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.
Hamas! Hamas! Hamas!
Analysis: Hamas’s Gaza break-out
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7217020.stm
“They [Egypt] are under pressure from their own people to show solidarity with the long-suffering Palestinians of Gaza….”
I get it. Jews = agressors, Palestinians = long suffering victims.
“It is far from self-evident that Gaza’s borders can be secured – or an eventual peace deal struck – without the co-operation of Hamas.
Bruce Riedel believes that sooner or later Washington’s regional friends – Egypt, Mahmoud Abbas, even the Israelis – will reach this conclusion.
Whether the Bush administration does so is a more open question.”
That’s because Boosh is stoopid, right?
Hamas. Aren’t they just wonderful?
Would a more straight-forward reading of it not be simply that an average employee at the BBC is significantly more likely to vote Labour than Conservative?
I’d also point out that having that information in the public domain would have done the BBC no harm at all if it had not confirmed what a lot of people already thought was quite apparent.
Can you tell me why the new AL BEEB Arabic TV station needs a prayer room for Muslims? Surely any sensible Western broadcasting corporation would be much wiser to staff any such station with non-Muslims and apostates as part of a sound anti-Jihadist mission statement?
George R | 30.01.08 – 2:12 pm | #
If you think you’ve got a point I’m failing to see it. There is no prayer room and the article certainly doesn’t state there’s one specifically for muslims (and I don’t think there is).
So I’ll ask again. How is licence fee money paying for BBC Arabic?
Campbell attacks BBC’s Iraq stories
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hbJ6sLt2xxr2s0gYqusD6FO6t24w
“The BBC’s news coverage remains biased against positive stories about Iraq, Alastair Campbell has claimed.
Tony Blair’s former spin chief accused the corporation of a “cultural” preference for negative coverage of Iraq…
“Largely because of the events surrounding the Hutton inquiry, I think there is now an attitude in relation to coverage of Iraq that if… there are stories suggesting things are going quite well ‘let’s not cover them’.
“If there are stories suggesting it’s all terrible, they get on. It’s a cultural thing.”
Bias. It’s a cultural thing at the BBC.
I’d also point out that having that information in the public domain would have done the BBC no harm at all if it had not confirmed what a lot of people already thought was quite apparent.
Hugh | 30.01.08 – 3:01 pm | #
Possibly, but it is also a possibility that the natural tendancy of conservatives might be to be, er, conservative and that of the ‘very liberal’ to scream it from the rafters.
I am probably going to have a hard job of convincing you of that one though.
Ben
You don’t think there is a prayer room specifically for Muslims, at the new AL BEEB Arabic TV station. You don’t seem sure. Do you work for AL BEEB? Perhaps you could find out. I’m a mere licence-payer: I don’t know how AL BEEB spends licence-payers’ money. You’re dying to tell me.
ritter – good to see Campbell has “moved on” hoho.
“”I think the real poison does come from the Mail group,” he told peers.”
They’re all at it though.
Sarah-Jane:
JRSIHG
This is quite simple, one tries to one’s own political beliefs to one side. So just as I try to put my centre-right free-market beliefs to one side, so do others.
Sarah-Jane
Thanks for stepping into DG’s shoes.
If I understand correctly, your premise is that it’s OK for committed Labour activists to be recruited en masse into key BBC current affairs jobs – because they’ll put their beliefs aside.
Well, if they suceeded in that, we’d never know what their opinions were – so there’d be no reason for a blog like this would there?
Unfortunately the evidence that they don’t succeed turns up here on a daily basis.
Your own position is the other way round of course. By admitting that you have to supress your “free market” opinions – you’re confirming that the prevailing view amongst your colleagues is “anti free market” (ie. Marxist)- just as we all feared.
Your army analogy also fails miserably. The Army’s functions are fairly clearly established – to carry out their duties acording to the wishes of the sovreign expressed through parliament. Since we aren’t in South America and politcal coups are fortunately not on the menu – their political leanings are completely irrelevant.
