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.
David Gregory (BBC):
John Reith spins in his grave: Weather. Single event……
Well, David, you’ll have to try a bit harder to spread the word around your colleagues.
Here’s a hilarious, and unfortunately quite typical, BBC piece about the proms – of all things:-
A musical drama about climate change, inspired by Hurricane Katrina, is to be performed at this year’s BBC Proms…..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6591849.stm
and believe me there are many, many more where that came from – but none of them quite as amusing.
“The Beeb is a powerful symbol of British culture at home” –
alas, unfortunately that much is true.
Nearly Oxfordian:
“Would you say hurricane Katrina was a weather or climate event?”
A single event can never be a ‘climate event’…… It is only the statistical distribution of hurricane incidence and magnitude that can be linked to climate change, Nearly Oxfordian | 31.01.08 – 9:15 pm | #
Quite so, but the BBC has endlessly used the single event of Katrina as evidence of climate change – often sneaked into the most unlikely scenarios (see above).
Of course, the actual statistical records for hurricane incidence and intensity over the last 50 years or so show no increasing trend in either.
In fact the peak intensity was in the 1950’s, as these graphs show:-
http://www.iso.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1034&Itemid=1155
Care to offer a scientific comment David G ?
Stephen Pollard is unimpressed with the BBC’s report of the Sharon Coleman case: http://www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard/479896/privatising-welfare.thtml
The web report also fails to look at the potential impact on business, but what caught my eye was the pull quote they’ve included next to the story from the Have Your Say they’re running on this: “To wish to continue to work and look after a disabled family member is commendable”.
Too true, I’d say, but the top readers’ recommended from the comments? – “Why should employers and other employees have to bear the brunt of others home responsibilities?”
As I argued on another thread, giving readers the opportunity to comment on a story would not seem to guarantee balance.
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7219097.stm
John Reith spins in his grave: Ohh, can I see links to the others?
As for this piece. Artists and composers have always been inspired by storms I can see them being attracted to this sort of idea. Music isn’t a paper in Nature of course, and being inspired by one event to go on to write music about a larger theme seems reasonable enough.
Your hurricane graph appears to stop in 1999 but even so as I said, I haven’t studied the North American Hurricane season in detail but linking intensity of the season to climate change is, I believe, contraversial.
Ben
Thanks for parroting more official BBC propaganda at me, and for quoting the pro-business, pro-EU ‘Economist’ at me, I realise that this is the best you can do.
50 years is still not a particularly long time. And hurricanes (and wind generally) are quite complex, and are further along in the chain of consequences. CO2 levels and mean temperatures have been measured reliably for a longer time, and are a rather more direct measure of atmospheric concentrations of gaseous effluents and warming, wouldn’t you agree?
Katrina may or may not be relevant. The BBC, in its simplistic way (how many of its policy-makers have scientific qualifications? No more than the House of Commons, I’d say, and both of these situations are a national scandal) has once again homed-in on a shiboleth (can you home in on a shiboleth? Never mind…) and is regurgitating the same old same old, as is its wont.
Once again: climate change is not an alibi term. It reflects the fact that global warming does not mean that we’ll never see snow again (although that’s difficult for many to grasp), so both are accurate albeit emphasising different aspects.
….And I might not agree – many comments recently have been so hysterical that I often find myself supporting the Beeb.
MattLondon | 30.01.08 – 4:23 pm
Yes, I see that my link goes to the first page of the HYS. Dunno how to link to the actual page, but here it is, five of sam’s little gems, the sublime flow of which was only interrupted by the contribution by david from tehran:
Added: Monday, 28 January, 2008, 06:35 GMT 06:35 UK
If Egypt does not re-seal its border, it is setting a dangerous precedent for the future (i.e. that it does not care if people from neighbouring countries breach its borders en-masse).
David Hazel, Fareham, United Kingdom
Got it David. The one allowed to enter Egypt “en-mass” is the Israeli Army. But hungry people in you opinion should be repelled. Not the Israel Army in 1954, and 1967.
Sam, usa
Added: Monday, 28 January, 2008, 06:23 GMT 06:23 UK
Since Israel left in 2005 it seems obvious that Gaza should go back to Egypt until the palesitinans are able to take care of themselves.
What am I missing?
Bryan, Port St Lucie
What you are missing Bryan is that Gaza when Israel occupied it was 4200sq km. Now it is 365 sq km. Is Israel willing to give all the land back to Egypt. If it is..I am confident that the Egyptians will take it. that land was Gaza’s means of survival. Israel stole it.
