: 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
General BBC-related comment thread
Bookmark the permalink.
John Reith/Sarah-Jane: I wish I had just written “remind you of anything?”, which is what I meant – referring to the BBC rather than Marsh specifically. For what it’s worth, I thought Today moved leftwards after Liddle, but that’s hardly conclusive and it’s not what I had in mind. My only point was that in his piece he failed to acknowledge that the criticism of simply regurgitating Labour press releases is one made of the BBC, not just the papers. I have a hunch you won’t agree with that either, but I hope it clears me of mud slinging without any cause. After all, no matter how good you are as an editor I don’t suppose you get just get rid of Naughtie and ban Humphries from mentioning Iraq.
mick in the uk | 06.02.08 – 1:19 pm |
LOL – MPACUK is really trying to make Britain into a regular Islamic Republic where Zionists are behind everything bad that happens:
http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4372/35/
Note the last sentence: “If anyone does care for Britain, it’s MPACUK.”
Reminds me of a train that went off rails a few years ago in Iran. Of course their government blamed the Zionists. Such an easy way out.
How come noone thought of that one before – Oh, wait someone did think about it before, for example in 1348, in a hysteria following an outbreak of Black Plague, Jews were massacred in Chillon, Basle, Stuttgart, Ulm, Speyer, Dresden, Strasbourg, and Mainz.
Rather than spend my time writing examples of the bias I see and hear every day on the BBC and then defend them against the usual BBC attack dogs I thought I would share a thought that went through my mind when listening to a report on both BBC news (R4) and the Today program while driving to work.
“When I get to work I will check the internet for the full story”
A thought born through years of actual experience in listening to the BBC. When trust is gone…….one turns to several sources to compare, that’s when you know the BBC is bias. No defence can counter your own experience.
The BBC’s a confusing animal. It’s anti US Republican but pro Irish Republican. So much so it can’t bear to call IRA terrorists what they are.
http://tonysharp.blogspot.com/2008/02/terror-alert-issued-for-northern.html
Mick
Your irony was well judged – I was just dense.
D’oh!
Anyone else noticing a new theme from the BBC apologists that post here? It’s gone from:-
“We don’t always get it right”.
To
“You just don’t understand the way journalism works.”
I prefer the first excuse.
Anyone catch the grotesquely PC Jeremy Vine Show on Radio 2 today? Two guests discussing the reasons why women tend to be carers (psychotic, imperialist male behaviour, natch). One from the Scottish Socialist Party, the other from the Daily Mirror. And Jeremy whining witlessley like a dutiful drag-feminist (wasn’t he the ghuy who wore women’s clothes at some BBC junket?).
Balance? I guess I just don’t understand journalism, huh?
Understanding journalism 101 –
The art of –
Lying
Deceiving
Dishonesty
Moral corruption
Hypocrisy
Self serving
Incompetence
etc. etc. (my fingers are sore)
Yup, journalism is definitely beyond my ken – and I thank God, Allah, Buddha, Krishna and all the others for that simple fact.
I think this guy put it very well, nearly 150 years ago –
“I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumours and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast.”
William Tecumseh Sherman • 1820 • 1891 – American Civil War General
Regarding Jeremy Vine: Men who are sort of would be feminists and never stand up for their own gender are knows as “Manginas” for obvious reasons. The BBC is full of them.
I noticed that BBC five live ran yet another phone in this morning spinning a Government announcement. Yesterday it was Caroline Flint and her lies over booting layabout’s out of council houses.
Today it was banning under 18’s from drinking in public.
Oh and the one beofre that was the Winterton’s. Funnily enough, nophone in on Wendy Alexander or Peter Hain, or Harriet Harpie etc etc. Anyone notice a link there?
In the first case that’s total bollocks as McLabour will never do it and in the last case as several calelrs pointed out the police already have the powers to stop under 18’s from drinking.
Victoria Derbyshire even admitted that it was the BBC putting forward this idea!!!! So an admission then that the BBC spin for McLabour.
Anyone know what bad news McLabour has been sneeking out whislt the BBC has been leaving a nice smokescreen around.
John Reith | 06.02.08 – 10:21 am
You should have spent more time watching the election coverage on the World News, and from You-Know-Who.