Unlike the BBC who have a legal committment to impartiality in their charter.
Do try a little harder dear (if indeed you are such).
Sarah-Jane: “Possibly, but it is also a possibility that the natural tendancy of conservatives might be to be, er, conservative and that of the ‘very liberal’ to scream it from the rafters.”
There’s no doubt some truth in it. But it is also interesting that the majority of complaints about bias in the BBC accuse it of leaning to the left, and this is put down to a greater tendency among conservative viewers to come forward and complain. However, once they get on Question Time or Facebook, they suddenly become ‘shy Tories’.
You don’t think there is a prayer room specifically for Muslims, at the new AL BEEB Arabic TV station. You don’t seem sure. Do you work for AL BEEB? Perhaps you could find out. I’m a mere licence-payer: I don’t know how AL BEEB spends licence-payers’ money. You’re dying to tell me.
George R | 30.01.08 – 3:17 pm | #
You’re the one making the accusations, I’d have thought the onus would be on you to actually back them up. I think even the majority on here would be able to quite easily ascertain that the world service is funded by the foreign office. Why let the facts get in the way of a good rant against ‘AL BEEB’ though.
Your own position is the other way round of course. By admitting that you have to supress your “free market” opinions – you’re confirming that the prevailing view amongst your colleagues is “anti free market” (ie. Marxist)- just as we all feared.
You dont understand impartiality, or I suspect are pretending not to, to advance your case.
Neither ‘pro free-market’ nor ‘anti free-market’ is the impartial position.
The impartial position is ‘here are the arguments for free markets, here are the arguments against free markets – you decide’.
So just I suppress my favour for one side of the argument, so do those who might hold the oppossing view.
In my experience it is perfectly possible for intelligent people to do this, and they do so.
You clearly don’t think so. Hence your blog, which is quite a good read actually, and has a sense of humour which seems to be missing from some many of these things.
The BBC/No10/McKinsey/Ofcom revolving door is definitely worth digging around in, even if I am not convinced that it leads to biased programme output, there’s something not quite right about it. Particularly if the “jumped up Millbank oik” is after some of the license fee for the PSP (strangled before birth I believe).
first para in my post above is a quote from John Reith is spinning…
Ben
Are you economically associated with the BBC?
Oh, the trick you have up your sleeve is BBC World Service, as though it lives on a different broadcasting planet to just plain BBC.
What is the relationship between the two? It’s only symbiotic.When is a Bush House person a Broadcasting House person? etc.,etc. Of course, the BBC doesn’t like to be reminded of the closeness of the relationship because that undermines the BBC notion of ‘impartiality’.
Do you think that the BBC Arabic TV station, which of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the REAL BBC, will not end up being staffed by mainly Muslims and that there will be effectively a separate Muslim prayer room, not financed in this instance by Saudi Arabia, but by some organisation with the letters ‘BBC’ in the title? Anyway, it doesn’t matter to the REAL BBC because it has nothing to do with it.
I’m sorry but not suprised that you did not get my point suggesting that any Western broadcasting putting out an Arabic TV services should have an anti-Jihadist mission statement, and would be wiser to depend on apostates and non-Muslims in this regard, so that a prayer room would not be an issue.
Bryan:
In this case I thought the Beeb was doing a reasonable job in line with its charter obligations.
MattLondon | 30.01.08 – 9:31 am
How about in this one:
If your link took me to one of the comments to which you object I might express a view – and might agree with you (until recently most of my comments on this blog have supported the view that the BBC is biassed) but the link does not seem to take me to any of the comments
you are concerned about and I’m disclined to start a search of the 2,700 plus apparently listed.
And I might not agree – many comments recently have been so hysterical that I often find myself supporting the Beeb.
The BBC on inheritance tax
– clearly in favour of wealth redistribution.
IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO REDISTRIBUTE. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7217398.stm
Snow in Jerusalem:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7217429.stm
A rare weather event? Surely the Beeb should be blaming this on MMGW? Oh, its snow and thus cold and wet. No-one would believe that snow in the middle-east was caused by MMGW, so its just a rare weather event.
