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.
jimbob | 09.01.08 – 1:38 pm
The point is that a court order was in force until the end of the trial.
By close of play yesterday, the trial had ended.
During the day, it was still in progress – so, technically, the injunction was still in force.
pounce’s comment was critical of the BBC for not mentioning what it was not allowed to mention in a story that ran while the restrictions still applied.
Typical knee-jerk bias allegation with a perfectly innocent explanation.
John Reith
You are showing double standards.
“There is no rule saying that equal time has to be devoted to the Democrat and Republican races on any given day.
in any case, nearly all BBC programmes are doing frequent features on the Republican race – Newsnight did one last night with David Grossman out and about with McCain and Paxo interviewing Republican pollster Frank Lunz for the bigger picture.”
While there is no reason to give equal coverage on a given day, you have to accept that coverage of the Republicans on a given day does not indicate even-handed treatment.
The problem is that while occasionally (as you point out) a day’s coverage is fairly even, overall on all traditional news media there is far more coverage of the Democrats. While I would criticise all news media for that imbalance, the BBC by is a public service and deserves by far the most criticism. The BBC is quick to use its status as a public service, and must thereofre take the responsibilities that entails seriously. That is the point of this website.
Abandon Ship
No mention that these opinions are formed on the basis of lies, propoganda and the restriction of information. They are taught to hate and distrust the west, despite all evidence that it is their own leadership and Arab states that have most blame for their current misery. The people on the streets of Palestinian territories do not have the basis to form a reasoned judgement.
John Reith | 09.01.08 – 12:38 pm
During the 1970s, Blitzer wrote for Hebrew-language newspapers using aliases. Blitzer wrote for Al Ha-Mishmar, a newspaper affiliated with the left-wing Mapam political party under the name Ze’ev Blitzer. He also wrote for Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel’s most widely-read paper, under the name Ze’ev Barak.
…..that’s when he wasn’t filing for the Jerusalem Post, for whom he wrote between 1973 and 1990.
JR You really have integrated BBC framing technique into your personality. Assuming Wikipedia is correct about Wolf Blitzer’s aliases over a period of about 30 years, the evil Israeli wrote for:
Al-Hamishmar Socialist approaching Communist
Yedioth Aharonoth mass circulation, flies without wings apparently, (jets?) – certainly much further right than Al-Hamishmar.
Jerusalem Post Was associated with the Labor Party establishment until bought out in the 1980’s by the Holliger group (Conrad Black) and overnight became a right-wing paper!
There’s an article about politics in Israeli newspapers here.
So Wolf Blitzer wrote for the widest spectrum of Israeli papers, under various names, over a period of about 30 years. He used pseudonyms to disguise his actual political leanings. So what …?
Of course, less attention was being paid to the Republican field because it is a given that the GOP is never going to win real elections. Except when they do, which is frequently and then we have a great shout of “we wuz robbed”.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/01/faces-of-democracy.html
deegee | 09.01.08 – 1:57 pm
So Wolf Blitzer wrote for the widest spectrum of Israeli papers, under various names, over a period of about 30 years. He used pseudonyms to disguise his actual political leanings. So what …?
So….until you (or Alan) can show me links demonstrating that the BBC’s Paul Reynolds and Jeremy Bowen have spent almost thirty years writing under various names for the Ramallah Post and the house magazines of both Fatah and Hamas, then I’m not going to buy the assertion that they are clearly parti-pris on the Israel-Palestine story, while Wolf Blitzer is a model of disinterested reporting. That’s what.
Richard | 09.01.08 – 12:19 pm
Out of curiosity, why does every report by the BBC covering both Democrats and Republicans always begin with the Democrats? I’m not a psychologist, but I’d wager being named first in a headline has some effect on people (Good vs Bad etc).
Journalism 101 🙂
The further down something appears in an article the less likely it is to be read. This is why journalists are taught to put the major idea of the article in the first paragraph.
Most people don’t read past the headline and the first paragraph before deciding to read or skip the story.
Internet Journalism 101 🙂
The more clicks needed from the homepage to reach an article the less likely it is to be read. People typically don’t search for articles not clearly signposted.
After reaching the correct page online read Journalism 101.
John Reith | 09.01.08 – 2:05 pm
It would be more convincing for your argument if you could show examples of Messrs. Reynolds and Bowens writing fair and balanced reporting on Israel, in thirty years for the BBC. They don’t have to be employed by Al-Hayat Al-Jadeedah to be PLO mouthpieces.
