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.
Whoda’ thunk it eh?
The Archbishop of Canterbury (self-confessed “beardy lefty”)as chosen the BBC as a friendly forum to float the unbelievable idea that it is “unavoidable” that Sharia law will be adopted in the UK.
I am quite staggered by this.
No dissenting opinion voiced in the BBC report, natch.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm
To be fair, I think the dissenting opinion is there:
“His comments are likely to fuel the debate over multiculturalism in the UK.
Last month, one of Dr William’s colleagues, the Bishop of Rochester, said that non-Muslims may find it hard to live or work in some areas of the UK.
The Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali said there was “hostility” in some areas and described the government’s multicultural policies as divisive.”
It’s actually quite an intelligent link on the writer’s part to introduce balance.
The Admiral,
Just blogged it even as you wrote!
Stealth videos?
I checked back to the Israeli killed in suicide bombing video(was Rare suicide bombing). The link now says Police response although the video headline is still:
Terror returns to Israel
A suicide bomber has killed a woman in the southern Israeli town of Dimona, the first such attack in over a year.
It seems to be quite extensively editied but videos are not date-stamped and there is (as far as I know) no way to download these videos to keep a copy. Is there such a thing as a news sniffer for videos?
One very puzzling bit comes right in the beginning. A man is shouting (voice-over Israeli rage and fear moments after the bomber blew himself up) then Paul Wood announces the authorities have discovered another suicide bomber.
The shouting man is yelling in Hebrew, “Why rescue him”? Why would he be yelling this before the 2nd bomber is discovered and not after?
Did the BBC pull a ‘Queengate’ and edit out of sequence? Fellow Mossad and Shin Bet members help me here, please.
As the video contains far more than the Police response so the link title is quite misleading. It also has extracts from the bombers final home videos with the all purpose Palestinian Authority blames Israel disclaimer and the ubiquitous voice-over declaring that the Palestinian militants who claim responsibility for this attack today are adamant.
continued,
Powerful images
Ben Rich – The Editors
Feb 08, 10:02 AM
Some would argue that none of it should have been used. But we were trying to tell the important story of the first suicide bomb in Israel for over a year, and to give some sense of how Israel was likely to react to it.
How Israel is likely to react? Yell and scream, shoot people?
Have I misinterpreted?
I know I’m probably excessively nit-picking here :o( . In the UK – Northern Ireland section. Two Irish women trapped in Gaza
Both women are members from the Galway branch of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Isn’t Galway in the Republic of Ireland?
deegee,
AL Beeb appears not to recognise borders! Wonder if Galway has an Israeli solidarity campaign?
DEEGEE:
Some of the video here, but I’m not sure what version …
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=94c_1202151662
I would have thought this was a pretty MASSIVE London story.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23436128-details/Mayor%27s+aide+%27must+go%27+over+cash+scandal/article.do
But the Beeb have been trying to ignore it for weeks (or helping with Ken’s ‘racist’ smoke and mirrors). Even now that it is on the verge of bringing Jasper down, they still can’t bring themselves to cover it…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/default.stm
I see radio 5 are going on about Wendy Alexander not being a naughty girl over her illegal donations.
Funny that. The BBC didn’t mention her at all when she was in the crap and they never mentioned her of Hain when they were throwing mud at the Tories last week.
So why the fuss now? Because it’s “Good news for McLabour day?”
mick in the uk | 07.02.08 – 2:30 pm
Some of the video here, but I’m not sure what version …
Thank you Mick. Stealth editing alive and well on BBC videos.
LiveLeak Version: The bomber, semi conscious, tries to reach the trigger for the explosives.
The policeman is emphasized with a circle.
BBC Version: The bomber is semiconscious. His explosives belt clearly visible. His hand flutters. The police believe he is trying to push the detonator button.
The hand of the bomber is emphasized with a circle.