Imagine if the Beeb started describing flooding in Gloucestershire as a “rare weather event”?
Neither ‘pro free-market’ nor ‘anti free-market’ is the impartial position……..
Sarah-Jane | 30.01.08 – 3:42 pm | #
S-J
I think we’re getting to the meat of the matter now.
AFAIK the only people left hanging on to the “anti free-market” view are in Cuba and North Korea.
If you’re going to put your left hand boundary there – to be even handed, your right hand boundary would have to be as far right as, say, the Burmese junta.
But since even George Bush’s administration falls far to the right of what anyone at the BBC is prepared to accept as respectable opinion, it follows that your spectrum ranges roughly from Fidel Castro on the left to Hilary Clinton on the right.
In nother words, your “impartiality” nexus would be well to the left of Tony Blair, ie. somewhere in the “old” Labour Party – which is pretty much what all of us here believe.
JRSIHG
This is not entirely fair, but you are seeking to prove your hypothesis so I guess I should expect it. My comments here are being taken out of context and were for illustrative purposes only. It is purely a strawman.
The continuum in this country is one of ‘a bit more state intervention’ vs ‘a bit less state intervention’ – this would be a better and more accurate way of describing the axis of imparitality that would be present in eg an article on NHS funding.
MattLondon | 30.01.08 – 4:23 pm |
I agree Matt. The drones love it when people start making hysterical claims on here. It is like shooting fish in a barrel for them.
Also, have we not overdone the Middle East topic a bit? I know it illuminates important aspects of BBC thinking but it dominates almost every thread these days.
I want to see the Balen Report released but there are other topics that don’t get enough coverage.
An example: the amazing amount of lefty politics in BBC kids tv.
David Gregory….you asked for a question.Well here goes then.I had another in mind but after listening to the biased drivel on five live this morning I couldn’t resist.They were discussing the new Tory stop and search plans.Unbelievably they managed to find ‘Dave’,a serving policeman who stated that “we do not need them as CRIME IS FALLING and has been for years”.No Tory was interviewed until an hour later.Only then did they find a policeman that agreed with the plans.The Tory MP stated sarcastically “I’m glad you’ve finally found somebody who agrees with me”,at which the interviewer sneered”AND YOUR POINT IS?”Later the programme discussed the burden on maternity units.They interviewed an ‘immigrant’,a Norwegian woman who has worked over here for 5 years and a foreign sounding midwife who stated that in view of ‘Globalization’and the debt owed to the rest of the world by the British Empire,we had to accept this situation.Mr Gregory,do you feel these people were representative of the British public.I’m sure they could have found a newly arrived immigrant from eastern Europe or an exhausted maternity nurse.Your views?
“the debt owed to the rest of the world by the British Empire”
Ah yes, the sins of the father are the sins of the son.
Does that mean Germany still owes us a debt for two world wars?
al beeb is reporting on the israeli report into the labanon war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7218073.stm
al beeb say 1000 lebanese died “most of them civilians”.
also, 160 israelis died, ” most of them soldiers”.
GEDDIT!!
It’s like being bashed on the head with a mallet isn’t it? the subtext is israelis kill civilians and hezbollah kill soldiers.
while it may be perfect i think i trust wiki on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Casualties
where does the beeb figures come from – the hezbollah press office?
George R | 30.01.08 – 3:54 pm |
I’m sorry but not surprised that you did not get my point suggesting that any Western broadcasting putting out an Arabic TV services should have an anti-Jihadist mission statement, and would be wiser to depend on apostates and non-Muslims in this regard, so that a prayer room would not be an issue.
The BBC wouldn’t put it this way, but I will: The denizens of the Arab Muslim world are mostly xenophobic. And “the other” is nearly everybody. Even a different accent is a reason for suspicion. They believe in conspiracies and fairy stories (I am not referring to their religion; I’m talking about their beliefs about daily life, who really controls their destiny, vaccination is really a plan by the Jews to sterilize us, etc.).