Further to Journalism 101
Check the In pictures: Israeli and Palestinian views on Bush’s visit.
Three Palestinians followed by three Israelis.
It’s worth checking. How many times does the BBC lead with the story which frames their prejudices and balance it with an opposition view? How many times does the opposition view receive less space that the preferred view?
So….until you (or Alan) can show me links demonstrating that the BBC’s Paul Reynolds and Jeremy Bowen have spent almost thirty years writing under various names for the Ramallah Post and the house magazines of both Fatah and Hamas, then I’m not going to buy the assertion that they are clearly parti-pris on the Israel-Palestine story, while Wolf Blitzer is a model of disinterested reporting. That’s what.
John Reith | 09.01.08 – 2:05 pm |
John Reith reveals his true views. He equates writing for a broad spectrum of Israel newspapers with writing for Hamas and Fatah. Interesting!
Lord Wraith,
“There is no rule saying that equal time has to be devoted to the Democrat and Republican races on any given day.”
A bit like the Red Queen,the rules are what we say they are.
The fact is there is widespread ignorance that both major parties in America are selecting candidates,would indicate that the Media,especially the public broadcasting media are falling down on the job.
JR,
You answered yourself:
“but…I grant you…his political views aren’t made apparent on air.”
I’ll repeat my questions now:
About Lou Dobbs — he is a hack on immigration, but can you tell is he voting Democrat or Republican?
Is Wolf Blitzer voting democrat or republican?
Have you heard Wolf Blitzer interviewing Carter – could you tell he is pro-Israel from the interview tone?
Did you even hear Wolf Blitzer interview David Duke – even there his personal views couldn’t come into play.
Lou Dobbs views are certain only on illegal immigration – which is the point of his show.
Just yesterday after NH primaries, I’ve heard Lou Dobbs interviewing a variety of Democratic and Republican supporters. Ask anyone who saw it – no one has a clue about which way Lou Dobbs goes.
CNN’s overall leanings might be a bit liberal – which is why I watch them more then the others, but you can never tell with any level of certainty which way their staff goes.
It would be a real eye opener for you to start watching CNN with an open mind, but if you don’t, watch Jay Leno.
After a month, please try to say which way his vote goes?
With Jeremy Bowen and Paul Reyndols noone needs to look for their personal history to find out what their views are.
I can say with 100% certainty they don’t vote Tory!!!
This is what is known as OPEN BIAS!
JR, it is you who is ridiculous.
For each one of the above you have to dig into their personal histories.
With Wolf Blitzer your bigotry shows even more, just because he wrote for Isreali papers means he is tainted?
Do you know what his stance on West Bank for example is?
Or do you think Israel doesn’t have the right to exist at all, and any association with it makes you a sinner?
So let’s see, by equivalence anyone who wrote in any British paper, during colonial times, or even during the intifada in Northern Ireland is tainted?
Does that sound like normal views to be held by someone defending the BBC against accusations of bias?
NBC admits Obama bias
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/television/journo_love_for_obama_74502.asp
(from Drudge)
BBC Invade America, Taxpayers Only Casualties
http://www.order-order.com/2008/01/bbc-invade-america-taxpayers-only.html
This looks serious……
Expect pronouncements from the BBC Tectonics correspondent within minutes..(you know..the one with the English Degree)
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1668
The excitement in fortress BBC was very evident this morning. Barely able to contain them selves they tell me that Mrs Clinton has ‘won’ New Hampshire. Many points spring to mind not least of which is a simple question – why does the BBC consider this such such a big story for British viewers? I cannot recall much coverage of the collapse of Belgium (boring as hell, but right next door and illustrative of EU regional policy).
What is it about Mrs Clinton that excites the Beeboids soooh very much – to the point that they throw away even the patina of objectivity that they use to hide their pink souls. Fair enough we have a minority person and a Woman running for president, on the Democrat side (and if you listen very carefully the BBC lets slip that a loony fundamentalist and an old war hero are running for the Republican nomination). But I don’t think this is about gender / race (the BBC didn’t like our extremely successful woman prime minister very much, and the seem to resent our female head-of state) This is because Clinton is the right sort of woman -with correct views – just like the new Aussie prime Minister
The reporters are very one sided, and their partisan positions scream out of their reports. Why I am forced on pain of fine / prison to fund this sort of sixth form journalism? Frankly I couldn’t care about the primaries, I am a British subject and I don’t get to vote in the USA – so why bend my ear. I am sick of this wish fulfillment reporting – reporting what the journo wants to happen we saw enough of it in the last US election with the guardian write in campaign….