I have no way of knowing which ‘stealth edit’ came first but I’m a betting man. I bet the one where the bomber is reaching for the button was released before the one where his finger flutters and the police rather than the commentator ‘believes’.
The subtle suggestion of doubt, that the Israelis may have killed an injured, semi conscious man is the give-away.
Any suggestions why the policeman is emphasized in the LiveLeak version and the hand emphasized in the version currently online at news.bbc.co.uk.
While both versions are still accessible, take a look and tell me what you think.
This morning on the Today programme, there was a section on the LDA’s dodgy funding of various organisations that were found no longer to exist.
Strangely, Mr. Jasper was not mentioned and the focus of the whole piece was not on Brixton Base, or on any of the other organisations mentioned in the ThisIsLondon article cited by Stuck-Record above.
The BBC report homed in instead on the (apparently non-existent) Jewish Noam Hatorah community centre, and made sure to mention its links to organisations in the USA.
It’s interesting that ThisIsLondon doesn’t so much as mention the Noam Hatorah centre, and that the Today programme, as I recall, doesn’t so much as mention the ‘European Federation of Black Women Business Owners’, the ‘African Caribbean Business Network’ or ‘Diversity International’ noted by ThisIsLondon. The first two at least seem from their titles to have strong links with overseas organisations.
Is there anyone who knows more about this, or who can say if there is anything more to this?
The Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign is the name of the organisation.
It is a group of residents of the Republic of Ireland who wish to help the Palestinian people, what’s your point!?!?
” Should the lottery be reformed?”
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=4243&edition=1&ttl=20080207170403
YES; and the BBC should be reformed too so that it is no longer allowed to continue to over-represent its chum Ms. S.Chakrabarti, of the NATIONAL LOTTERY subsidised ‘Liberty’ outfit. Isn’t she and her organisation acting like a political lobby organisation, campaigning against specific national security policies of only two countries in the world, the UK and the USA?
The BBC aids and abets her and her organisation with over-representation and contentious, partial comments on her views, like these comments here, previewing her appearance on ‘Question Time’ tonight:
(she is) “one of the UK’s most prominent voices” ( due in no small part to the BBC’s assistance)”on civil liberties, spearheading campaigns against proposals to extend detention periods…”
The BBC’s pro ‘Liberty’ PR here does not recognise the non sequitur in its statement, nor the partiality of it. To me, S. Chakrabarti, ‘Liberty’, with the BBC’s assistance, are REDUCING liberty, and endangering national security. National Lottery funds, and licence-payers’ money should not be used in this way.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/7231128.stm
“The Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign is the name of the organisation.
It is a group of residents of the Republic of Ireland who wish to help the Palestinian people, what’s your point!?!?”
The POINT was that it was in the NORTHERN IRELAND section of the BBC. Akin to French news from Alsace Lorraine being put into the Bavarian section of the GERMANY website…so despite the BBC wanting a United Ireland (given their support for SF/IRA and their anti Army stance over the years) it rather confirms either their ignorance or their bias oui?
Well in light of everything that the BBC has broken to the world today;
Sharia law instead of C of E
Poor Old Muslim cleric banned from using the NHS
Hook told to sling it
I think Question time will be worth watching tonight.
Must go as Virgin are showing DS9
Pounce: If Question Time is worth watching tonight it will be a first for the BBC.
A BBC writer called Martin Landau has added his own Tuppn’ worth to the issue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233337.stm
“The Archbishop of Canterbury’s desire to bring some aspects of Sharia law into the mainstream legal system is bound to prove controversial.”
“But his view is that if Britain is to develop cohesive communities, the role that religion plays in the lives of some citizens must be taken seriously. ”
“Must be taken seriously? Why is this? Given that virtually every public reply has been one of outrage
Rachel Miller:
This morning on the Today programme, there was a section on the LDA’s dodgy funding of various organisations that were found no longer to exist.