There is no way that an audience like that would spend more than two seconds listening to an apostate, or even a Muslim woman without a head scarf, especially since it’s coming from the infidel West. They won’t trust anything that doesn’t appear to come from “good Muslims”. The BBC knows this, and will staff the station accordingly. Otherwise there is no point in even bothering.
The real question is: What kind of message is going to be sent via this fancy new multimedia facility? A similar editorial stance to the news reports they broadcast at the US, or maybe the rest of BBC World News? They’ll have to go even more anti-America and anti-Israel if they want to compete with their former co-workers at Al-Jazeera.
What is the BBC’s obsession with the American economy? Is it just a chance to bash George Bush one more time?
How about bashing the arseholes that run our economy and have made such a mess? Oh hang on a minute that would be Blair, Brown and Mr glove puppet Darling. Can’t knock them, they love the BBC and the BBC loves them.
George Bush is doing everything to stop the US economy from stalling, but what is Mr Bean doing about OUR economy BBC? Sod all. No tax cuts, no interest rate cuts, just nothing, except racking up taxes of course oh and bailing out a failed bank. What an utter mess Bean has made of that, yet the BBC just ignores it.
How about a road trip around the UK instead of one across America BBC? Perhaps because you might not like what you hear about Bean and glove puppet?
Oh and on the 6PM news in relation to the stop and search, our intrepid left wing BBC presenter went to Brixton to get some “informed” opinion on the Tory idea of getting rid of the daft form the plods have to fill out.
Er… except just what did the BBC ask? The people interviewed kept on going on about “no new powers for the Police..” What new powers? All Cameron said was get rid of the silly form.
Interestingly, the BBC muppet only gave us interviews with those that opposed the plan, yet at the end he mumbled that “many were in favour” so in which case why run interviews with people that opposed it?
Oh and why didn’t they ask any white people? We get stopped as well you know.
Frigging prats that work for the BBC. I’ve dropped better down the toilet pan in the morning.
MattLondon | 30.01.08 – 4:23 pm | #
You didn’t have to search far in Bryan’s link to the HYS thread to see how many of the anti-Israeli comments were based on lies. A characteristic of such hate filled diatribes is that they usually need to preface them with a list of *facts* that bear no relation to the truth. What is the good of this sort of thing dominating BBC messageboards and remaining unchallenged or unmoderated.
Rockall | 30.01.08 – 5:33 pm | #
“Also, have we not overdone the Middle East topic a bit? I know it illuminates important aspects of BBC thinking but it dominates almost every thread these days.”
The bias against Israel and in favour of Islam affects some people directly and is a matter for deep concern to those of us who fear the rise in anti-semitism that has crept into this country recently. The BBC distances itself from this and intransigently denies bias while the hatred and venom we see in forums, often from people based in the U.K., must come from somewhere. People latch on to these underlying trends with alacrity and they certainly aren’t going to bother to look up facts or research history. To some of us the Middle East topic is close to home and echoes the atmosphere of the 1930s.
…The continuum in this country is one of ‘a bit more state intervention’ vs ‘a bit less state intervention’ – this would be a better and more accurate way of describing the axis of imparitality that would be present in eg an article on NHS funding.
Sarah-Jane | 30.01.08 – 5:26 pm | #
S-J
It certainly wasn’t a strawman argument, it was a literal development of your own position – which you’re now frantically rowing back from.
That apart, your second proposition would be reasonable – except that I have never heard a BBC journalist propose “a little less state intervention”. The approach is always relentlessly from the other “more intervention” direction – that’s why it’s biased.
If it was as even handed as you’re suggesting there would be no motivation for any of us being here I’m sure we’ve all got better things to do.
Here’s one little example:-
As recently as 2006 BBC’s Head of Documentaries was one Alan Hayling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/lefties3.shtml
Documentaries are argueably the most powerful opinion influencing media and therefore one might expect a public broadcaster of the BBC’s stature to choose a paragon of impartialiaty for this role.