America bad, Bush mad, Clinton a woman, Obama a black man its nice how the BBC manages to educate me in the science of difference
John Reith | 09.01.08 – 1:40 pm |
David Preiser – given what you’ve written about the ‘too racist to elect a black’ meme you think you detect as a running theme in BBC output, I’d be interested to know what you make of this post by Da Fink on the ‘Reverse Bradley Effect’:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/c…-the- rever.html
Interesting as a snapshot of us 25 years ago. I am aware of the concept of course, but didn’t know the term or its origins.
But the article to which you’ve linked doesn’t really take the position that people didn’t support Bradley because he was black. It’s saying that people just felt bad about not supporting a black man. That’s different from voting for racial reasons, which is the BBC contention.
It seems to me that people probably had legitimate reasons to vote for Deukmejian. There is a huge chasm between LA and Southern Cal and the other two-thirds of the state. No LA mayor has ever become governor. And I can tell you from having lived in LA from 1983-85 that white racism was mostly reserved for Mexicans.
So they fibbed to pollsters to feel good about themselves. Which people do. In any case, the vote was pretty close, so it’s not like everyone was lying. And it was a generation ago, so not the fairest of comparisons.
I would suggest that this time around, what really happened is more older women turned up at the voting booth than swooning young people. And maybe a few on the fence plumped for Hillary after “The Tear”. Guess which group is more likely to be more vocal beforehand, and make the extra effort responding to the preliminary polls.
Wow, Voice of Palestine:
“Bush launches key Mid-East tour”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7178195.stm
For some reason the news on Bush’s mid-east tour has this second paragraph:
“But within hours of his arrival, the Palestinians reported that Israeli forces had killed three people in Gaza.
Another four were reported wounded.
The Palestinians accuse Israel of stepping up such raids ahead of Mr Bush’s visit.”
Notice that black uniform wearing Hamas members are now not even militants (let alone terrorists targeting civilians), but “three people”.
Also, no mention whatsoever of why the evil Israelis were “stepping up attacks” (as if they were doing it for their own pleasure), and not in response to Hamas and Islamic Jihad stepping up their fire (from agencies and Haaretz):
“In addition to the rocket barrages, Palestinian militants also fired 12 mortar shells at the western Negev. Two Qassams directly struck houses in the town of Sderot, damaging the buildings.
In one of the houses, a woman and her two-year-old son were in the house at the time of the attack and managed to take shelter in a protected room.
The rocket came through the ceiling and landed on the boy’s bed causing extensive damage, relatives told Army Radio.
Yaakov Dahan, a resident of the house, told Haaretz that this was the second time his family had been barely missed a direct Qassam hit. Seven months earlier, Dahan and other family members left a Sderot synagogue moments before a Qassam landed outside the building.”
And also:
“Thousands of Palestinian hard-liners in Gaza staged protests against Bush on Wednesday, burning Bush in effigy and underscoring the deep political split with West Bank moderates who welcomed the visit of the U.S. president as an important gesture to the Palestinians.
Advertisement
Supporters of the Islamic militant Hamas chanted “Death to America,” and burned U.S. and Israeli flags. A shadowy Al-Qaida-inspired group appeared in public for the first time with rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and uttered vague threats against U.S. targets.
The men wore black robes over above-the-ankle black pants. Some wore red headbands with the words “death squad.”
I’ll post the entire article from BBC news site, so we can watch for silent edits, which are almost certain to come:
—————-
Bush launches key Mid-East tour
PM Ehud Olmert, President Bush and President Peres at Tel Aviv airport
Mr Bush was met by President Shimon Peres and PM Ehud Olmert
Bush arrival
US President George W Bush has begun talks with Israeli leaders at the start of a visit to the Middle East aimed at advancing peace negotiations.
Mr Bush received a red carpet welcome at Tel Aviv airport, where he was greeted by the entire Israeli cabinet.
He said he saw a “new opportunity for peace here in the holy land” as he began his first visit as president.