We’ve done the bit about why the Dem scene is slightly more interesting as a “story to tell”. I get it, have no problem with the Dems getting a majority of coverage. But it should be a “simple” majority, not a two-thirds majority, which is what we get.
But let me step back from that for a moment. Consider how it must seem to many of us: A foreign broadcasting organization, which is the official national broadcaster of a foreign country (allied or not), paid for by the taxpayers (license fee and all the other gov’t funding, i.e. the FO), is attempting to do comprehensive coverage and analysis of the US election process. Justin Webb has said very clearly that the intent is to give a “foreign viewpoint” on the proceedings, and US news in general.
The arrogance of that alone is enough to give any viewer pause. But it gets worse. These BBC correspondents have been hanging around the US for years now, and are just so confident that they understand us, know what the scene is, have a good grasp on who we are. Yet even after several years of “reporting”, all of them are constantly way, way off. Occasionally they are able to comprehend an analysis piece in The Nation, or the Washington Post, at which point the viewer will get a reasonable regurgitation. One even gets the sense that they understood what they were saying.
Yet when it comes to discussing what’s really going on in the country, trying to comment on the “hearts and minds” issues, they swan in with their own preconceived notions every time. We hear the BBC opinion of what’s going on, and what we need. We hear guessing games about what Americans actually want, but they only approve of certain viewpoints, and say so.
Even though we have also done the bit about why the Dem race is ssoooooo important to the BBC, I think it’s important to bring up the following reasons here (I’m not inferring these at all – I am repeating opinions stated by BBC presenters at various times):
1. The next president absolutely must be a Democrat, for the usual reasons of ending 8 years of an evil administration which has ruined the country, the world hates us, etc.
2. The identity politics issues are just too delicious. The racial issue plays right into the BBC’s opinion that America is too racist to elect a black man. The gender issue is also a big one, since most Americans are conservatives who think women can’t be leaders, etc. In this case, though, race trumps gender, since the former is higher on the victim scale. In either case, it’s a huge deal to the BBC, so the Dem scene is more interesting than those white men. They have at least admitted that much.
3. The Beeboids responsible for all this coverage are so blind in their Leftoid love that they just cannot see what an important statement is going to be made by the Republican party in the current primaries. If pressed, they will admit there’s something going on, but they have been unable to get past their pet peeves such as religion and abortion. They are blinded by their prejudices, and cannot see what a major statement is being made about the country when McCain has the best chance he’s ever had at becoming the Republican nominee. No, they’re still stuck on effin’ Reagan. They watch a couple of Fox News talking heads and decide that’s really what all those silly caveman-conservative white men are dreaming about. And, by extension, that’s what the majority of non-Liberal Americans want, too. Their prejudices are that entrenched. So the Republican race is by default less interesting to them. Which means it must be less interesting to everyone else.
These people are in charge of all the reporting seen in the US, the UK, and everywhere else. They really don’t realize what they’re doing or why they’re doing it, but most people can see it for themselves.
“We’ve done the bit about why the Dem scene is slightly more interesting as a “story to tell”.
We’ve had the bit about the Republican scene being a more interesting “story to tell” today, too, as McCain has emerged as the clear front runner. On the bulletins I’ve seen and the news stories on the web, it’s the Republican story that’s leading the agenda.
David, what you seem to be exhibiting in recent posts is the inverse of the ‘cultural imperialism’ complaint that we hear in Europe from the French (mainly) and the homegrown left (occasionally).
We too have to put up with quite a lot of punditry on our own affairs from US observers • covering a range from Michael Moore to PJ O’Rourke. And sure, sometimes some of us think they get the Brits wrong from time to time. We live with it.
A number of our influential newspapers are owned by a NY-based former Australian., now a US citizen. He also owns a big chunk of Sky and of Channel 5. We don’t regard him as an agent of a ‘foreign power’ • just as an entrepreneur who’s built a global media empire.
The BBC is also trying to establish itself as a global media corporation. Nothing sinister in that.
JR:
“We too have to put up with quite a lot of punditry on our own affairs from US observers • covering a range from”….
Yes but we’re not forced to pay for…. etc. etc.
Looks like moral maze might be worth a listen tonight – about being careful about the language used when talking about terrorism and muslims.