Alan Hayling was a revolutionary marxist in the 70’s whose “Big Flame” group allied itself with the Trotskyist “International Marxist Group” in 1978.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Flame_(political_group)
I rather doubt Alan would have been “a little less” or “a little more” man when he was commisioning BBC documentaries – he was a dedicated revolutionary with an MI5 file.
Your really couldn’t make it up – as they say.
“Are you economically associated with the BBC?” – Yes, I’d guess you are too.
“Oh, the trick you have up your sleeve is BBC World Service, as though it lives on a different broadcasting planet to just plain BBC..”
Ok I’ll remind you of what you said – “It’s official: BBC has OFFICIALLY gone Islamic, as unconsulted UK licence-payers finance the OFFICIALLY newly- named AL BEEB to set up a new ARABIC TV channel; but all the new AL BEEB’s Muslim converts and ‘multiculturalists’ haven’t quite got the hang of the Muslims full demands to be made of the licence-payers.”
That very much looks like you’re accusing the BBC of using licence fee money to set up an Arabic channel, which is complete nonsense. Sure, there’s obviously going to be a closeness between the World Service and larger BBC, but that’s a completely seperate argument (one which you’re now trying to manoeuvre it to).
The main issue is the funding, which comes from the government – there’s a good reason why they’re funded by different means (hence why the Mail omits this). Last time I checked we live in a democracy. I don’t see why people moan here about the licence fee if their gripe doesn’t even concern bias, but because it doesn’t conform with their views (their mates stopped asking them down the pub? ;)).
“I’m sorry but not suprised that you did not get my point suggesting that any Western broadcasting putting out an Arabic TV services should have an anti-Jihadist mission statement, and would be wiser to depend on apostates and non-Muslims in this regard, so that a prayer room would not be an issue.”
I guess it comes down to whether you think the majority of muslims are a threat or not.
“Does that mean Germany still owes us a debt for two world wars?”
I think we cancelled that when they let us win the World Cup….. 😎
Hannah, ‘one’ does not turn to the right when one gets old. Please speak for yourself, not for everyone else.
I still hold fundamentally the same political views I held many decades ago as a teenager, views I would describe as liberal (not the so-called ‘liberalism’ of Israel-bashing, Fascist-loving, airhead lunatic lefties – I am talking about genuine humanist liberalism). The one main difference is that I have learned, through experience, that one should not believe anything that Arab leaders promise during ‘negotiations’ or when talking to the media in the civilised world while moving their lips.
“Last time I checked we live in a democracy” – perhaps someone should inform Al Beeb of this. Their attitude towards their employers is one of total contempt. More like a feudal society, with Beeb as the lord of the manor and the rest of us as yeomen if we are lucky.
Ben
How are you “economically associated with the BBC”? You don’t specify.
You admit “there is obviously going to be a closeness between the World Service and the larger BBC”. In what repects, exactly? I sasy it’s symbiotic. How close is the relationship between the BBC and the BBC World Service in Broadcasting House, for example? Do you know something I don’t know?
Re- the BBC Arabic TV station, you avoid agreeing that it should have an explicit anti-Jihadist mission statement. (Do you think it shouldn’t have such a mission statement?)
David Preiser (USA) 7.08 pm has presented his thoughts on what sort of message the AL BEEB TV station is likely to send out, if it is not staffed predominantly by non-Muslims and apostates. As he says, it will be biased in a particular predictable direction.
The BBC, infant deaths in Kirklees west Yorkshire and half the story.
Hands up how many people has seen this BBC report hidden away?
Lifestyle blamed for baby deaths
Baby deaths in parts of the Kirklees area are more than double the national average because of poor lifestyle, a report has concluded.