Sam, usa
Added: Monday, 28 January, 2008, 05:24 GMT 05:24 UK
Gaza should become part of Egypt, and Egypt be responsible for its energy, water needs, welfare and security. .The Palestinians have divided themselves, and others will take advantage of that.
John M Hickson, Victoria, canada
Sounds good if Israel gives the Gazans all their territory back. Originally was 4200sq km. now only 365 sq km.
Basically Egypt ain’t going to take them after Israel took their means of survival. Give them their lands back and there will be lots of takers for Gaza.
Sam, usa
Added: Monday, 28 January, 2008, 05:17 GMT 05:17 UK
i hate myself as can not do anything for gaza people,i am wondering why people and their goverment do nothing for Gaza people,do not forget that they are human too,they are like us even better because they live with nothing ,i wonder why the usa say nothing to israelies.
david, tehran
Added: Monday, 28 January, 2008, 05:02 GMT 05:02 UK
They move to the Middle East from Europe. Kill and evict the Palestinians. Then attack and beat and slaughter all their neighbors’ armies. Then build Settlements on the land while its owners living in refugee camps.
And they are upset because the Arabs Hate them. And they say they want to live in peace. Now you want peace. After you robbed the bank. Give up your loot first. But still you deserve punishment for what you have done. Then peace will come.
Sam, usa
Added: Monday, 28 January, 2008, 04:36 GMT 04:36 UK
Well so now Egypt is getting a taste of what Israel has suffered. They support the Palestinians, let them have the terrorists, they want them!
[recrec]
Egypt did not steal their land and put them in refugee camps.
Most of those people in Gaza their homes are Jaffa and Lud and Asklaan. Who pushed them in that corner, and yet chased them and built settlement in that tiny corner. And once forced to leave, want to be rewarded for getting out of the settlements. While still steeling their water.
Sam, usa
If you would like to read sam in all his original glory, he’s on page 9 of the forum:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&forumID=4131&start=120&tstart=0&edition=2&ttl=20080131221444#paginator
“Hysterical” or not, it’s unprecedented to have that number of comments on one page from one person. I think I can be forgiven for thinking that it had something to do with his point of view.
Ken Clarke is again the token Tory on Question Time? Tell me, is there some major european legislatin being sneaked through Parliament by any chance? Just a thought.
More thoughts on this morning’s 5 Live Breakfast show, if I may, that are not on the topic of the main post about the communist joke:
Are any UK citizens here a little put off by how much coverage of the US elections they have? Isn’t this supposed to be a “lighter” news show? Way too much time was spent on Giuliani dropping out. Everyone in the US got bored with him weeks ago. I wonder if it has anything to do with “the world’s” desire for Giuliani as the Republican candidate, according to Katty Kay? It looks like Mark Thompson has decided to ignore all those complaints about too much US election noise. They even had an overly lengthy and dramatic promo spot for some upcoming election spotlight programme. They are obsessed, aren’t they?
Worse was the segment on giving hand-held GPS devices to pygmies in Cameroon. This was just as much a promotional platform for a government program (in this case, the Foreign Office, but still payed for by the taxpayer) as MacAskill’s “article”. In fact, this is even more dishonest because they pretended it was all a BBC report. There is also some dishonesty from the reporter about the people in question. So it’s over to Fergal Keane, apparently deep in the jungle with the Baka.
Fergal very clearly describes a simple device with a child-like interface with symbols of a fish, a monkey, and a tree. He tells us that the pygmies could point the device at a tree, press the “tree” symbol, send that signal to a satellite, and use that in court to prevent logging. Somehow, in some court, somewhere, with someone footing the bill. Full of possibles, is Fergal, but as to any facts on the ground, he’s a bit vague. Anybody sensible would realize this is a very, very simple tool for a very, very simple people. Nothing wrong with that. Yet we are forced to pretend that they are just as modern and technologically savvy as anyone. It’s not racist to say that a group of people have not yet been industrialized, BBC. You don’t have to lie to everyone about it.
“What are they making of it?” asks Anna.
Dither, stammer, gosh they sure can hunt and gather, “what they are incredibly adept at is making these computers work for them.” What on earth does that mean, you may wonder? We aren’t told. Fergal continues to obfuscate, blathering that “we have images of pygmies that have come down from Tarzan movies”, and other nasty “propaganda” over the years, “but this is a very switched on community. Literally, now.” Are there giraffes in Cameroon? Someone is obviously having one.