Strangely, Mr. Jasper was not mentioned and the focus of the whole piece was not on Brixton Base, or on any of the other organisations mentioned in the ThisIsLondon article cited by Stuck-Record above.
Newsnight had a good pop at Livingslime & Jasper tonight. A pretty hard hitting piece from Mark Mardell and even Kirsty Squawk tried her best with one of Livingslime’s sidekicks. Her brief was crappy as usual – but she did try.
Maybe this will at least get it out of just the Standard and into the national media.
Barry Wood:
his (the Archbishop’s) view is that if Britain is to develop cohesive communities, the role that religion plays in the lives of some citizens must be taken seriously. ”
“Must be taken seriously? Why is this? Given that virtually every public reply has been one of outrage
Quite, Barry, quite.
Just one teensy detail you missed there…
The person who says the role that religion plays…must be taken seriously is, er, the Archbishop, and not the BBC writer Landau.
This is known to those of us who made it to secondary school as reported speech. Landau is simply telling us that the Archbish wants us all to take the role of religion seriously.
Stand down the execution squad. The man’s innocent of thought crime. Barry, it’s the naughty step for you.
One wider thought: If the BBC is truly swamped by gay people, feminists and liberals, as B-BBC posters frequently remind us, why would they be so damn keen to usher in the harsh versions of sharia recounted with lip-smacking relish in these threads? (And, although you’d never guess it from these pages, dismissed as inhuman by Rowan Williams in his interview)?
Could it possibly be that B-BBC threads are swamped by narrow-minded, paranoid people whose dislike of liberal thought is matched only by their loathing of Islam? And that on days like this they get to enjoy the clammy thrill of two enemies for the price of one?
Biased BBC: The Sky Is Falling
One wider thought: If the BBC is truly swamped by gay people, feminists and liberals, as B-BBC posters frequently remind us, why would they be so damn keen to usher in the harsh versions of sharia recounted with lip-smacking relish in these threads?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci
Capture the Culture
It appears the BBC mission statement has come out in the wash;
Hamas: We’re Allowed to Lie
Hamas leaders spoke to the Arabic language Ash-Sharq il-Awsat newspaper recently and explained that as Muslims, they are allowed to lie. In an interview printed on Thursday, senior Hamas terrorists explained, “A Muslim is permitted to say things that oppose his beliefs in order to prevent damages or to be saved from death.”
This approach, known in Arabic as “taqiyya,” was behind several Hamas leaders’ recent public expression of support for Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, they explained. Senior Hamas terrorists in Samaria, who were recently released from jail, publicly expressed disapproval with the Hamas takeover of Gaza and said they supported the PA forces. The sources quoted in Ash-Sharq il-Awsat explained that the Samarian terrorists’ announcement was not a sign of dissent within Hamas ranks, but rather a permitted use of “taqiyya” to deceive Abbas and avoid prison sentences.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/141178
John Reith
In the previous thread you accused me of shameless and blatant mendacity. Deliberate lies.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1804662782053476702/#383540
Anon has pointed out what you should have noticed – that the piece had been edited since my post.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1804662782053476702/#383549
This is not the first time that you have made ad hominem attacks on me during debates on the site. On the last occasion you accused me of behaving like a member of the East German Stasi. On that occasion it was because I had uncovered a relevant piece of information which suggested that a comment you had made earlier might not have been correct. On this occasion, perhaps some editor at the web section saw my angry comment and decided that the piece really did need to be updated.
I have always been supportive of BBC engagement on the site and have in the past protested against people who have abused BBC staff for joining in.
An apology from yourself would be appreciated.
Whilst the FT runs an article calling brown’s government ‘ The worst since Victorian times’, its refreshing to see the broadcasting wing of nulab, refering to ‘browns government of all the talents’, . (On the toady prog, natch !)
Hillhunt
One wider thought: If the BBC is truly swamped by gay people, feminists and liberals, as B-BBC posters frequently remind us, why would they be so damn keen to usher in the harsh versions of sharia recounted with lip-smacking relish in these threads?