The study in Dewsbury found 34% of mothers smoke right up to giving birth; 39% are obese or overweight and 46% of child-bearing age women binge-drink. Marriage between first-cousins is another factor, the inquiry found. Dr Judith Hooper, Kirklees Public Health Director, who headed the study, said she was shocked by its findings. She said: “These factors – along with much of the information gathered – point heavily towards malnutrition in the mothers before, during and after giving birth.” She said a new case of rickets – directly related to a mother’s lack of vitamin D – was diagnosed in the area every week.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/7217836.stm
The BBC reports on a Kirklees council report on 106 infant death in the region between 2002 and 2005. Notice how the BBC reports the following;
“The study in Dewsbury found 34% of mothers smoke right up to giving birth; 39% are obese or overweight and 46% of child-bearing age women binge-drink. Marriage between first-cousins is another factor. Nice percentages eh, so want to know the % figure for children who died because of inbreeding in the Pakistani community. 51% yes the highest figure yet the BBC adds it as an afterthought.
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/3217/image2gm1.jpg
Yes lets berate our fat slags for smoking and binging but point the finger at the habit of keeping it in the family and the BBC remains silent.
Now I pointed out Pakistani community , racist? Hardly as the report mentions it.
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/3410/image1oe4.jpg
As for the binge drinking here is what the report has to say on that subject;
Alcohol and drug consumption This aspect was poorly recorded, i.e. only 62% recorded.Of these, only 10 (15%) indicated that they consumed alcohol, the majority at a low level. One case was drinking to harmful levels and two cases had been taking heroin. So, overall neither alcohol nor drugs seem to be significant in infant deaths locally.
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/7525/image1oe6.jpg
Here is the conclusion from that report.
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/7868/image7ny8.jpg
The BBC, infant deaths in Kirklees west Yorkshire and half the story.
Oh and the link to that report;
http://www.kirklees-pct.nhs.uk/public-information/publications/infant-deaths-in-north-kirklees/
jeffD:
David Gregory….you asked for a question.Well here goes then.I had another in mind but after listening to the biased drivel……{sniiiiiip}….ived immigrant from eastern Europe or an exhausted maternity nurse.Your views?”
I see the problem here. As I’ve said before as Science & Environment Correspondent and because I’m posting in my name on a blog that’s anti my employer… well I tend to restrict myself to stuff I report on/have knowledge on. With one or two exceptions (defending Spooks, Torchwood and Birmingham usually)
As I’ve said before it’s not for me to defend all the BBC willy nilly. Other BBC staff are free to come on here of course. And I won’t critisise them in a place of public record. Its just rude. And there’s a chance I could get into trouble if we’re honest.
I am happy to have a private exchange of emails though if that explanation doesn’t satisfy you. david dot gregory at bbc dot co dot uk.
Can I just say finding a policeman to say that isn’t surprising. It’s pasted on the side of police cars in the Midlands. From what you say it sounds like all sides of the debate were covered, but as for “sneering”. Well for the most part I write everything here in a sort of Alvar Lidell manner, bow-tie on, rp the lot. And yet people often accuse me of being condescending and sneering. Honestly, I’m not. I would venture sneering is often in the mind of the listener.
As for the Midwife story. Well this was a BBC exclusive revealing the frankly shocking cost of babies born to immigrant mothers. Certainly an important story. I though the original report was a pretty textbook example of examining a complex (and possibly inflamatory) issue without bias. And yes, the NHS is kept going in some parts by staff from overseas. Ironic eh?
David Gregory: Perhaps the BBC should be asking WHY so many foreigners are needed in the NHS?
Why is it our own Doctors can’t find jobs in the NHS? Why is it that thousands of our own nurses have left the NHS and gone to work overseas or into different jobs?
Is that not the real story?
The BBC love-in with Apple continues with this sales pitch..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7217184.stm
Also, have we not overdone the Middle East topic a bit? I know it illuminates important aspects of BBC thinking but it dominates almost every thread these days.
An example: the amazing amount of lefty politics in BBC kids tv.