We all have such a bigoted, condescending image of these people, he says. The presenter is not, perhaps, entirely convinced. She must have a bigoted, condescending image of pygmies due to all that racist propaganda shoved down her throat. “How…what…how do, uh, how have you been living?”
“Rough.” Dither, more evasive maneuvers. Those pygmies sure are better at jungle survival than I am, guv.
Anna even adds her support and approval for this government plan. “It sounds like it’s enabling aid.” Emphasis hers, not inferred by me.
The end result is that you don’t know what benefits, if any, the Baka have derived from this. You don’t know if they’ve done anything with their new capability. You sure as hell don’t know how much it costs, paid out of your pocket. You do know, however, that this will shortly be hooked directly into some British schools so your children can join in the fun. You do know that it’s doubleplus good.
The BBC can’t even come up with a reasonable plan to defend their world view without making it a clear bit of propaganda for a Foreign Office program, all costs going to the taxpayer. They can’t even do it without actually lying, for what seems to be an undetermined benefit. What a pathetic bit of hackery.
Usual lefty bias on Question Time…John Sessions = leftie luvvie Sean Woodward NuLab MP, Bonnie Greer leftie “commentator” Ken Clarke MP token leftie tory. The only one with any right wing credentials worth bothering about is Amanda Platel.
Plus loads of NuLab activists in the audience, of course.
Load of crap as ever.
Thanks for parroting more official BBC propaganda at me, and for quoting the pro-business, pro-EU ‘Economist’ at me, I realise that this is the best you can do.
George R | 31.01.08 – 10:21 pm | #
On the contrary, if this is your best response then it seems you’ve pretty much come to realise that your accusation was utterly kneejerk and based on no real facts. What this has to do with anything being ‘pro-business’ or ‘pro-eu’, can you enlighten me?
” Grimly Squeamish | 31.01.08 – 11:25 pm”
i note that the panel only talked about hilary and obama, with a bit of mccain.
typical leftie bollocks as per usual.
” Ben | 31.01.08 – 9:15 pm |”
but the world service is funded out of general taxation. and i see nothing wrong with having it – in fact, i’d like to cut back on the crap in the rest of the bbc and actually expand our propaganda efforts in the war against Isalmofascism.
but the rest of the bbc should be privatised and left to compete in the free market.
David Gregory:
“Ohh, can I see links to the others?”
Here you go David let me help you. Here’s the BBC doing their bit on extreme weather vs climate change:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/extreme_climate.shtml
Quote from that article:
“What is certain is that our climate has undergone major fluctuations in the past and will continue to show variations. There is no doubt that these changes will ultimately have an effect on the nature of extreme weather events and they will continue to be headline news well into the future.”
Here’s one on Weatherworld. Which sounds like BBC utopia, but is just an ad for a climate change theme park. The stuff of Beeboid wet dreams.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/articles/2006/11/13/weatherworld_feature.shtml
Quote: “The hi-tech, interactive complex would explain the world’s weather patterns and increase public awareness about climate change.”
Here’s a video report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm
Quote: “The UK could see extreme weather becoming more commonplace, a climate change report has said.”
The BBC scratch their heads as to why people don’t wear ties as much these days. Of course! Climate change!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/lincolnshire/content/articles/2006/08/22/tie_feature.shtml
Quote: “Is it down to the more relaxed dress sense we have or is it due to the warmer weather and climate change?”
Panorama report “What’s happening to the weather?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/1020277.stm
Quote: “The country may be getting back to normal after the floods, but the evidence is that there could be plenty more in store. Panorama investigates whether the last three weeks could just be a taster as the UK’s climate changes.”
Al Beeb predicting the warm weather we never have:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4382482.stm
QUOTE: “A spokesman said climate change was “a further complicating and increasingly important factor…accelerating the trend towards dryer, warmer weather in the South East”.
The bleak future as predicted by all the brainboxes at BBC weather center:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/
QUOTE: “Climate Change from the BBC Weather Centre aims to inform people about the potential changes in our weather in the coming 100 years. Have your say about climate change on our message board.”
Wet weather is of course the cause of climate change:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4579950.stm
QUOTE:- Britain could see a dramatic increase in food poisoning cases and waterborne disease as the warmer, wetter weather linked to climate change takes hold.