The BBC, its leftist deafest stance and the Afghan war?
UK-US talks on Afghan war support
The meeting with Ms Rice comes at a crucial moment.The US secretary of state is meeting the prime minister in London to bolster support for the Afghanistan war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7229634.stm
There’s a war on in Afghanistan? Really, and I was of the opinion it was a counter insurgency problem .
The Guardian calls it a mission;
“The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, today called on Nato countries to “share the burden” in Afghanistan as America stepped up the pressure on European allies to contribute more troops to the troubled mission.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2253341,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12
The Washington Post calls them guerrillas.
“The United States and Britain called on reluctant NATO allies on Wednesday to share the burden of combat against hardline Taliban guerrillas.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020601496.html
But lets say as the BBC promote that there is a war in Afganistan. That would that make the Taliban the enemy, and if the Taliban are the enemy why does the BBC have no problem interviewing them? I mean would they have interviewed Adolph Hitler during WW2,
“The BBC received a phone call from a certain Adolf Hilter who says that the Allied bombing in Germany was not as the allies say a military target but rather a baby milk factory” Air Marshal Harris wasn’t available for comment, but Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty condemned this latest bombing saying that once again the dictators Churchill and Roosevelt should be arrested and sent to the Human rights court based in Berlin.
What a load of tosh by the BBC which once again promotes negative and incorrect information in order to get the troops out of Afghanistan and allow the Taliban back in.
The BBC, its leftist deafest stance and the Afghan war?
The BBC, its leftist deafest stance and the Afghan war?
UK-US talks on Afghan war support
The meeting with Ms Rice comes at a crucial moment.The US secretary of state is meeting the prime minister in London to bolster support for the Afghanistan war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7229634.stm
There’s a war on in Afghanistan? Really, and I was of the opinion it was a counter insurgency problem .
The Guardian calls it a mission;
“The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, today called on Nato countries to “share the burden” in Afghanistan as America stepped up the pressure on European allies to contribute more troops to the troubled mission.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2253341,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12
The Washington Post calls them guerrillas.
“The United States and Britain called on reluctant NATO allies on Wednesday to share the burden of combat against hardline Taliban guerrillas.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020601496.html
But lets say as the BBC promote that there is a war in Afganistan. That would that make the Taliban the enemy, and if the Taliban are the enemy why does the BBC have no problem interviewing them? I mean would they have interviewed Adolph Hitler during WW2,
“The BBC received a phone call from a certain Adolf Hilter who says that the Allied bombing in Germany was not as the allies say a military target but rather a baby milk factory” Air Marshal Harris wasn’t available for comment, but Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty condemned this latest bombing saying that once again the dictators Churchill and Roosevelt should be arrested and sent to the Human rights court based in Berlin.
What a load of tosh by the BBC which once again promotes negative and incorrect information in order to get the troops out of Afghanistan and allow the Taliban back in.
The BBC, its leftist deafest stance and the Afghan war?
John Reith | 06.02.08 – 5:14 pm |
David, what you seem to be exhibiting in recent posts is the inverse of the ‘cultural imperialism’ complaint that we hear in Europe from the French (mainly) and the homegrown left (occasionally).
Okay, I see what you mean there. But that’s not entirely the case. Why should an American audience value a foreign opinion on our elections? Why should a viewpoint have automatic validity simply because it is foreign? They way they say it, it seems like cultural superiority.
We too have to put up with quite a lot of punditry on our own affairs from US observers • covering a range from Michael Moore to PJ O’Rourke. And sure, sometimes some of us think they get the Brits wrong from time to time. We live with it.
A number of our influential newspapers are owned by a NY-based former Australian., now a US citizen. He also owns a big chunk of Sky and of Channel 5. We don’t regard him as an agent of a ‘foreign power’ • just as an entrepreneur who’s built a global media empire.
None of whom are part of an organization that is intrinsically linked to a foreign government. The talking heads you mention (and their ilk) don’t even do “news reports” at all, and whatever they do is certainly not part of a news broadcast from the official broadcaster of any nation. There is a huge, huge difference. Murdoch owns Fox News and a bunch of other stuff here in the US, and I don’t complain the same way because he is not a government organization. He gets no funding from anyone’s taxes. His various media organs are not produced with an Australian voice and a specific Australian point of view. And most importantly, he is not the official broadcaster or news agency for any country (even if he thinks he is sometimes).
