its still there.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7165125.stm
If it werent for the BBC notions ‘have a go at the americans’ and ‘americans abusing iraq’ would we have seen this incredibly minor story.
Would we have seen it from any other country around the world? No.
Would we see this even on the UK pages? I suggest not.
In fact its so minor it would be hard pressed to see it making beyond the local paper page 7.
Anything to scrape the barrel is it BBC?
Sorry if this was discussed in the last open thread. I couldn’t open that one.
John Simpleton, oops, Simpson, makes his 2008 predictions and as usual is full of anti Americanism and far left wing propaganda.
Here’s my take on Simpleton.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2007/12/uk-bbcs-simpson-gazes-into-2008.html
Here’s a sample with Simpleton’s take on Zimbabwe.
“The US ambassador in Zimbabwe forecast economic meltdown there by the end of this year. It hasn’t happened. “
Inflation is currently at 8,000% with gas, food and even bank notes in very short supply.
Anything to scrape the barrel is it BBC?
BaggieJonathan | 02.01.08 – 10:03 am | #
Could it be you, or can you point out the bias in that article? I can’t see how that could be seen to be ‘having a go’ at americans..
The beeb showing subtle (very subtle) anti-Americanism by being selective in who they present as the ordinary voter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7154870.stm
Love the comment about now being able to get a decaf latte and a panini. Well, that’s ok then.
Andrew/Ed Thomas etc.
For the record, the ‘John Reith’who posted on the last open thread saying JR ia multiple was a fake.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5203690003280206318/#378740
BaggieJonathan | 02.01.08 – 10:03 am
In fact its so minor it would be hard pressed to see it making beyond the local paper page 7.
A six-year-old girl has been internationally embarrassed (go to the article if you really need to know her mother’s name and city of residence). Who knows what future damage this will do to her life?
As the BBC says in How to avoid libel and defamation
Defamation is any published material that damages the reputation of an individual or an organisation. This covers material on the internet as well as radio and television broadcasts – so even drama and fiction can be defamatory if they damage someone’s reputation. You can only publish defamatory material if it comes within one of the recognised legal defences. If it doesn’t, the publication will amount to libel and you may have to pay substantial damages.
I wonder if, “It was a slow news day and I had to fill the space”, will cut it as a defence?
“The US ambassador in Zimbabwe forecast economic meltdown there by the end of this year. It hasn’t happened. ”
I think the point is that whereas most commentators (not just the US ambassador) predicted six or seven figure inflation by now and the wholesale collapse of the Zimbabwean government and society, whilst the situation is clearly still horrific equally clearly this hasn’t happened. Some analysis of why from somewhere might be nice (Mr Simpson??)…
BaggieJonathan | 02.01.08 – 10:03 am
If it werent for the BBC notions ‘have a go at the americans’ and ‘americans abusing iraq’ would we have seen this incredibly minor story………….
In fact its so minor it would be hard pressed to see it making beyond the local paper page 7.
Bah, humbug!
Over a hundred news providers have run this story, including Fox, ABC News and even the Washington Post.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319247,00.html
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/WinterConcert/story?id=4068368&page=1
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hPtRDIoBHl1UDi59dH29gBktIjLAD8TRARJ80
“For the record, the ‘John Reith’who posted on the last open thread saying JR ia multiple was a fake.”
Prove it JR. One moment we have the nice chap/chappess willing to debate albeit in a limited fashion the next we have a vicious wee scumbag who carries out personal attacks on the person making a point….. if these are all the same person then he/she needs to see Dr Suess in a nice warm room….
dave t | 02.01.08 – 11:47 am
I have tried to be unfailingly polite to those who are polite to me and to take no prisoners when it comes to the rude-boy scumbags.
And I’m particularly civil to veterans of Highland regiments.
TO DAVID PREISER
Hi David,
I’m reposting this question, as you avoided it last time.
The BBC’s “Diversity Statement” states that the BBC is proud of the fact that it has staff that engage in homosexual acts. It even names some of them.
Tell me, how can an organisation that takes pride in its staff behaving in such a way claim, let alone achieve, balance or fairness in its treatment of the most profound cultural and social issues that face our society?
How can it report fairly and honestly on religion, morality, marital issues, adoption law, the family, sexual health, social policy, family law, pro-family movements and individuals and the homosexualist movement itself?
Thanks in advance.
“Bah, humbug!
Over a hundred news providers have run this story, including Fox, ABC News and even the Washington Post.