Rockall | 30.01.08 – 5:33 pm | #
One possible explanation for this is that message boards like this one are targetted by “battalions” of (often non-UK-resident) pro-Israeli commenters working in cohort to an agenda. That is NOT to say that there are UK-resident commentors here who work to their own agenda (although I think a lot of them were banned and now post elsewhere :)).
And obviously the Palis have their own pressure groups, and perhaps most annoying, the Trots and Stalinists are well organised but tend to email people direct rather than post.
9/11 Troofers also employ hit squad tactics as and when if anyone eg makes a programme suggested they are paranoid nutters.
A possible reason not many people here are interested in debate on eg the PC gone mad of Balamory or Me Too may be because the IDF’s media management wing don’t consider it a risk or a threat. Which is a pity, because even as a beeboid, I can imagine some of your concerns…
Above should be:
“That is NOT to say that there are no pro-Israeli UK-resident commentors here who work to their own agenda (although I think a lot of them were banned and now post elsewhere ).”
“One possible explanation for this is that message boards like this one are targetted by “battalions” of (often non-UK-resident) pro-Israeli commenters working in cohort to an agenda”
The only word that springs to mind is: DRIVEL.
“I would venture sneering is often in the mind of the listener” –
I would venture you have been brainwashed by too many years on Planet Beeb. The amount of sneering displayed by the BBC on a regular basis is clear to everyone who is not a beeboid. Paxman – an ‘erudite’ person in his own lunchtime, but in reality an ignoramus who can’t be bothered to do his homework *) – sneers regularly on Uni Challenge.
*) Peter Snow is another one.
The only word that springs to mind is: DRIVEL.
Nearly Oxfordian | 31.01.08 – 11:18 am | #
Thank you for your judgement great one, with a self-assessed IQ of 450 I guess one can safely assume you are speaking for yourself.
“Thank you for your judgement great one, with a self-assessed IQ of 450 I guess one can safely assume you are speaking for yourself” – 450, eh? Please do link us all to that bit.
You are the one who came up with the myth of a pro-Israel conspiracy, with nil evidence to back it up. You are perfect beeboid material.
from this very blog:
perdita:
Sue | 23.01.08 – 11:25 am
If David Gregory is right and BBC tv have just done a day live from Sderot, and it looks like JR has found a number of print stories too, your post seems rather badly timed.
My husband (who is pro-Israel and has family there) left a supporting message about a year ago on an Israel media monitoring web site. Soon after he was asked to join something called a ‘battalion’ and his battalion leader would constantly e-mail suggestions for him to write letters or leave posts on blogs and message boards. My husband eventually decided that he was no longer prepared to do this after being asked to say things that weren’t true. We still get e-mail newsletters listing the themes the battalion is supposed to raise and by coincidence a lot of them are topics that crop up on biased bbc, slightly adapted to look like criticism of bbc news items. I mention this because the latest order is to say the media aren’t covering the townspeople of Sderot.
perdita | 23.01.08 – 12:47 pm | #
they could be making it up of course, but as all the others do it, why would only one group miss the trick?
Nearly Oxfordian:
Stupid voters? Brainwashed by the tabloids? I suspect my IQ is three times higher than yours, and I have no idea what the tabloids say (you, on the other hand, do).
What an asshole.
Nearly Oxfordian | 31.01.08 – 9:03 am | #
I may not agree with much of what Laban writes, but he seems like a bright chap (like most of the people here) so I was guesstimating 150 then using your own factor.
Come on then – amaze us.
One possible explanation for this is that message boards like this one are targetted by “battalions” of (often non-UK-resident) pro-Israeli commenters working in cohort to an agenda….
Sarah-Jane | 31.01.08 – 11:10 am | #
S-J
You bend over backwards here (figuratively) to represent yourself as a reasonable middle-of-the-road character – but that comment has a whiff of hard left paranoia about it.
Speaking personally, I’m a boring, white, rural, Brit with no Israeli connections and not much interest in Middle Eastern affairs until the last few years.