These are just a few of hundreds of reports from the BBC crowbarring climate change into any random report they can dredge up about weather.
You really aren’t doing your job properly at all are you Dr. Gregory?
Derek Conway vs. Lord Hoyle on al-Beeb:
Every report by al-Beeb concerning Derek Conway’s troubles takes care to note that he is a “Tory” or a “Conservative”. No one reading their multiple stories about him can be in any doubt about which party he was affiliated to.
In the case of Labour’s Lord Hoyle and his difficulties, do Biased-BBCers think that the BBC Views Online articles are:
1) Frequently mentioning Hoyle’s party ties in the same way they do for Conway?
2) Not mentioning Hoyle’s party ties at all?
3) Not even bothering to report Hoyle’s problems?
The People’s Front of Judea: Hang on! That’s not the same thing at all! I don’t have a problem with any of those quotes.
If you found one that said “Hurrican Katrina was caused by climate change” fair enough but a quote like this “The UK could see extreme weather becoming more commonplace, a climate change report has said.” is fine.
It’s not talking about an individual event, but a trend in changing weather patters that could be caused by climate change.
I’m not surprised you see problems everywhere if you don’t quite understand the concepts behind all this.
Ben
You quoting ‘The Economist’ at me solves nothing. BBC bias is pervasive and it has considerable vested interests. You apparently want to write about ‘The Economist’ not about detailed aspects of BBC political bias.
Sections of the BBC/BBC World Service/BBC Arabic TV have symbiotic, interlocking relationships. They physical inhabit some of the same buildings e.g. Broadcasting House, and by and large they are inclined to express a similar political line, e.g. anti-Israel. Whenever BBC staff members (ostensibly largely financed by licence-payers) train/ assist logistically/ administratively someone in the wider BBC organisation, then licence-payers’ money is being used to assist staff who are already supported by tax-payers. (Don’t talk to me about BBC ‘red lines’in this.)And BBC World Service has free access to the broader BBC.
In case anyone forgets what this is about:
“BBC blunder as bosses forget to build prayer room for new Arabic TV channel” (Daily Mail).
(I’ve heard of ‘West Wing’, but at Broadcasting House it’s the ‘East Wing’ which has been taken over by you-know-who. How’s the prayer room situation this Friday?)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=511159&in_page_id=1770
@David Gregory: Now you are just trying to squirm around a bit. The point is that any warm or extreme weather event mentioned by the BBC is linked, however tenuously, to pro-MMGW theories. Therefore any extreme COLD weather, or record levels of snow in the Alps during Davos for instance should be linked to anti-MMGW theories. To do otherwise is an example of bias. The reporting is continuously loaded in favour of MMGW theory.
If extreme cold weather occurs, the BBC will refuse to mention MMGW theory at all. It won’t describe it as a possible break in a supposed trend in global warming. And most of all it will refuse point blank to link it to the latest theories from Russian scientists that global warming is caused by variations in solar output which all planets in the solar system are experiencing and that this warming is about to come to an end with colder winters and more snow being the outcome. Goodness no, the BBC certainly wouldn’t want to admit that there are competing theories, with observations made and predictions forecast that are now being supported by extreme weather conditions. Best not go out and ask those pesky Russian scientists what they think about the cold and the snow eh?
Tell you what, David, it’s only a matter of time before the Beeb comes up with yet another story linking a weather event to MMGW theory. Now I know you wouldn’t want such stories appearing at the Beeb because they would misrepresent the facts, wouldn’t they? So when it happens one of us will surely point it out to you. Then I want you to write a letter to the BBC Trust and to the management of the BBC pointing out the error. You can write it on here and we will post it in for you.
Slightly O.T. to BBC (but in step with the discussion on many levels)
The Jerusalem Post (Saul Singer) reported on the speech of Dr. Bjorn Lomborg at the recent Herziliya Conference. Dr. Lomborg provided a list of issues in terms of return on money spent. THE TOP four ideas each had at least a 10-to-1 return on investment, landing them in the “very good” category. They are, in reverse benefit order: controlling malaria (for $13 billion, the 1 billion cases of malaria could be halved); eliminating trade barriers in rich countries (these cost poor countries billions); micronutrition (supplying vitamins to malnourished people would cost $12 billion and produce much larger benefits).
Finally, the big winner was money spent to prevent (not treat) HIV/AIDS, through educational programs and providing condoms. This paid off at a rate of 40 to 1, and would obviously save millions of lives.