You know, HH, that question’s one which mystifies a lot of people and has been raised several times on this blog. It’s a cause of constant wonderment. Were I a homosexual rapist, for example, I’d be pretty well against what passes for law among the Islamic supremacists myself. I’d rather support liberal democracies like, say, Israel or the USA. But somehow it just doesn’t happen at the Beeb.
Nice to know you’ve formulated the question for yourself, though!
Fran | 08.02.08 – 7:57 am
An apology from yourself would be appreciated.
I withdraw the accusation of outright mendacity. I now see that you did post your comment earlier than than piece you purported to crticize had actually been written.
However, while I accept you didn’t therefore tell the direct lies I accused you of, it is clear that what you did do was to falsely accuse the BBC of bias and misrepresent a placeholder stub as a full report.
You are well enough acquainted with the way the BBC news website works to have known precisely what you were doing.
you accused me of behaving like a member of the East German Stasi. On that occasion it was because I had uncovered a relevant piece of information which suggested that a comment you had made earlier might not have been correct.
Another misrepresentation. It was not because you had uncovered some piece of information, it was because you inferred someone’s political stance from the fact of their attendance at a cultural event.
Phil:
Were I a homosexual rapist, for example, I’d be pretty well against what passes for law among the Islamic supremacists myself. I’d rather support liberal democracies like, say, Israel or the USA. But somehow it just doesn’t happen at the Beeb.
Nice to know you’ve formulated the question for yourself, though!
Y-e-e-e-s. Oh, wait…
Could it just be that the Boibeeds don’t, er, support what passes for law among the Islamic supremacists and that my proposition, above, holds; that these threads are infested with narrow-minded, paranoid people whose dislike of liberal thought is matched only by their loathing of Islam? And that on days like this they get to enjoy the clammy thrill of two enemies for the price of one?
.
Well, frankly, there’s a fair amount of liberal (ie free-speech fans, which are the sort of people I take it you mean by “liberal”) commenters on here, and, as for narrow-minded, there’s a greater diversity of opinion than on, say, most “Question Time” panels. The occasional religious type gets balanced by the odd atheist, pounce knows his weaponry, it’s all cool.
But the great thing is that I can read as much of the commenters as I want, and that includes you HH, and they don’t charge me a penny. The BBC types, on the other hand, charges me a lot of money even if I don’t watch a thing, and I get sent to prison if I don’t pay them.
As regards Islam as practiced in Iran, or Palestine, or London Underground trains, or Madrid railway stations, or at 800 feet over Manhattan, what’s not to loathe?
John Reith | 08.02.08 – 12:21 pm
A qualified apology from you John Reith? I’m impressed that you went that far.
As for the concept of the “placeholder stub” being a bias-free zone, phew, now we can all relax.
Unless of course it can be shown that when the BBC stubs deal with a terror attack on Israel, they qualify it by including Israel’s attacks on Palestinians and/or quotes from the Palestinians justifying the attack.
Your original attack on Fran
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/1804662782053476702/#383540
revealed a few things:
*Your loyalty to the BBC prevents you from being able to question its output and motives where it really matters.
*You forget that News Sniffer and Google Cache have so often revealed the duplicitous BBC in full stealth-edit action.
*You have such scant respect for people on this site that you think we deliberately lie about BBC bias and are dumb enough to lie about the contents of an article when it can be easily disproved by the click of a mouse.
Bryan | 08.02.08 – 1:46 pm
dumb enough to lie about the contents of an article when it can be easily disproved by the click of a mouse.
That happens all the time, Bryan.
Surely you haven’t forgotten the repeated attempts by pounce (3? 4?) to attribute this reaction to meeting Afghan mujahadeen to a BBC reporter (when in fact the words were spoken by a US congressman’s arm candy):
“It was just very, very exciting to be in that room with those men with their huge white teeth.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4915692.stm
Phil:
As regards Islam as practiced in Iran, or Palestine, or London Underground trains, or Madrid railway stations, or at 800 feet over Manhattan, what’s not to loathe?