John Reith | 02.01.08 – 11:41 am”
They would all appear to be American and therefore more than somewhat less of a surprise they should cover this (you will recall I made reference to local coverage).
I’m not saying you can’t find it, perhaps you can, but your point would have been made somewhat better if you quoted UK coverage of the story as a response rather than making my point for me.
Oh and as Christmas is well and truly over perhaps bah *something to do with Hogmanay* would have been more appropriate!
“Anything to scrape the barrel is it BBC?
BaggieJonathan | 02.01.08 – 10:03 am | #
Could it be you, or can you point out the bias in that article? I can’t see how that could be seen to be ‘having a go’ at americans..
Ben | 02.01.08 – 10:50 am ”
Ben,
I laid out reasons in the post, I am not going to fill these pages by posting it again because you choose not to read it or merely wish to cut and paste 5 words.
John Reith attempted to answer points in the post, which I have responded to and fully expect him to post again, your response is however without any of even those merits and appears to consist of your opinion without argument.
Unless you can manage that minimum courtesy I will not respond to any of your posts in future.
Steve Edwards | 02.01.08 – 11:57 am
The BBC’s “Diversity Statement” states that the BBC is proud of the fact that it has staff that engage in homosexual acts.
That’s a bit of a stretch. This is what it says:
The BBC is committed to reflecting the diversity of the UK audience in its workforce, as well as in its output on TV, on radio and online.
It aims to reflect the population of modern Britain – through gender, age, ethnicity and cultural diversity, disability, faith and social background, and sexual orientation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/diversity.shtml
BaggieJonathan | 02.01.08 – 12:01 pm
They would all appear to be American…
It may have escaped you, but the BBC News website is aimed at a global audience and has a pretty large proportion of American readers.
Errr, John. John. I think not…
“The BBC is also conscious of its obligations to represent the diversity of our society through honest and accurate reflection of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender minorities. Across BBC TV there are openly gay presenters on our mainstream family oriented early evening programmes as well as late night entertainment. Graham Norton for example, presents throughout BBC 1’s schedule on The Bigger Picture and Any Dream Will Do. There are many other gay presenters and performers in BBC entertainment, factual, News and Sport • Sandy Toksvig, Clare Balding, Eddie Mair and Stephen Fry are all regular high profile figures across BBC radio and television networks. BBC 3’s series Help my dog is as fat as me is presented by Julian Bennett (Queer Eye for the Straight Guy).BBC drama and comedy also feature portrayals of gay people’s lives broadcast in peak time including the character Ben in the BBC 1 series Hotel Babylon and the BBC 1 sitcom My Family which had a transgender storyline during the most recent series.”
Are you SERIOUSLY telling me that isn’t a “pro-gay” statement? How the hell can we trust the BBC when it takes such a profoundly biased stance?
“They would all appear to be American…
It may have escaped you, but the BBC News website is aimed at a global audience and has a pretty large proportion of American readers.
John Reith | 02.01.08 – 12:12 pm”
It may have escaped you but I pay and the other suckers in the British public public pay your wages by paying the BBC poor tax poll tax aka the licence fee.
This is also true but has missed the specific points of the post.
I’m sure that you will in time tell me of the other UK coverage of this story and the similar type story run re any other country in the world, which was the actual basis of the post in the first place.
I continue to wait…
Jonathan, I’d probably give a proper response if there was anything worth discussing. So the BBC ran a minor story missed by other UK outlets, but I completely fail to see any kind of credible evidence that this is an example of bias.
People here accuse the BBC of being anti-US when it comes to the war in Iraq, so you’d wonder, if they have an agenda, why they’d take issue with people abusing the situation of soldiers being killed in roadside attacks.
I’d be interested to hear what the other B-BBC’ers think though.
Steve Edwards | 02.01.08 – 12:34 pm
Are you SERIOUSLY telling me that isn’t a “pro-gay” statement?
All the statement does is confirm that the BBC acts in accordance with the law of the land.
As you doubtless know, since 1 December 2003 it has been unlawful in the UK to discriminate against (or in favour of) homosexuals in all aspects of employment, including recruitment.
You write as if homosexuality were a topic of burning topical salience on which our legislators were poised to pronounce, and regarding which the BBC should be taking especial care to be seen to be impartial. That may have been the case in 1967 • but now?
John Simpson’s ‘predictions’ for 2007:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/6175079.stm
And in 2008:
“I didn’t expect that the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, for all his sharp intelligence, would make the so-called surge of American troops in Iraq look quite so successful.”