The BBC is also trying to establish itself as a global media corporation. Nothing sinister in that.
Fair enough – except not when it is the official broadcaster of another country, paid for by taxation of its citizens.
Can’t seem to find this anywhere on the BBC news website…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nislam403.xml
Perhaps just incompetence, but also indicative of their thinking?
From http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/02/its_a_bird_its_a_plane_its_sup.cfm via
http://debatableland.typepad.com/the_debatable_land/2008/02/athens-to-their.html and
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/
9:10 : Katty Kay (yes, that’s really her name), a BBC anchor, pronounced Hillary Clinton the victor in Tennessee: this was especially notable, says Katty, because Al Gore lost the state in 2000, so it was a relief to see a Democrat finally win. You know, in a Democratic primary, that’s probably going to happen. Pretty much every time.
People are noticing!
Tomski: Of course not. The BBC don’t report “bad Moozlum” stories.
“The BBC is also trying to establish itself as a global media corporation. Nothing sinister in that.”
Actually that is very sinister. It’s being done with MY TAX money taken from me under threat of a fine or imprisonment.
The function of the BBC is to produce high quality televsion and radio for the people that pay its wages.
If the backside wipes that run the BBC want to be the next Google or Mickeysoft, they can do it without money extorted from the people of Britain.
John Reith: Murdoch owns a big chunk of Channel 5 does he? Since when? I thought RTL owned Channel 5.
Can you be more specific please?
Channel 5 sources it’s news from Sky as do many commercial radio stations. Is that what you mean?
ZZ | 06.02.08 – 7:31 pm |
9:10 : Katty Kay (yes, that’s really her name), a BBC anchor, pronounced Hillary Clinton the victor in Tennessee: this was especially notable, says Katty, because Al Gore lost the state in 2000, so it was a relief to see a Democrat finally win. You know, in a Democratic primary, that’s probably going to happen. Pretty much every time.
People are noticing!
Good catch! And Katty is far from being a very, very young person being paid very, very low wages who has yet to go through the proper BBC training courses.
I suggest that you all go and get a copy of Private Eye this week. There is an excellent update / story in the Media news section on the Newsnight crusade against the Policy Exchange think tank. Good critical writing really nailing the hypocrisy of the BBC
“the evidence that the Policy Exchange was basically right about the extremist literature available is overwhelming”
Don’t expect any retractions from the BBC soon or any expression of regret for the “Rushdie-isation” of the brave researchers whose lives are now under apparently threat.
I suspect the writers of the Eye have been reading this blog – they print a new (BBC ?) definition of “Jihad” – “need for greater understanding of different faiths”
The BBC is also trying to establish itself as a global media corporation. Nothing sinister in that.
John Reith | 06.02.08 – 5:14 pm | #
JR – I’m sure many of us think it’s extremely sinister.
Why on earth would a national public service broadcaster feel it had any right to use its confiscated revenue to expand its influence abroad?
It’s the sort of thing Voice of America and Radio Moscow did in the cold war – but in their case aimed at an idealogical enemy.
Does the BBC think its narrow, bigoted, 60’s student radical beliefs should take over the world?
When “Atlas Shrugged” used to rant on here that you were all fascists, I thought he was OTT – now I’m not so sure.
Two cases of beeboid hatred for capitalism and the wealth creating cheap food and drink it produces.
1. (D)HYS quote on the main BBC UK page, about restricting alcahol to under-18s),is:
Why not target the companies who are producing cheap alcohol?
Rob Bell, Edinburgh
Zero recommendations. Only another 549 published comments to choose from but almost all slag off the government, doubleplusungood.
2. The most read current news story is:
Anger over £1.99 Tesco chickens
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7230959.stm
Animal welfare and farming groups have criticised…
Why is this story framed as another anti-capitalist rant? Why not just title the story “£1.99 Tesco Chickens”?
Where are the counterpoints from anti-poverty charities, children rights groups and Tesco consumers greeting this news with joy?