Because I used to work in a hi-tech industry where Israeli technology was admired and respected I knew a bit about the country and came to the conclusion years ago that having a successful, stable, democratic, pluralist state in the region might act as a beacon and help introduce the concept of free democracy to its neighbours.
I was also impressed by the fact that Israel managed to defend itself against several unprovoked attacks by numerically far stronger forces.
It came as a complete surprise to me when “right thinking”, liberal left commentators started portraying Israel as some sort of Nazi military aggressor when all it seemed to be doing was protecting its people from vicious organised terrorism.
As a result I now feel quite vigorously pro-Israeli – but not for the sinister reasons you hint at.
Are you really so bigoted that you can’t understand that there might be lots of ordinary Brits who are just fed up with liberal “group-think”?
When I pop into my village pub, by the way, I guarantee that these sentiments are shared by a huge majority.
I’m sure that wouldn’t be the case in the BBC canteen – but there are a lot more village pubs than BBC canteens.
Perhaps you ought to think about reflecting the view of the majority – instead of dreaming up conspiracy theories about “battallions …working in cohort…”
Just for the record, the last post was me.
Different machine – forgot to log on.
JRSIHG – I said possibly, some, and I would not include you among them. I am very aware that there are fed-up license-fee payers and their concerns are of great interest to me, hence time here, and elsewhere.
But are you seriously telling me that groups do not attempt to steer the BBC’s coverage of issues to their own advantage? This is not hard left paranoia, as I said in my original post the groups who most get up peoples’ noses are the genuine hard left – it is a simple fact. Check out medialens to see how far up Gavin Esler’s nose they have managed to get.
Rockall’s point is very legitimate IMO if we are talking about eg a relative lack of coverage of rural affairs or overly PC kid’s programmes – I would think these are issues of far greater concern and relevance to your average Brit than a lot of what is discussed here.
I am merely offerring a possible explanation for some of it. And as I said there are pro-Israeli commentors who I think are completely genuine eg Biodegradeable.
Sarah-Jane: 11.07
“One possible explanation for this is that message boards like this one are targetted by “battalions” of (often non-UK-resident) pro-Israeli commenters working in cohort to an agenda. That is NOT to say that there are UK-resident commentors here who work to their own agenda (although I think a lot of them were banned and now post elsewhere ).”
With or without the extra ‘not,’ this argument is quite irrelevant. So what even if some people work together or consolidate into battalions? It’s more effective. Obviously you would find it easier if your pesky opponents remained in separate islands of ill-informed ineffectiveness. I have never belonged to any club association or pressure group, and am probably all the weaker for it. When I first looked at Middle East discussions I saw pro-Israel comments dismissed as ‘comments from Giyus people.’ Naturally I assumed this was a sinister extremist organisation. Then I found out it only meant Give Israel Your (united)Support.
Please tell me what is wrong with ‘working in cohort to an agenda’? It’s what you are doing right now.
The history of the Middle East and representation of events concerning Israel have become obscured by its detractors, so anything that helps arm these ‘battalions’ with retaliatory ammunition is good.
Calling people right wing, headbangers, battalions, non-residents, nutters is no excuse for dismissing their views, and I hardly think any bombardment could equal that of the BBC and its pernicious anti-Israel influence.
I have not been banned from any other message posts by the way or actually seen GIYUS or its website. But I’m working on it.
But are you seriously telling me that groups do not attempt to steer the BBC’s coverage of issues to their own advantage?……. Check out medialens to see how far up Gavin Esler’s nose they have managed to get.
S-J
I certainly agree on the first point – the problem is the group which succeeds in “steering the BBC’s coverage” is the hard left – and most of it is in-house.
I don’t know why you’ve introduced Medialens – they’re a looney-tunes extreme left group who would complain if Tony Benn was running the Beeb (this isn’t a suggestion by the way!).
On another subject – I saw this article today and for some reason the yellow framed pic (and caption) towards the end reminded me of you:-
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1713&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=e700fc90d6fbd73ec4937ab54ff037ae