Mystic Meg he is not! He still can’t find it in himself to acknowledge Petraeus’ success.
What a jaded asshole.
It is clear that the BBC chooses to omit any news (reduction of killings in Iraq) it does not like.
All the John Reiths are fakes.
No John. The BBC does not state that it considers people’s sexual desires to be irrelevant in recruitment decisions, which is all the law mandates. If the BBC made a statement to that effect, you would be correct.
It goes way beyond that. It actively supports and promotes the political and ideological agenda of Stonewall which is to normalise and desensitise people, especially young, vulnerable people, to a degraded and destructive lifestyle. Don’t forget, we are not talking about people whose “orientation” is to desire the same sex, but who actively and unashamedly engage in homosexual activity. A completely different matter altogether.
To do so is to come down heavily on one side of an ideological divide. The “gay” identity is a political and ideological construct, to support it as blatantly as the BBC does is to take a partisan position; a position in favour of the amoral, nihilistic, left wing, radical, individualistic politics of the sexual revolution.
Implicit, and completely inalienable from that is to take a position against marriage, against the family, against children, against the Judaeo-Christian values upon which our civilisation is (was?) based. It’s to reject those and to denigrate them.
Look at the way the BBC reports abortion. It quite happily uses the deceitful self-moniker of the pro-abortionists (pro-choice), yet wilfully rejects the term “pro-life” (even though the pro-life movement deals with more than abortion), preferring “anti-abortion”.
Your bias is written all over your face John. I wouldn’t mind, but if I want to watch the bloody History Channel I have to pay for you to broadcast this sociopathic propaganda.
Is it me or is this article on tomorrow’s weather just a wee bit southern centric?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7167475.stm
Last time I counted using my fingers 5 was a larger number than 2.
“It is clear that the BBC chooses to omit any news (reduction of killings in Iraq) it does not like.”
Andy | 02.01.08 – 1:19 pm | #
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7166918.stm
“Earlier on Tuesday, a number of Iraqi ministries released data suggesting that the number of civilian killed in Iraq was continuing to fall.
The December death toll was 480, down from almost 900 two months previously and about 2,000 in December 2006.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7164520.stm
“Three-quarters of al-Qaeda in Iraq has been destroyed over the last year, the Interior Ministry in Baghdad has said.
Iraqi and American commanders said the improvement in security in the country over 2007 had been remarkable.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7143953.stm
“The country ended 2007 on a high.
The last third of the year saw a dramatic improvement in the security situation in many of the most troubled areas, including much of Baghdad.
The number of attacks of all sorts, and the ensuing casualties, showed a sustained decline.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7155628.stm
“The top US military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has described the recent fall in violence in Iraq as a “significant accomplishment”.
Violence in the country has fallen to its lowest in two-and-a-half years, he told the BBC, but said he was neither an optimist nor a pessimist about Iraq.”
“The BBC is committed to reflecting the diversity of the UK audience in its workforce, as well as in its output on TV, on radio and online.
It aims to reflect the population of modern Britain – through gender, age, ethnicity and cultural diversity, disability, faith and social background, and sexual orientation.”
The BBC will be doing some weeding out then?
Peregrine – someone is reading! I read the same article – it has now been updated to 4cm.
Steve Edwards | 02.01.08 – 1:28 pm
To do so is to come down heavily on one side of an ideological divide. The “gay” identity is a political and ideological construct, to support it….is to take a partisan position; a position in favour of the…, left wing, radical…. politics ….
You mean siding with lefties like Pym Fortyn, Alan Duncan, Harvey Proctor, the Log Cabin Republicans, Andrew Sullivan etc?
I think you’ll find Dorothy has friends on each side of any ideological divide you care to point to.
“The BBC is committed to reflecting the diversity of the UK audience in its workforce, as well as in its output on TV, on radio and online.
It aims to reflect the population of modern Britain – through gender, age, ethnicity and cultural diversity, disability, faith and social background, and sexual orientation.”
Where are the figures for this monitoring?
According to this I would expect to see more disabled than gay people and several times more Christians (or of a Christian background) than atheists and definitely many many many more than muslims. Can someone confirm this is true?
If the 100 best cameramen were all Sikhs should that preclude employing them all? No.
In fact the best people for the job should be employed whatever – whilst ensuring there are no illegitimate prejudices stopping the right person getting the job because of such things as their colour or religion.