Neat trick.
1. Blur a religion of billions with the activities of a gang of dictators and renegades who leech off that faith in the pursuit of power.
2. Wilfully misunderstand a speech by the Archbish who states categorically that he’s not invoking the vengeful variant.
3. Assume the BBC’s reporting of a high-profile church leader’s speech is in some way advocating stoning, gay-victimisation and abuse of women.
4. Ignore the widespread criticism of Williams’s speech which the BBC has represented accurately.
5. Chuckle in a knowing way at the non-existent conflict of interest for Boibeeds. Gay rights v Taliban stonings? Ho-ho-ho
6. Justify your bigoted views in the light of the above.
Top Class.
.
John Reith | 08.02.08 – 2:20 pm,
Happens all the time, you say. But you have to go back nearly two years for your example. ‘Nuff said about that I think.
I remember that debate. Granted that the BBC weren’t actually the ones waxing lyrical about the white Taleban teeth, the point remains that they felt compelled to include the quote in the article – so in that respect pounce was quite correct.
Like all good propagandists, the BBC is well aware that most people don’t have the time or inclination when they read an article to fiddle with the finer details of whether somebody is being quoted or not. It’s the overall impression that is retained. This is why the BBC will put words in the mouths of IDF and other spokespeople like “militants” when they have in reality said “terrorists.”
It’s dishonest and unprofessional and even goes against the BBC’s own guidelines on the use of the T-word, but it’s very effective in hammering the BBC’s agenda home.
John
Your qualified apology is welcome.
But…. you continue to imply that I am deliberately playing fast and loose with the truth.
Now this will be news to you, but you are quite mistaken in accusing me of knowing ‘perfectly well what I was doing’ by commenting on ‘a stub’. I have no idea what a stub is – at least I didn’t before reading your explanation just now. All I could see was a BBC report on an incident widely covered elsewhere on the web but omitting crucial context and information – information which had clearly been available for some time, since the BBC link was timed later (I sorted reports in date order) than several others which were far more complete. Being unfamiliar with this stub system, I assumed that this was the report which the BBC wanted me to read. Apparently it was not. But it was there.
And what difference does the ‘form’ of the report make anyhow? The wording of the ‘stub’ exposed the default position of the BBC on the Middle East conflict to a ‘T’ – report what the IDF does without any reference to what Hamas did. Even if the BBC website personnel hadn’t managed to check that the Hamas men were gunmen by that time, the rocket attack in which the toddlers were injured had happened the previous afternoon, and was clearly relevant context for the IDF action, even for a summary.
I believe that it is highly significant that the BBC Editor chose not to refer to it.
Bryan | 08.02.08 – 1:46 pm
You have such scant respect for people on this site that you think we deliberately lie about BBC bias and are dumb enough to lie about the contents of an article when it can be easily disproved by the click of a mouse
Personally, I have scant respect for you, Bryan, because most people, like you, who are consumed with the paranoid belief that 15000 members of BBC staff have nothing better to than sit around plotting the force-feeding of “agendas” are completely barking. And not in a good way. In a dangerous “I must blame somebody for feeling so angry – keep me away from the guns” kind of way.
And if you can easily disprove something with the click of a mouse then how do you know that the alternative sources that you are clicking to are accurate and honest? Do you really hate the BBC so much that you are prepared to believe anybody that contradicts them? Poor you.
Phil | 08.02.08 – 12:07 pm |
Were I a homosexual rapist, for example, I’d be pretty well against what passes for law among the Islamic supremacists myself.
Well,… you are against what passes for law among the Islamic supremacists.
So, er…how’s that homosexual raping going for you, Phil?
Archie | 10.02.08 – 5:52 am,
Spare me the pop psychology.