How the frack is this story in the business section, nevermind the no.2 story in the business section? If I’m looking for business news I don’t give a damn about the “Poor Locomotion” of chickens!
I can spell alcohol, honest, hic.
John Reith:
We too have to put up with quite a lot of punditry on our own affairs from US observers • covering a range from Michael Moore to PJ O’Rourke
Hold on a second there, the BBC didn’t “put up with” Michael Moore punditry it bankrolled him through the 90s with the production of “TV Nation” and “The Awful Truth”!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/britistanis/pip/btpxt/
pounce | 06.02.08 – 9:31 pm |
Britistanis?
Lol if I used that word on my local newspaper forum I would be banned.
Video of kids training to be militants in the ‘sectarian killing fields’ of Iraq, shown on this BBC link?
Heads will roll.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7230000/newsid_7231700/7231788.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1&bbcws=1
Sarah-Jane | 06.02.08 – 11:17 am
Well, whatever anyone does or doesn’t say about Kevin Marsh, the man can’t write. Ever tried to read his articles on The Editors blog, for example? And he’s teaching others how to be journalists?
Aren’t any of you lot at all concerned about the plunging standards at the BBC?
I don’t know if this exactly qualifies as bias, and maybe I’m merely misperceiving things, but listening to Clare In The Community on R4 today I wondered whether Sally Phillips (who plays Clare) had based her character on Melanie Phillips.
Does any one else detect similarities?
Mick in the Uk wrote;
“Britistanis? Lol if I used that word on my local newspaper forum I would be banned.”
Tonight at the Chinese I congratulated the owner with “Happy New Year” Well actually I said “Kung Hei Fat Choi” and we started chatting about the town. He mentioned that he’s started to see gangs of youths going by who have started to racially abuse him. This he said he saw a lot in the 70s, but in the 80s life in the Uk got better and the 90s was a dream. However of late he has noticed a very nasty trend of xenophobia from the young of today. He doesn’t understand where it has sprung from, but mentioned that he doesn’t feel safe in the UK anymore.
I’ve noticed it too. But as I’m young looking and some what fit idiots don’t mess as they presume that I’m not somebody to mess with. (the short hair helps) But I wonder if the lefty attitude of the 90s and today which excused non British behaviour which we would object to, why curtaining any objections on our behalf as racist has helped.
A girl friend and I went out shopping one day in Yorkshire during the 90s and we saw a Blackboard for her son. I asked how much the Blackboard was and the woman correct me by saying “Chalkboard” When I quoted it again, she asked if I was from the council and if she repeated what I had said, she could lose her licence.
I find that this type of political straitjacket which is used in which to stifle freespeech in this country the main reason behind the polarising of the British public against those who are non white. But what has made it worse is the rules that silence the any debate on subjects which may offend non-whites are not recipitated when it comes to allowing non whites from berating whites. This politically correct campaign which started out in the very best of interests in which to make us all equal has resulted in dividing the people of Britain even more. The BBC is the major media outlet in the Uk. If anybody is guilty of polerizing the UK they are. The fact that they can promote the use of a word such as Britistanis and feel they have done nothing wrong just shows how the idiots at the BBC just do not live in the real world. Lets be serious here the BBC has no problem referring to ‘Paki’ as a term of abuse. But the term ‘ Britistanis isn’t. I for one find it offensive.
And people wonder why race relations are going down the pan in the Uk. Who needs terrorists acts on the underground in which to poleriase the British publish , when you have the BBC willing to defend Hamas, Hezb-allah and the Taliban as righteous and promote the image that the British police, army and general white population are racist scum.
The left (And I include the BBC) are the bigger danger to the Uk.
Mick in the Uk wrote;
“Britistanis? Lol if I used that word on my local newspaper forum I would be banned.”
Tonight at the Chinese I congratulated the owner with “Happy New Year” Well actually I said “Kung Hei Fat Choi” and we started chatting about the town. He mentioned that he’s started to see gangs of youths going by who have started to racially abuse him. This he said he saw a lot in the 70s, but in the 80s life in the Uk got better and the 90s was a dream. However of late he has noticed a very nasty trend of xenophobia from the young of today. He doesn’t understand where it has sprung from, but mentioned that he doesn’t feel safe in the UK anymore.