Bottom of the list Climate Change. Instead of costing the world economy some $180 billion, as the Kyoto Protocol would, with minuscule (if any) net benefits, Lomborg advocates spending about $25 billion on research to bring down the cost of alternative energies, such as solar power. Such research could also reduce global dependence on oil, which would have great benefits for international security and prosperity.
I am not saying that not reporting this speech is evidence of BBC bias, Dr. Lomborg’s views have been reported, often. What is intriguing is that they apparently reported nothing on the conference. Just about everybody in Israel politics and academia made speeches on subjects as diverse as Israel’s national Security, Climate Change, Winograd, Law, Governance, and National Security, Energy Security and Policies ā¢ National and International Contexts, Arab-Israeli negotiations, radical Islam, nuclear proliferation, etc.
One would think someone at the BBC might have found this event worth their while to attend. Speeches in English or simultaneous translation. Jeremy Bowen might not have needed his fixer to understand – something.
More superficial, misleading Islamic propaganda on the BBC, last night, BBC4, in ‘The Art of Spain’ (Part 1).
The last enthusiastic line spoken by the writer-presenter of the programme, Andrew Graham-Dixon was:
“The culture of the Islamic world is part of all of our DNA”.
NO, IT ISN’T.
Such was Graham-Dixon’s over- the -top enthusiasm for what he saw as the wonderful achievements of the
the historic Islamic conquest of Andalucia and beyond (what Muslims call Al-Andalus) that he sounded almost apologetic to report the Christian re-conquest of Spain in the 15th century. And, of course, he omitted to mention the Islamic Jihad aim of reconquering ‘Al-Andalus’ today:
” A Fatwa in Spain”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=%7B715C1193-821F-47F0-8332-1FA10C86CEB6%7D
Ryan: No sorry, it’s you who are squirming. Show me something from the BBC where it directly says that a single weather event is caused by climate change.
A Country Called Europe is Flying Spacecraft
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7217726.stm
“The launch and docking windows for the ATV, Europe’s huge new space-station resupply ship, have been set.”
“ATV is the biggest, most sophisticated spacecraft Europe has attempted to fly.”
What do they mean by Europe? Do they mean the EU, E.S.A, Europe the continent, the Eurovision song contest definition of Europe that includes North Africa and Israel or do they mean a consortium of countries that happen to be in Europe?
BBC is always deliberately blurring the lines between the geographic and political meanings of Europe. Typical BBC bias.
I suppose it’s not much different to the way that they use the words ‘London’ and ‘Britain’ interchangeably, implying that London IS Britain.
ps The Beeboid who wrote that article identified himself as Jonathan Amos and even gives his email address at the bottom of the article. š
@David Gregory: No David, I’m not playing your obfuscation game. I’m not trawling through the Beeb website to find such stories. Maybe someone else here will. But I don’t need to because both you and I know that the Beeb will make exactly that connection, probably with some weather event this summer, just like it did with the flooding last year. I’m prepared to wait, bide my time. I don’t need to waste my time looking for the evidence – the evidence will come to me soon enough. And I won’t forget the challenge I have laid down to you.
Ryan; “I don’t need to waste my time looking for the evidence”
Really sums up B-BBC recently.
“Ryan; “I don’t need to waste my time looking for the evidence”
Really sums up B-BBC recently”
– typical Beeboid drivel, using a single instance from a single poster to tar the whole site and all its users. Pathetic garbage.
“typical Beeboid drivel”
You criticise DG for using a single instance to tar a group and then use… a single instance to tar a group.
And who says irony is dead, eh?
Nearly Oxfordian: Alright I was being a bit harsh. But really, surely this site is all about evidence otherwise it’s just a bunch of people having a whinge?
As for Climate Change, it is a contentious issue for many posters. Really interesting to have someone with your point of view on board.
“You criticise DG for using a single instance to tar a group and then use… a single instance to tar a group”
Nonsense. You don’t seem to understand the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning (ask the mathematical logician – was it Ryan? – to explain this to you; 3 prive lessons should do it).
“You quoting ‘The Economist’ at me solves nothing. BBC bias is pervasive and it has considerable vested interests. You apparently want to write about ‘The Economist’ not about detailed aspects of BBC political bias.”
That was just a final quote regarding its popularity and worth – you didn’t want to talk about bias, but the apparent misuse of licence fee funds. I still don’t see what your view on the Economist being ‘pro-business’ and ‘pro-eu’ has anything to do with the use of licence fee money for an arabic station. If you read the paper you’d know it certainly isn’t pro-BBC.