Do you have anything to say against our position on BBC bias? Anything valid to contribute? That’s what this site is about. If you don’t want to debate it, what are you doing here?
Bryan
You’ve a strange take on what passes for psychology. If anything, it would be logic.
But I’ll give you a view on your position, and some pyshology if that’s what you want.
Your position on the BBC is based on your disgust at getting a bill every year for a licence coupled with your own far right views not being reflected in the BBC’s output. You and many other regular contributers seek to attack an faceless corporation because you have to direct your hate at something. Why you are so filled with hate to warrant some of the comments posted only you can answer. Perhaps your life didn’t turn out the way you wanted it to. Like other far-righters throughout history, you blame entire groups in society; Muslims, gays, liberals.
I expect some of you think of David Copeland as a poster boy. Others produce the most deranged arguments, desperate to prove how clever they are because they feel under-appreciated by those that know them. Yet other are simply a bunch of nasty-minded nerds in combat jackets.
I wouldn’t have bothered writing anything at all if I hadn’t been sickened by the vicious bile that’s clearly floating around in the heads of some of my fellow countrymen. God forbid any of you attain a position of responsibilty.
paranoid belief
completely barking
I must blame somebody for feeling so angry
Nothing to do with pop psychology?
Your second attempt at it was even worse.
By the way,
*I don’t hate anybody.
*I don’t live in Britain.
*I don’t pay the licence fee.
Now come on Archie, show a bit of imagination and debate the BBC bias we are talking about. Otherwise there are plenty of sites on the internet where you can have the kind of debate you seem to want.
Archie,
You enthusiastically support the licence fee.
-It is a poll tax.
Everyone pays the same (unless you are over 75).
-It is a regressive tax.
Proportionately it hits the poor much harder than it does the rich.
-It it compulsory like a tax.
Enforced in draconian fashion by enforcement officers and the law, if you do not pay you are subject to criminal record, fine, and possible imprisonment.
-Its punishments fall hardest on the poorest.
Who make up nearly all of those prosecuted. Imprisonment for non payment of licence fines is the number one source of imprisonment for single mothers.
Given these facts by any other name the licence fee would be rejected by all on the left, I guess that places you way out on the right.
First, BaggieJonathan,
I don’t agree with the TV licence. But I don’t use it as an excuse to criticise, as others on this site do. I value the BBC’s output and fear what kind of b*llshit we’d be fed every day if there was no responsibility for broadcaster integrity, (which is monitored by governments, both left and right). If there was serious bias in the BBC then Conservative or Labour governments wouldn’t keep renewing the charter. But they do. And by the way, the Left, Middle and Right can all kiss my a*se.
Secondly, Bryan. You suggested pop psychology – you got it, so don’t complain.
You don’t hate anybody? you’ve a funny way of showing it.
You don’t live in Britain and you don’t pay the licence fee.
This is interesting. Why do you care about a foreign broadcaster that has no influence within your local sphere, and which has a worldwide reputation for it’s impartiality, over any other broadcaster? If it’s only bias you’re interested in then there are plenty of other broadcasters you could accuse with greater justification. You could start in Russia and work your way East to China, over the Pacific to the States. So what’s your motive for accusing the BBC? If you don’t pay for it, like the rest of us, and don’t have to watch it, why should those of us that do pay for it bother listening to you?
Archie, you don’t have enough insight into anything to even come up with average pop psychology let alone any real psychology with any depth.
Why do I comment here? I’ve answered this in frequent debates with others here like Reith who feel that I have no right to combat BBC bias because I don’t pay the BBC. Since this is one of the few times you have actually tried to deal with the subject of this blog, I’ll answer you as well:
*The BBC spreads its poisonous bias worldwide, subtly turning people against the principles I hold dear.
*More specifically, the BBC turns people against me and mine.
*The BBC has no right to expect to be able to carry on like this unchallenged.
Now psychoanalyse that.