But within hours of his arrival, the Palestinians reported that Israeli forces had killed three people in Gaza.
Another four were reported wounded.
The Palestinians accuse Israel of stepping up such raids ahead of Mr Bush’s visit.
At the arrival ceremony Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert spoke of the “unshakeable” bond between Israel and the United States, and of his deep personal friendship with Mr Bush.
President Shimon Peres meanwhile called on Mr Bush to “stop the madness” of Iran and the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas, and warned Iran not to “underestimate our resolve for self-defence”.
We are expecting that President Bush will get Israel to freeze settlement activity
Nabil Abu Rudeina, Abbas spokesman
For his part, Mr Bush said Israel and the US had “built two great democracies under difficult circumstances”.
He said the alliance between the US and Israel “helps guarantee Israel’s security as a Jewish state”.
His visit was not welcomed by Hamas, the militant group cut off by Israel and the West after winning Palestinian elections and which now runs Gaza.
“Bush is not welcome because he is one of the most prominent reasons for the suffering of the Palestinian people,” Sami Abu-Zhuri, a senior Hamas official, told the BBC.
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert vowed at a US summit last year to try to achieve a two-state solution by the end of 2008.
And in a meeting on Tuesday, Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said it had been agreed that Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and former Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei, also known as Abu Ala, would “start intensive meetings to immediately discuss all core issues of a final status agreement.”
These include
* Israeli settlements
* militant rocket fire into Israeli territory
* the fate of Palestinians made refugees since Israel’s creation in 1948
* the sovereignty of Jerusalem itself
After his talks with the Israelis Mr Bush goes to the West Bank on Thursday to see the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.
He then goes on to Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Lurker in a Burqua | 09.01.08 – 3:56 pm |
http://www.order-order.com/2008/…ayers- only.html
Judging from the comments, I am not alone in what I think I detect.
Here is a new posting from the BBC’s Middle East bureau editor Simon Wilson saying
“However, it does seem to me encouraging that a number of the students, professors and other university-affiliated people I come across (including my Lebanese-American barber!) get their news from the BBC; either on the web or through rebroadcasts of the World Service on National Public Radio. I have even uncovered a few hardy pioneers who regularly watch our new nightly TV bulletin from Washington on BBC America.
At least among America’s intelligentsia, there is in this election year a real thirst for proper, reliable international news. The kind that Alan Johnston and all the other fine BBC foreign correspondents in so many different parts of the world are delivering every day”.
From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/01/from_gaza_to_harvard.html
Don’t BBC reporters just love throwing in a comment in the final sentence of their news report?
BBC1 News report from Israel ends with “Can George Bush of all people succeed where so many have failed.”
At least among America’s intelligentsia, there is in this election year a real thirst for proper, reliable international news. The kind that Alan Johnston and all the other fine BBC foreign correspondents in so many different parts of the world are delivering every day”. Proper RELIABLE news?
Can’t. Stop. Laughing. Gasp!. Stop. It. Please. Make. The.BBC. Stop.It. Waaahhhhhhhhhh!. *collapse of stout party in fits of laughter*
America’s intelligentsia? So poor or middle classes and Republicans/ rednecks etc are not wanting news as well? Dear Lord how patronising do these numpties sound?
And can JR PLEASE explain why so many BBC are over there with their camera crews, producers, producers girl/boyfriend (oops meant Production Assistant), sound man/woman etc etc etc. We sent less military people across to help plan D Day in 1944!
BBC: never use one man where 20 will do – after all we’re not paying for it! (the taxpayers are…)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7178478.stm
Article on Jeff Stewart who has been sacked from The Bill after 23 years and then apparently self harmed. A longish article which ends with this:
“In 1998, actor Kevin Lloyd – who played Detective Tosh Lines in The Bill – died days after being sacked from the show because of his heavy drinking.
Lloyd, 49, had been receiving treatment for alcoholism at a clinic in Staffordshire. ”
Nowhere has it been suggested or written that Stewart is an alkie or whatever so why on Earth was this added to the end of the article? What did it have to do with this case. You might as well have added ‘ in 1988 a stage hand from The Bill was caught exposing himself to little old ladies whilst on holiday in Ibiza’. It has nothing to do with the story and merely causes presumptions to be made.
And the BBC whinge about people making assumptions about the recent cases of BBC presenters dying from drugs related reasons and then go and write this!