I’ve noticed it too. But as I’m young looking and some what fit idiots don’t mess as they presume that I’m not somebody to mess with. (The short hair helps) But I wonder if the lefty attitude of the 90s and today which excused non British behaviour which we would object to, while curtaining any objections on our behalf as racist has helped.
A girl friend and I went out shopping one day in Yorkshire during the 90s and we saw a Blackboard for her son. I asked how much the Blackboard was and the woman corrected me by saying “Chalkboard” When I quoted it again, she asked if I was from the council and if she repeated what I had said, she could lose her licence.
I find that this type of political straitjacket which is used in which to stifle freespeech in this country the main reason behind the polarising of the British public against those who are non white. But what has made it worse is the rules that silence any debate on subjects which may offend non-whites are not recipitated when it comes to allowing non whites from berating whites. This politically correct campaign which started out in the very best of interests in which to make us all equal has resulted in dividing the people of Britain even more. The BBC is the major media outlet in the Uk. If anybody is guilty of polarising the UK they are. The fact that they can promote the use of a word such as Britistanis and feel they have done nothing wrong just shows how the idiots at the BBC just do not live in the real world. Lets be serious here the BBC has no problem referring to ‘Paki’ as a term of abuse. But the term ‘ Britistanis isn’t. I for one find it offensive.
And people wonder why race relations are going down the pan in the Uk. Who needs terrorists acts on the underground in which to polarise the British public, when you have the BBC willing to defend Hamas, Hezb-allah and the Taliban as righteous and promote the image that the British police, army and general white population are racist scum.
The left (And I include the BBC) are the bigger danger to the Uk.
“The BBC is also trying to establish itself as a global media corporation. Nothing sinister in that.”
About time the shareholders got paid a dividend then.
The BBC, its so called defence experts and half the story.
Q&A: Isaf troops in Afghanistan
The majority of foreign troops in Afghanistan are under the command of the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf).
………….
ISAF is being backed by 28,600 troops of the Afghan National Army and 30,200 Afghan policemen, who are described by the British Ministry of Defence as “fully equipped and trained”.
………….
Isaf has access to a wide range of weaponry from tanks and armoured personnel carriers to air support from the US and British air forces.
But military analysts say that it can be difficult to use this weaponry effectively because clashes with the Taleban tend to take place in remote and inhospitable areas where much of the fighting is at close quarters.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7228649.stm
1) Taken from the ISAF website
“Through the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) NATO is assisting the Afghan Government in extending and exercising its authority and influence across the country, creating the conditions for stabilisation and reconstruction.”
http://www.nato.int/issues/isaf/index.html
In other words BBC ISAF backs the Afghan government and not the otherway round.
2) Only American and British air assets? The BBC omits the 8 Dutch AH64D (Apache gunships) The3 French Rafle and 3 Mirage 2000-D jets, The 6 German Tornados and the 18 F16s provided by Denmark, Holland and Norway.
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/defense.asp
3) Can’t use weapons effectively..Maybe the BBC should look up the deployment of the GMLRS and see how that weapon system has really got the jundies frightened.
“”Guided MLRS has revolutionized the the role of field artillery into the urban fight,” said Col. Gary Kinne, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Capability Manager for Rocket and Missile Systems, Fort Sill, Oklahoma. “We can now take a rocket , shoot it up to 70 kilometers, and put it precisely on a target while reducing collateral damage. We are able to employ this munition in relatively close proximity to where we are operating,”
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1091
In a nut shell adding a GPS unit to a modified MLRS gives the user the capability to hit a target from 70 Kms with an accuracy of 10 metres.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mlrs-g.htm
Lets not forget the Dutch use of their PzH 2000
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pzh2000/
How much do they pay these so called BBC defence experts?
The BBC, its so called defence experts and half the story.
Anybody, but anybody, with a fashionable liberal-left cause can now hijack BBC news programmes. Or so it seems.
This morning, it was the turn on the R4 Today programme of the ‘singer’ Jane Birkin, whose only claim to fame is her 1960s single Je t’aime. As the piece conclusively proved, she is otherwise totally talentless, totally boring and totally unremarkable.
Her only claim to fame is that she’s a camapigner for human rights in Burma.