“Sections of the BBC/BBC World Service/BBC Arabic TV have symbiotic, interlocking relationships. They physical inhabit some of the same buildings e.g. Broadcasting House, and by and large they are inclined to express a similar political line, e.g. anti-Israel. Whenever BBC staff members (ostensibly largely financed by licence-payers) train/ assist logistically/ administratively someone in the wider BBC organisation, then licence-payers’ money is being used to assist staff who are already supported by tax-payers. (Don’t talk to me about BBC ‘red lines’in this.)And BBC World Service has free access to the broader BBC.”
Your licence fee argument is getting more tenuous by the minute in your attempts to salvage some kind of credibility. Besides, costs such as training, admin, logistics, overheads – none of these come from the licence fee anyway. If it didn’t get its FO grant, it would close. Simple.
“In case anyone forgets what this is about:”
Yes let’s not (and I’m sorry to everyone that I’m having to repeat myself, it was originally a pretty simple, obvious point) – “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.”
“BBC blunder as bosses forget to build prayer room for new Arabic TV channel” (Daily Mail).
This has actually been covered and shown to be non-story – if you look back I was disputing your above assertion. I haven’t really got the time or inclination to keep listening to your clutching at straws waffle.
Ben, repeating Ben.
You repeat your self-serving but untrue mantra about the BBC: ‘We’re impartial’. Meanwhile, Broadcasting House is partly taken over by the BBC Arabic TV channel staff, (a mere 200) in the East Wing, of course. And in time we may get feed back as to what message it is putting out to its mainly Islamic audience. Given this Government’s failure to grasp the threat of Islamic Jihad (illustrated by its use of Tariq Ramadan as adviser- google
him ) and the BBC’s ‘multicultural’ appeasement, I’m not optimistic. And, one way or another, I’m one of the millions of Brits paying for it.
Anyway, I’ve moved on to write about the Islamic propaganda of Part 1 of the BBC 4 series,’The Art of Spain’, see today, 11:14 am.
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.
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.
Sarah-Jane | 31.01.08 – 11:07 am
Maybe if I add my experience here to those of others it will finally pop this particularly bubble of the Reith/Thompson-Gunner/Sarah-Jane/David Gregory view of people who combat BBC anti-Israel bias here as being part of the Great Jewish Conspiracy.
Nobody, I repeat, nobody has ever suggested to me that I become part of such a conspiracy. The rubbish by perdita that Sarah-Jane pasted in is just that – rubbish.
And I comment on plenty of other issues here – the BBC’s virulent anti-Christian propaganda being one example.
Perhaps it’s a bit difficult for the pro-BBC crew to handle the fact that people defending Israel against the BBC here are from widely divergent backgrounds and have arrived on this site by any number of different avenues, the main thing in common being an intense dislike of the BBC’s anti-Israel propaganda. You can continue hinting at organised pressure groups here but it wont detract in the slightest from the validity of our individual observations.
Of course, it would be easier to discredit people on this site if it could be shown that we were all part of a pressure group with narrowly-defined agendas. It can’t be shown and we aren’t.
The BBC, on the other hand…
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.
Sue | 31.01.08 – 12:46 pm
People have suggested On HYS that recommendations of pro-Israel comments are engineered by GIYUS. I also haven’t seen the website.
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 Homepage | 31.01.08 – 12:50 pm
Sarah-Jane was quite impressed with Medialens a while back so I had a look at it and came to the same impression you’ve just outlined. Back then their very unimpressive website appeared to be falling into disuse – which was inevitable snce they were trying to identify an anti-lefty trend within the BBC. Sarah-Jane didn’t pursue the debate with me on Medialens.
“Ryan; “I don’t need to waste my time looking for the evidence”
Really sums up B-BBC recently.”
The point is that what evidence I would find on the BBC website would be that which was aimed at only a small part of the Beebs target audience and which had in any case already polluted public discussion. Why waste time trawling for old news? It is fresh news I would be interested in forcing you to write a letter of complaint about to the BBC management. If there is no such link made by anyone at the BBC then I would have nothing to complain about, would I? And MMGW would probably fade away in the public imagination, just as concern about the rainforests seemed to be a fad that rose and then faded away again. But it is inevitable that such a link will be made, just as it has been made many times before. And when it happens I will ask you to write that letter as a matter of honour.