PS I see Mr Moderator is back as one of my posts has gone! Happy New Year you handsome chappie! Oh Bestest Mod of all!
*bows down to ensure he gets decent treatment* 😎
Just a comment on the BBC coverage of the American primaries, it is no different in any of the MSM outlets as they are all operated by leftist.
Every election cycle we get the same standard stories:
1: What do the Democrats have to do in order to retake CongressPresident?
Never in 20 years, have I seen a story on what Republicans need to do unless it is become more like the great liberals.
2: Multiple stories of “life-long” Republicans who have finally seen the light and are now going to vote for the “great” Democrat.
This has become so commonplace that people now laugh as soon as the story begins. The convert always turns out to be a RINO who has supported Democrats for years and unsurprisely, no liberals ever are shown to be converting to voting conservative. (It is amazing there are any Republicans left to vote)
3: Glowing coverage of the unstoppable Democratic candidate who is going to crush the dispirited and uncertain Republican.
They even tried to sell John Kerry as an unstoppable force, too funny?? CBS was even caught getting him to redo a press conference so that could get better footage!!
No wonder people who follow the BBC and MSM outlets are constantly shocked about the outcomes of US elections. You will be much better informed you will treat the BBC and the rest of the MSM as what they are, the propaganda wing of the Democratic party.
Reith: “It would seem that the AP have less difficulty than you in determining his [Lou Dobbs] personal positions…”
It’s good to know criticism from another journalist is adequate evidence of a reporter’s partiality. Given that newspaper hacks from right across the political spectrum say the BBC has a left-leaning bias, I guess we can consider the matter settled.
America’s intelligentsia – Noam Chomsky, I guess.
The BBC ,calling somebody a Monkey and how the BBC writes that story up.
Bullying’ casts shadow over cricket
It is interesting that despite losing two successive Tests the Indian cricket captain is still respected, and after winning 16 Tests in a row there are calls in his own country for the Australian captain to be sacked. A lesson is to be found here: how a team plays sport is important, but so is how it conducts itself. India’s XI can barely field a ball competently, yet have become worthy of support simply because in the midst of madness they performed with dignity in Sydney.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7178341.stm
Yup according to the BBC, the Aussies are to blame:
“There has arguably been no more unpleasant champion team in sport in recent times than Australia’s cricket team. No cricket team in the world is like this.”
I just thank ‘Allah’ that the BBC weren’t reporting on a bunch of misguided criminals.
The BBC ,calling somebody a Monkey and how the BBC writes that story up.
Why don’t the BBC News properly report things that involve the EU? Tonight’s headline on the Beeb 6 O’Clock News was about battery farming being banned in 4 years time.
The Beeb helpfully tells us that there will be no extensions for farmers, according to the Govt.
What they don’t remind us is that the UK Govt couldn’t if they wanted to anyway: this ban is as a result of an EU regulation made back in 1999 (as they did report back then)…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/369555.stm
Perhaps they’ve just forgotten? Or perhaps they’re actually referring to our de facto government in Brussels? Either way, slightly misleading…
Ref my battery farming story above… the video is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7170000/newsid_7179800/7179889.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&ms3=6&ms_javascript=true&nol_storyid=7179889&bbcws=2
It refers to “Poultry farmers in the UK will have to stop battery farming their egg-laying chickens by 2012, under new government proposals.
Jump to Media Player” on the top right and has Hilary Benn spouting rubbish as if the Government are putting forward this proposal as new.
It’s extremely poor reporting.
Mr Reith wrote;
“pounce’s comment was critical of the BBC for not mentioning what it was not allowed to mention in a story that ran while the restrictions still applied. Typical knee-jerk bias allegation with a perfectly innocent explanation.”
Mr Reith do you know how much pleasure I get when the BBC clones come on line to bitch about little old me. All your gripes tell me is that the BBC is getting hacked off with how the folks on this board are exposing the lies the BBC promulgates as the truth. Please be my guest and carrying on throwing the vitriol we all know that jellyfish like you (spineless) haven’t a leg to stand on when it comes to exposing anything never mind the truth. Say Hi to your bosses at the MCB for me.
For what it’s worth, I saw a talk and Q&A given by Lou Dobbs a couple of months back which was covered on the public affairs network C-SPAN.