John Reith | 02.01.08 – 11:41 am
Bah, humbug!
Over a hundred news providers have run this story, including Fox, ABC News and even the Washington Post.
ABC went as far as naming the child, who has a different surname from her mother.
Shall we add to the defences to libel (at least in UK), “Y’honour, I plead the defence that everybody else was doing it”? If it was legal to sell shares in potential lawsuits I’d buy a piece of that action.
It aims to reflect the population of modern Britain – through gender, age, ethnicity and cultural diversity, disability, faith and social background, and sexual orientation.
If that’s the case, why aren’t 92% of their humanoid presentations caucasian, and 49% male? They neither reflect the diversity of origin/appearance of the population, nor the breadth of the world view of the population. In short, if diversity initatives are a nanny state mandate that the simplistic products of modern social education tacitly think a general good, then they aren’t following it in favor of preferential treatment popular with the same simplistic products of modern social education.
Simpson’s piece is awful:
“I didn’t expect… [Petraeus] would make the so-called surge of American troops in Iraq look quite so successful.” So it’s not really a success – it just looks that way? And why “so called”? What does it add, other than a sneer?
“True, it has only brought the level of killings… down to that of two or three years ago..”
Or, to put it another way, it’s reduced them by three-quarters.
“…and it’s likely to make the eventual civil war in Iraq fiercer than ever…”
Why? Because there’ll be more people left alive to fight? An explanation, apparently, isn’t necessary.
“But it’s a success, even so.”
Oh, so it is a success, but…
“Suppose someone of Gen Petraeus’s abilities had been in charge earlier?
Yet it scarcely matters now.”
…not an important one. Of course. After all, what’s 1,500 fewer Iraqis dieing a month?
The BBC does sometimes do impartial reports on Iraq. None of them come from Simpson, though.
Joe Noory | Homepage | 02.01.08 – 2:57 pm
If that’s the case, why aren’t 92% of their humanoid presentations caucasian, and 49% male?
At the last count 89.2% of BBC employees were white and 49.8% male.
“Don’t forget, we are not talking about people whose “orientation” is to desire the same sex, but who actively and unashamedly engage in homosexual activity. A completely different matter altogether.”
Sorry, what century is this??
Much as I’d appreciate some intellectually stimulating, non PC programming on the interaction of religious belief (particularly Islam) and homosexuality in 2008 and indeed on the worrying trends towards increasingly dangerous sexual and social practices amongst Britian’s homosexuals (as covered in the resolutely lefty Time Out recently) Steve’s ranting is bonkers.
Surely the centre of balance of the UK population is grown up enough to treat gay people as normal in 2008 isn’t it? Isn’t it???
Cockney | 02.01.08 – 4:28 pm |
i agree with you for what its worth.
Cockney,
The question isn’t about the century. It’s about the BBC promoting a dangerous lifestyle and ideology, a partisan perspective on human sexuality and society.
Interestingly enough, the “Diversity Statement” claims that it wishes to represent the lives of gays and lesbians (sic) honestly and fairly.
Really? Really? As far as I can see, there’s no representation of the far higher drug abuse/alcoholism/sexual violence/domestic violence/infidelity/ promiscuity/premature mortality/psychiatric illness/suicide/disease/paedophilia/ Lib Dem voting/risk taking amongst this segment of the population, or an examination of the pathological roots of the problem.
On the contrary, the BBC seem to go out of their way to portray homosexuality as something completely benign, which is utterly scandalous, given their privileged position, and the potential youth of their audience. To do such a thing is little short of having blood on your hands.
Thank you Cockney…
http://www.timeout.com/london/gay/features/3892.html
Funnily enough, I was once kicked off a BBC Messageboard for calling homosexuality a death cult. Seems like they are calling it that themselves now. I wish I could be proud of being proved correct.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the Panorama documentary. Of course, the BBC seems quite happy to give this cult the perpetual thumbs up, scandalously misleading our children to their deaths.
Steve Edwards | 02.01.08 – 11:57 am |
I think you meant to ask David GREGORY?
My only response would be that the BBC has on several occasions told American viewers, as well as Iowa Caucus members and presidential candidates, that the world wants, among other things, a US President who is pro-gay rights. So, no, they aren’t impartial on the issue, in some quarters at least.
Cheers Steve, I kind of agree with you when you put it like that (although death cult might be pushing it a bit). I’d still suggest that the lifestyles of (some mainly urban, youngish) homosexuals need examination though rather than their homosexuality itself – not seen much science recently suggesting they can do much about that.