No doubt a worthy cause. But did her support for it really merit five minutes of the most turgid airtime I have ever endured as the hapless reporter churned through her pointless life and career? I don’t think so. I lost the will to live about half way through.
The Today programme: the BBC’s flagship three hours of turgid agitprop.
Here’s the “editor” of the BBC “College of Journalism”:
7. At 07:26 PM on 05 Feb 2008, Kevin Marsh wrote:
Actually … I don’t exempt broadcasters from some of Nick Davies’ condemnation … but let’s be realistic here: there’s the world of difference between the kind of thing you’re talking about (James Reed) and the “moral bankruptcy” (to use Nick D’s own phrase) of the 300+ journalists who, according to the information commissioner, were involved in snooping just as illegal as Clive Goodman.
Believe it or not, James (2) I don’t agree with the oft-quoted Andrew Marr line – Andrew is entitled to his opinion … but I think he’s wrong.
I’ve been a BBC Editor for twenty five years and I just don’t recognise the groupthink/liberal monoculture line. I’ve seen and fought against many examples of ‘groupthink’ in that time … but not the soft-liberal mindset the BBC is lazily accused of. For what it’s worth, I’ve never come across anyone trying to use the BBC as a “megaphone and lever for social change” … unless you count the couple of committed Euroscptics who used to work for me years ago. Though even they tried hard to leave their personal beliefs at the door … as you argue (rightly) they should.
Far more frequent and far more corrosive is the very thing Nick Davies warns about … the journalist herd piling into a story without asking “is this true?”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/02/journalism_not_churnalism.html#commentsanchor
Ain’t no hope.
Some interesting comments from the long-suffering public, though.
BBC: Israeli’s kill Hamas “members” (administrative members perhaps of their “military wing”?)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7232108.stm
Elsewhere: Ah, no – they were “gunmen”:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080207/wl_nm/palestinians_israel_violence_dc
BBC – always downplaying the antics of their Islamic chums.
Bryan: yes, read that comment. I think I’ll stick with “entirely blind to the BBC’s faults when it comes to bias” after all.
Anyone catch Gordon Careras’s idiotic report on the the AQ child terrorists film on the ghastly Today? Well, our overpaid and mediocre “security” correspondent seemed far less concerned by the fact that the corporations Islamist chums were turning kids into killers than the fact that the nasty, evil Americans were using the video footage as “propaganda”.
And the underlying assumption? That Islamists and Muslims generally are incapable of moral choice and responsibility, which of course is the sole preserve of white (American) men.
Loathesome organisation.
Further to anonymous:
Yesterday this happened in beleaguered Sderot.
http://thisongoingwar.blogspot.com/2008/02/6-feb-08-injured-israeli-women-and.html
Remember, if the Palestinian terrorists had their way, this would be happening every day, several times a day.
Unsurprisingly, the IDF launched a counter attack which succeeded in killing several Hamas gunmen. Unfortunately, a teacher was also killed when Israelis tried to destroy one of the Pal-Arab rocket launchers -they had (once again) used a school for launching a hail of missiles on Israel.
AFP’s
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNpQ4xU1KM1zRi_zDkaWKYseDwFQ
headline is ‘Israel kills seven in new strikes on Gaza gunmen’
and their report mentions the bloody attack on Sderot which intentionally injured three nursery school children.
Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0740880020080207
Has this headline: ‘Israel kills five Hamas gunmen, teacher in Gaza’
They don’t mention the carnage in Sderot. Shame on them. But at least they acknowledge that the Israelis were after gunmen.
Now check out our own dear Auntie’s version of events:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7232108.stm
Their headline is
‘Israel launches deadly Gaza raid’
and there is no mention whatsoever that the dead Palestinians were gunmen fighting the IDF. Also no mention of the rockets which slammed into Sderot yesterday injuring toddlers and traumatising children and adults alike – the event which sparked the IDF action in the first place.
There is no excuse for this deliberate concealment of context, this deliberate blackening of the name of the jewish state, this deliberate bias in favour of Jew hating murderers.
It’s time to call a spade a spade. if the BBC persists in lining itself up with Jew hating murderers, by covering up their racist agenda and murderous aggression, it joins in their work.