In his remarks, Dobbs expressed scorn for both major political parties and stated that he was registered as an Independent. My own impression is that the majority of his barbs were aimed at GWB and at Republicans in general, which is hardly surprising given the positions he’s taken on immigration, globalization, corporate welfare, etc. He also seems to have something of a libertarian streak, as evidenced by his opposition to gun control and support for same-sex marriage.
jimbob there was a court order saying you cant make the direct association pounce did because it was contempt ie potentially prejudicial, not libel (big difference, worth learning). Now they have been sent down, its no longer possible to prejudice the trial as it has finished.
It used to be a recurring habit of pounce’s find something in an internet archive, suggest the bbc are not reporting it because they are biased, but actually its because they dont want to be in contempt.
Pointing this out then tends to be followed up by the usual, ‘laws don’t apply to me I’m brown you liberals etc’
The press sail far closer to with wind wrt contempt than the bbc does because it sells papers, again this is not the BBC’s bias but theirs.
Cue: but we are not forced to pay for them etc etc
pounce | 09.01.08 – 7:13 pm | #
pounce you must have missed this bit:
“Language is a more complicated matter. Of course, racist language, which Harbhajan Singh is accused of, is unacceptable, and the effort of some Indian observers to downplay how vile the term “monkey” is to a black man is offensive.”
I know how you hate selectively quoting only half the points in an article and leaving out the balancing remarks.
Richard | 09.01.08 – 12:19 pm | #
Primary comebacks ignite US race
New Hampshire primary wins by John McCain and Hillary Clinton leave the race for the White House wide open.
you were saying?
The idea being as long as the BBC mentions something,somewhere in its vast output,then the job has been done.
Peter | 09.01.08 – 1:16 pm | #
I guess the headline on the homepage is “something, somewhere”
🙂
FFS!! 🙁
What exactly was wrong with the FOUR comments of mine which were deleted – ALL of which were direct counters to legitimate posts made above?
Andrew I would like an explanation before I waste any more of my time answering people’s questions.
Moderator – did you actually read any of them?
Eh? they’ve come back. Well, that’s alright then 🙂
Mugwump,
Thanks for participating with your info on Lou Dobbs.
I brought the 4 CNN’s top faces that are on air all the time and are not just presenters (reading someone else’s texts).
I did the same with the BBC (although in their case, because of the uniformity of opinions, it really matter much less how you select your sample – since the standard deviation is probably very small on any given topic).
As opposed to JR’s methods, I didn’t weed through the list of people and found only those that will prove my point.
I did this on purpose, since that is how you run statistical research and blind trials. You take it at random from the sample space. I know that this concept is totally lost on JR, though.
The results I believe so far are:
Virtually 100% of people with features on BBC news are NOT voting Tory. I believe that everyone here will agree on that.
With CNN (with liberal leanings) you have a bit of everything + you have to dig into personal history and look very hard for evidence what their leanings are on every major issue.
Based on ON-THE-AIR history, for 3 out of 4 CNN’s people, you can’t tell if they’ll vote Democrat or Republican. Lou Dobbs is *probably* an independent.
Based on OFF-THE-AIR history, if at all relevant, the following emerges: For Wolf Blitzer we now know that he supports the existence of the state of Israel, not much more.
Off the-the-air history seems to confirm that Lou Dobbs is an independent (which, btw proves him of not being biased on Republican vs. Democrat issue).
Off the air, with Sanjay Gupta, we know that he might be a Hillary supporter. But did he change his mind meanwhile and supports McCain, we don’t know…
As for Jeremy Bowen, Paul Reynolds, et. al. every single newscast proves where their opinions are on almost every major issue.
QED – Even though it would be worth while to continue and gain further evidence.
—
Again, JR was expecting me to bring up only people that would prove my point. This only proves how his mind works.
JR, I suggest you take a course in mathematical logic, statistics/probability or discrete math at any level.
Had you taken one of those, you would have instantly realized that cherry picking samples to prove your point is a big NO-NO, even if such samples can be found. This in fact is the most probable cause of statistical bias in any research.
Researchers (particularly medical) spend an inordinate amount of time trying to detect if any bias might have occurred in their sample selection.
The fact that you are mockingly pointing to the fact that I didn’t select 4 CNN people carefully enough to prove my point, proves that you might be beyond redemption.
Also, it is not only about people having personal leanings and opinions, it is about professionalism when it comes to showing your personal opinions on-the-air.