So you see the point – forcing you to write a letter of complaint to your own management as a matter of honour with respect to a link made on a BBC programme between a weather event and MMGW would be much more powerful if it refers to fresh news, rather than stale news.
Ryan: “Forcing me” eh? Have you talked to anyone about these domination fantasies of yours?
What makes you think if I saw such a link I wouldn’t email the reporter and editor of the programme anyway? I’m sure the Trust would be delighted (if a bit bemused) to hear from me too.
As I said, you find an example I’ll sort it out. Not a question of honour so much as good journalism.
…forcing you to write a letter of complaint to your own management as a matter of honour with respect to a link made on a BBC programme between a weather event and MMGW would be much more powerful if it refers to fresh news, rather than stale news.
Ryan | 01.02.08 – 4:33 pm
The BBC Trust has been fiddling for months with some purportedly new look complaints framework and pretending to be interested in feedback from the public (I sent them detailed feedback with no response, not even automated) on the proposed framework. Here’s a small part of it:
Are the time limits for submitting and answering complaints appropriate? (You will see that we are proposing that the time limits for submitting complaints and taking them beyond stage 1 be shortened to 4 weeks. We think that this will make the complaints’ procedure more efficient and complaints will be responded to as soon after broadcast or publication as possible. Thus, an issue about which a complainant is dissatisfied and chooses to pursue beyond stage 1, would be addressed by a senior manager within the Executive and the Trust more swiftly than under present arrangements. Most complaints are submitted to the BBC within 4 weeks).
I can no longer link to that page or find the link on the main complaints website, which looks like it hasn’t been updated in ten years:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
So I assume they are no longer even trying to get a decents complaints system going. I also assume they will stick with the idea of a 4-week deadline for those complaints they actually bother to process.
Anyone who has a look at the BBC Trust’s juvenile handling of complaints and the justifications it comes up with for not upholding them
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/review_reports.shtml
will get an insight into the contempt with which the BBC treats the public.
Concern about the rainforests is not a ‘fad’, unless you mean on BBC programmes. Well, the beeb is fad-driven, sure, so that much is true. But the issue itself is suffering because there are simply so many of them, not enough time, people, money, … to tackle them all at once. This is not helped by ultra-stupid and venal governments, or by the general stupidity and venality of the human species (one well-known journalistic prat claimed recently that humans ‘discovering’ a new species of animal makes up for humans exterminating another species. Don’t you just despair sometimes at such evidence of human stupidity? I know I do.
I wouldn’t say I was impressed with MediaLens Bryan – just that maybe they are/were more effective in getting up people’s noses:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070926_i_fascist_robot.php
“But really, surely this site is all about evidence otherwise it’s just a bunch of people having a whinge?”
There are plenty of people posting plenty of evidence all the time, and you know that very well. Some of us don’t post links as much as we might, but I did spend some time yesterday trying to track down the Your Say bit with the anti-Israel comments by ‘Sam’ (I think that was the name given here). I failed to find the World Your Say bit, and I am by no means computer-illiterate. The BBC has hidden it somewhere difficult to find. You must have read such statements about disappearing links before.
I have said this before and will say so again: the BBC is a textbook example of an organisation that has grown vastly too large, vastly too powerful, is pathologically bloated and corrupt, has nothing but contempt for the public it was set up to serve, is institutionally incapable of seeing any of the above, and like all such organisations CANNOT BE REFORMED: it needs more than radical surgery, it needs to be broken up with some parts abolished and others possibly capable of being reformed as small units.
it needs more than radical surgery, it needs to be broken up with some parts abolished and others possibly capable of being reformed as small units.
Nearly Oxfordian | 01.02.08 – 5:12 pm | #
Ah – something we might agree on. I probably agree with the sentiment of that whole last para, if not expressing it in exactly the same words.
Which bits do you think are worth keeping?
Nearly Oxfordian | 01.02.08 – 5:12 pm,
The BBC hides things all the time. A favourite place to hide stuff they don’t don’t want you to see is under “Entertainment” as people here have discovered. But in this instance they didn’t hide sam, us – unfortunately it was my own lack of computer knowledge that led me to give the incorrect link. If you want to read sam’s five pearls of wisdom that the “pro-Israel” BBC could not resist posting on one page, go here:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=4131&edition=2&ttl=20080201174829
and click on no. 9 above the first comment.