Their work of lies, racism and murder.
Hugh | 07.02.08 – 9:42 am
Marsh is also quite economical with the truth:
I’ve seen and fought against many examples of ‘groupthink’ in that time … but not the soft-liberal mindset the BBC is lazily accused of.
Perhaps that explains why he didn’t publish a comment I sent (twice) on Jane Garvey’s admission that the BBC was in love with Labour in response to one of his articles on The Editors blog.
Well, I guess he could always claim he didn’t receive it. But in that case, they shouldn’t tell you after you post a comment that it will not appear on the site until it has been approved by the author.
Anonymous | 07.02.08 – 9:32 am
From your Yahoo link:
Israeli forces frequently carry out raids in Gaza to try and counter cross-border rocket fire by Hamas and other militant groups.
Amazing how the BBC always reports this as an Israeli claim, only from the Israeli point of view. If Yahoo can report it straight, why can’t the BBC? I think we know.
Some thoughts on the Dimona attack from The Editors:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/02/powerful_images.html
Bryan
Not bad for the BBC.
Do you think there is a chance that it mnay be improving?
http://www.lifestyleextra.com/ShowStory.asp?story=TR546274M&news_headline=bbc_man_told_victim_stop_being_a_baby_
BBC Man Told Victim ‘Stop Being A Baby”
Giving evidence today the student, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told the jury the paired had discussed him getting work experience at the BBC before Wrench invited him back to look at his paintings.
Wrench then woke and began to grope him, he said. “I went ‘No’ straight away and tried to slide away. He straddled me and wrestled me towards the top of the bed. He just punched the back of my head and bit my ears and bit my finger and bits of my body.
“He wanted me to stop screaming. He said ‘You’re really scared aren’t you, stop being such a baby’. He just bit harder the more I tried to resist.”
pounce (correction) | 07.02.08 – 12:09 am |
This politically correct campaign which started out in the very best of interests in which to make us all equal has resulted in dividing the people of Britain even more.
I’m old enough to remember when PC was call being ‘right on’. Then, as now, whilst the ordinary proponant may have believed they were making a better world, the reality was a desire to create and maintain division. It was a deliberately formulated strategy to maintain division & distrust in society.
I have never met anyone from the race relations industry who hasn’t had a vested interest in poking the sore as opposed to healing it.
Added to this is the desire to get people to only think in prescribed ways. People have now learned to keep their mouths shut on certain subjects because they know the consequences of not doing so. This is the main thrust of the socialist goal – to quash opposition and create uniformity of thought.
The maintenance of thought control requires a boiling pot not a melting one.
Fran | 07.02.08 – 11:13 am
there is no mention whatsoever that the dead Palestinians were gunmen fighting the IDF. Also no mention of the rockets which slammed into Sderot yesterday injuring toddlers and traumatising children and adults alike – the event which sparked the IDF action in the first place.
There is no excuse for this deliberate concealment of context
Fran, you accuse the BBC of ‘lies’, but your post here takes all the prizes for shameless and blatant mendacity.
Let’s take your points in order:
> there is no mention whatsoever that the dead Palestinians were gunmen…
Sorry, Fran but there jolly well is. It ain’t hard to find: it’s in the opening para:
Israeli forces have killed at least five armed members of the Palestinian movement Hamas, as well as another gunman
then you say:
Also no mention of the rockets ….which sparked the IDF action in the first place.
Oh really? What’s this then?
An Israeli military spokeswoman said troops had not targeted the school but had fired on a Palestinian rocket crew.
…..Hamas says it has fired 40 rockets and 60 mortars at southern Israel since the new upsurge in fighting began ..
“the criticism of simply regurgitating Labour press releases is one made of the BBC, not just the papers. ”
Hugh – if we leave it at just ‘press releases’ funnily enough I know someone who might agree with this 😉 But there is a time and a place for saying it* – and if you are reading that article as a BBC journo the implicit ‘of course BBC doesn’t do this does it? Does it?!’ does not to be written for any BBC journo reading it, who may occasionally resort to churnalism, to consider their actions next time a PR lands on their desk.
*I am at the beeb today and the title of the article when published for internal consumption is ‘Are you sloppy and morally bankrupt?’ LOL