Here too a clear picture emerges and further sinks the credibility of the BBC.
1. It is very difficult to gain up-to-date knowledge based on on-the-air performance by CNN’s broadcasters
2. CNN is a more heterogeneous environment
Only people with “mine is the only way” mentality can be as homogeneous as the BBC and still think that they are unbiased.
I’m not a big fan of Bush, but maybe the Left sees a bit of themselves in Bush’s “you are either with us or against us” mentality, and hate him on such a pathological level because of it.
Sorry, editing mistake:
1. It is very difficult to gain up-to-date knowledge based on on-the-air performance by CNN’s broadcasters
I meant
1. It is very difficult to gain up-to-date knowledge of their personal beliefs based on on-the-air performance by CNN’s broadcasters
“I guess the headline on the homepage is “something, somewhere”
Don’t get too excited Sarah -Jane,you don’t rob us to pay for the home page,which I never read,you extort the license fee for television which is probably the access point for most people.
Ask anyone in the street what news they watch/listen to,the answer won’t be the BBC home page.
All these cute answers are not addressing the general dissatisfaction with the BBC.This is the main problem with the beeboid “customer complaints”,too smartarsed by half.
Sarah thank you once again for jumping to the defence of the BBC.
Lets look at that BBC article again shall we. Also lets presume the reader doesn’t know squat about cricket.
That article is 1006 words long.
You have to bypass 733 words before you come to the part wish you pointed out.
Have you looked at those 773s words in detail. Tell me what picture do those words conjure up? Indian victimhood or Australian intransigence?
I mean the first picture while of the two players concerned gives the impression that only one is coloured.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44343000/jpg/_44343240_collide1_getty203.jpg The caption reads “’It’s offensive to downplay how vile the term monkey is’
true but don’t you think the BBC could have used this picture to illustrate the point
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44336000/jpg/_44336262_symonds_harbhajan416.jpg
The next picture box highlights this statement;
“This has become a sport about bullying, on the field constantly by the Australians, off the field often by the Indians”
Followed by this picture
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44343000/jpg/_44343262_aussies_getty_203.jpg and this statement;
‘The Australians are also guilty of using abusive language’
The next picture is one of the Indian captain followed by this statement;
‘Kumble is a man of fine manners’
The last one is of the Aussie captain and this statement;
There have been calls that Ponting be sacked
In other words Sarah, the team which has a member accused of using racist language is written up as magnanimous, bullied and a victim.
The injured party however are given the ugly guilty as sin and the real racists.
Hang on you quite rightly pointed out this very weak sop towards the truth from the BBC, not only is it ¾ down the length of the article but it is written somewhat ambiguously here let me remind what it says;
“Language is a more complicated matter. Of course, racist language, which Harbhajan Singh is accused of, is unacceptable, and the effort of some Indian observers to downplay how vile the term “monkey” is to a black man is offensive.”
To somebody who knows nothing of cricket and presumes that Australia is almost white. (It isn’t) who would you presume called who a ‘Monkey’?
A Aussie to an Indian or a Indian to an Aussie.
I’m sorry, Sarah all I see is a BBC Brownwash, which if written by a whiteman against any coloured team would have the Racist thought police screaming for his blood. That article is racist towards white people even a blindman in a darkroom wearing sun glasses on a dark night could see that. But hey you work for the BBC who am I trying to show the light to?
this blog has lost its way. why not try here.
http://www.bbc-biased.blogspot.com/
Any particular reason my comments were deleted?
For those of you wondering about Lou Dobb’s political affiliation, in today’s commentary “Pundits Take it in the teeth” on the CNN website at http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/08/Dobbs.January8/index.html , he writes of himself as follows:
“As an independent populist, I haven’t got a dog in this hunt. I favor none of the candidates in either political party seeking the nomination, and I still believe that these two political parties and the electoral process are part of the reason that our government simply doesn’t work.”
The commentary in its entirety is a critique of the media presumption that, after the Iowa caucuses and the polls preceding the New Hampshire primaries, the results in New Hampshire (and thus the primary process in general) were a foregone conclusion.
“Many of our political savants and pundits took one in the teeth last night. I couldn’t be happier about last night’s surprising results, and not because I favor one candidate or another. I’m just glad the so-called experts in the national media were wrong about their premature assumptions that the Democratic and Republican nominations for president were a done deal.”