David Gregory:
Just like a Beeboid to start shifting the goal posts when caught out. A chip off the John Reith block aren’t you.
You’re also being obtuse David. But please explain how else this comment from the BBC will be interpreted by the average reader:
“Britain could see a dramatic increase in food poisoning cases and waterborne disease as the warmer, wetter weather linked to climate change takes hold.”
Oh, so warm wet weather is because of climate change. This is what the BBC intends you to think and this is what it achieves. The fact that you fail to understand this explains why you fail to see all other types of bias to D.G.
The People’s Front of Judea: There are plenty of caveats there. It doesn’t say “caused by” it says “linked to”. News (and indeed drama come to think of it) always want to be based around a solid event. It just makes for a better narrative. (Alistair Cook was a master of this form of story telling)
Of course with climate change we’re talking about long term trends where this sort of approach isn’t so useful.
But this sort of sentence is just the sort I’d use if I was asked about the role climate change might be playing in the spread of Blue Tongue for example.
I won’t deny there is a continual friction between telling a complex story and the broad brush strokes of broadcast news. I do assume a certain level of sophistication of language and thought in our viewers though. Given your comments perhaps I should revise that.
David Gregory (BBC) | 02.02.08 – 10:40 am,
I’m baffled that you are still arguing this point. A number of people have presented evidence here over many moons of the BBC linking weather to climate change when it suits the narrative and ignoring the weather when it doesn’t.
It’s high time you stopped playing semantic games since in the context of the statement debated above and the BBC’s whole approach to the issue there is little or no difference between “linked to” and “caused by.”
David Gregory:
“I do assume a certain level of sophistication of language and thought in our viewers though. Given your comments perhaps I should revise that.”
Insulting as well as obtuse aren’t you David?
Unfortunately, a vast majority of Britain don’t try to make deductions from what they read, and you know that full well? Lesson 1 in journalism surely David – or did you fail to show up for that particular masterclass?
The purpose of that article was to make it clear of a link between global warming and wet weather. If it wasn’t then why mention global warming at
If all your intelligent readers are expected to discard such ‘padding’ in this report then why not fill it with all sorts of random nouns so your reader will have even more work to do to pass the time. Why focus on global warming?
David – get in touch with the real world mate – not everyone in the world is a middle class intellectual luvvie such as yourself. They don’t all sit around extracting their news reports to bits with a copy of Das Kapital in the other hand. They take in what they told – as well you know.
Using some kind of flattery upon the major population to win your pointless argument doesn’t work. I think the general populace is well aware what you Beeboids think of them.
“I do assume a certain level of sophistication of language and thought in our viewers though” –
for lawyerly weaselness this takes some beating (no offence to lawyers – some of my best friends etc š ).
First, the BBC are guilty of horrendously sloppy thinking and sloppy language, and then you try to blame the inaccurate conclusions your audience derives from the above on said audience’s lack of sophistication. Pathetic.
S.-J.: Phew!
I would retain drama. I would retain serious music (R4) and I suppose popular music, however much it pains me to say so. I would retain nature documentaries. I would axe all lifestyle programmes š
Oh, OK, let’s leave those (not even sure who makes them – is that considered light entertainment?).
Light entertainment – yes, let’s keep.
Brief news bulletins, yes.
Political commentary of all kinds – OUT. That belongs in North Korea. We have newspapers for that, and the BBC is simply incapable of grasping the distinction between news and propaganda. I wouldn’t have thought it’s all that hard to grasp, but there you have it. Or it’s the result of mental laziness, or corporate inertia, or corruption, or a combination of all of those. The end result is the same: we have the equivalent of Pravda, a state political organ, a throwback to the good old days of Russia ca. 1955 without the associated benefits š
Only true diversity of political commentary has a place in a modern democracy, and that can only be supplied by the marketplace, viz. newspapers.
Let’s keep sport also, and similar minority interests.
Thanks, Bryan. Of course, he is not the only mouth-foaming lunatic there by some stretch. Read the wisdom of Egglestone and weep.
The People’s Front of Judea, Bryan: Lets got over this slowly. Weather is not climate. Weather is the noise on the signal. That’s why you can’t (and the BBC shouldn’t) say “OOh it’s cold/hot this Summer/Winter in New York/Shropshire and that’s climate change in action.” Doesn’t work like that.
But you can look into the future and say, well what do we expect to happen to the weather as climate change continues. And that’s what all those links do. The classic shorthand is “here in Britain we expect warmer wetter winters”.