Sorry Mr Preiser. I of course Meant Mr Gregory.
Hi Steve. Thanks for your questions. My considered response is that whatever a journalists personal beliefs or circumstances one should put them to one side to report in an impartial and fair way.
Oh, and that you sound really hot and I wondered if you were free Friday night?
Actually I haven’t seen Clare Balding staggering around Soho pilled up to her eyeballs recently either – I think you may be generalising a bit.
John Reith(s),
One of your comrades spilt the beans about your counter propaganda unit? and you are trying to do a bit of damage limitation?
Too late my friend, the cat is out of the bag now!
I wonder just how much your team of “valiant defenders” is costing? If you want to pretend to be one person you ought to go on a team bulding excercise, involving large amounts of jello and plenty of hankies?
Dont worry about the cost as the tax slaves will pick up the bill!
Are there any jobs going? things are getting a little tight on the outside of the bubble.
Please can the nice and witty JR respond to my post?
“And I’m particularly civil to veterans of Highland regiments.” spake JR.
Well in that case I’ll sheath my claymore and agree that you must be the nice JR rather than the Meldrewish one….
So come on John, Clinton (as approved by the BBC) or McCain/any other Republican?
Any idea why your lot keep twittering on about Mitt Romney being a Mormon and how bad that is yet say nothing about the fact that the Democrat Senate Leader is Harry Reid a Mormon and allegedly up to his eyeballs in corruption in Nevada?
Ben
Nice try Ben, but throwing semi-obscure web pages around just won’t do. The point I was making, which you attempt to dodge, is that the BBC will not acknowledge that it is the US-led surge that has led to the reduction in deaths/casualties. This fact is not broadcast on BBC news programmes.
The Beeb state that the reduction coincides with the surge, and then go on to say/imply that the success is down to the Mahdhi Army ceasefire and Sunni Militias now turning on al-Qaeda. Absolute bilge.
What gets up the noses of limp-wristed left-wingers is American-led success.
Hi Steve. Thanks for your questions. My considered response is that whatever a journalists personal beliefs or circumstances one should put them to one side to report in an impartial and fair way.
How can they do that in an institution which is structurally and calculatedly biased? How on earth could a journalist tell the truth about the homosexual subculture in an organisation which explicitly pro-gay? They wouldn’t go near the story, let alone report it. And they don’t. Never.
How could an editor bring up the subject of covering the material in the Time Out article knowing it would be professional suicide to do so?
Put it this way, when was the last time the BBC portrayed the gay cult remotely accurately?
Steve:
Is that a no then? It’s two for one on cocktails at “Glamourous” in town. x
The BBC, “Diversity” and racial discrimination
Have I missed the elephant in the room? the BBC “diversity statement” linked above calls for 12.5% of the BBC workforce to be BME. Isn’t this approx 3 to 4 times the actual demographic representation of this group (sorry these “communities”).
How is the BBCs’ ideological pledge consistent with a balanced representation of the British population as it is, rather than as it is perceived by Islington socialists?
The Andrew Marr quote says it all in the side bar
dave t | 02.01.08 – 6:10 pm
Justin Webb on Mormonism:
….its adherents are bright and intellectually open, and have a sense of humour, of humanity, that is sadly lacking in other strands of American religious life.
Forget for a moment the old stereotype of the Mormon in rural Utah – the multiple wives – of which the Church has not approved for 100 years.
Mormons are social conservatives – hugely keen on the promotion of family life.
They believe your family group stays with you for eternity – not necessarily a comforting thought by the end of this Christmas season.
… Mormons do not feel threatened by science.
They are not enemies of the rational world – they are not creationists.
And on human conduct they tend to stress setting personal examples rather than getting the state to enforce religious rules.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6203179.stm
It’s all too much | 02.01.08 – 6:23 pm
Isn’t this approx 3 to 4 times the actual demographic representation of this group
No.
How on earth could a journalist tell the truth about the homosexual subculture in an organisation which explicitly pro-gay?
Ask the guys at Time Out.
JR
You are quite right – I was wrong and I underestimated the rate of change in the UK population mix over the last ten years. I have just looked up the 2006 projection data – the BME element is currently 7.9% of the total UK population. I admit that this is obviously not a 300% over representation but merely 6O%. That is still very substantial.
I thought that the point of equal ops was that people were selected on their merits and skills not against an (inaccurate) quota
The AM quote still holds true