Regards,
MK
Alan
Re: Lou Dobbs
….And then there’s the small matter of Lou Dobbs’ campaign contribution to the Bush-Cheney campaign.
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?21990071732
So, to re-cap: we know he has public positions on immigration, protectionism, gun-control and homosexual marriage; that he once described himself as a lifelong Republican but has restyled himself a populist. And that he made a donation to Bush-Cheney.
You claim that you can’t tell any of this from his on-screen appearances, yet my earlier link gave an example of what must be one of the most loaded questions ever asked:
Dobbs: “Senator, do you find yourself being called, because of your views on this (issue), ‘xenophobic,’ ‘protectionist,’ because you have the audacity to suggest that the United States, the most powerful economy and nation on earth, should have a manufacturing base?”
And yet you claim to know more about Paul Reynolds’s personal views and voting preferences. Mmmm. You keep claiming to be a scientist • where’s your evidence on Reynolds? Give one statement that he has made that betrays a personal political viewpoint or voting preference.
Alan, there seems to be a problem with Haloscan. That’s why comments are disappearing and reappearing.
Sarah-Jane, perhaps you should tap one of your BBC buddies on the shoulder and ask him/her to give you a recording of the World Service’s reporting on the primaries over the past two days. Then calculate how much time was spent on the respective parties. You’ll be surprised at the result.
It was all Clinton on the World Service today, easily eclipsing the historic visit of President Bush to Israel.
When they got to World Have Your Say I was amazed to discover that instead of letting people have their say on Bush’s visit, it was Clinton again. Five minutes from the end of the hour, one of the American guests – a journalist, I think – said, “We haven’t got around to discussing the Republicans yet.”
Well of course they hadn’t. The BBC was busy proving, yet again, that it is staffed by a bunch of immature, leftist hacks with the narrowest of narrow agendas who wouldn’t recognise journalistic responsibility if they tripped over it.
On pounce and the cricket, I have been half-following the BBC’s take on the racist comment. But even without being fully attentive, it’s clear that the BBC did everything it possibly could to give the Indian side the easiest time. There ain’t the slightest shadow of a doubt that the BBC’s coverage would have been vitriolic in the extreme against Australia if an Australian had made a racist remark against an Indian team member.
Have a look at pounce’s 9:54 pm post. he knows what he’s talking about.
JR,
“where’s your evidence on Reynolds? Give one statement that he has made that betrays a personal political viewpoint or voting preference.”
This entire blog is devoted to describing BBC’s (biased) political viewpoints.
Mere asking of that question means that you choose to be blind, even if you don’t agree with most of the posters here, the evidence has been presented in plain site, time and time again.
Can you honestly say that you can’t tell that Paul Reynolds and Jeremy Bowen are not voting Tory?
If you need to waste your money on a private detective to find that out, please give some of it to me…
Still – if you need more, you seem to be good at searching the BBC news site.
For example, run a search for the words “so-called”.
Whatever is prefixed by those words is what the author is vehemently opposed to. That part is not rocket science.
Also, I know that my mother tongue is not English, but what kind of language is that? “so-called”?
JR,
In case you doubt it, I’m not Lou Dobbs’ fan, but you should watch him sometime.
“Dobbs: “Senator, do you find yourself being called, because of your views on this (issue), ‘xenophobic,’ ‘protectionist,’ because you have the audacity to suggest that the United States, the most powerful economy and nation on earth, should have a manufacturing base?”
Being a patriot on this side of the pond is NOT A SIN… not even in Canada. So why is this such a loaded question for you?
Do you think that all manufacturing should be moved to China?
Besides, you seem strangely pro-free-trade for someone working
in a government subsidized corporation?
Removing “protectionism” and letting the market do its course, would lead to an almost certain pink-slip for most of the people at the BBC.
So in a way Lou Dobbs is speaking for you, just like he is speaking for 50% of Americans without a degree or with a degree in a useless discipline (e.g. humanities) in terms of household income, that can only work in manufacturing.
The BBC often advertises heavily in poor areas to warn people of the consequences of failing to subscribe. Most of Salford is not that well off and I’ve noticed that the BBC spends quite a lot of money on billboards around there to warn people of the criminal record and fine that they can enjoy if they don’t want to pay the BBC for its products.
Why on earth does the BBC think it will be welcome in such an area? Don’t come. You are not wanted.