Yes, if you want to get a good dose of BBC bias in full-on mode, just tune in to the morning Radio 4 flagship “Today” programme. I have to admit I rarely listen to it these days since it only spoils the start to the day for anyone who is not a foaming at the mouth lefty. But in the interests of this blog, I did bite my tongue and tune in this morning from the “Thought for the Day” section at 7.45am all the way through to main post 8am headlines political interview. My worst expectation were immediately exceeded when I realised that the “Thought for the Day” contribution was a sterling defence of the Imam of Canterbury by a Muslim contributor. Amazingly, he claimed that Rowan Williams had been “misunderstood” and that “most people” were now coming around to sharing this view. This was a pure PR piece engineered to offer support to the not so good Dr William. Following straight on from this was another item on Druid Williams, and the fact that he faces a meeting of the General Synod later this week. Again calls from within the Church for him to resign were downplayed and instead the claim was made by the BBC reporter that Williams was a much loved and respected figure who was holding the Anglican Church together and that it was inconceivable that he would resign. Do you think Lambeth Palace writes the scripts for the BBC?
After the News headlines at 8am, the lead story was “Is Afghanistan a failed State?”, a favoured BBC theme. One might more accurately ask “Is the BBC a failed broadcaster?” We had the usual “It’s a quagmire, get us out of there” defeatist mindset in full flow, with the BBC presenter seemingly oblivious of the fact that Al Qqueda have used Afghanistan as a base from which to bring terror to the West. The hapless David Milliband (Aged 13 and 3/4) tried to explain why we need to defend our interests by staying the course here and fighting and killing the “insurgents” in the southern part of Afghanistan but the BBC interviewer seemed much more sympathetic to the French and German view that whilst armed forces could go to Afghanistan, they mustn’t go to where the danger is! A pacifist army that travels the world is probably the BBC’s fantasy – a crack legion of aromatherapists is something they MIGHT just tolerate! And so it ended, and so did my interest in listening to this drivel. You know it’s when you actually reflect on how interviews are constructed, on how interviewees are chosen and allocated time, and on how running orders are established, that the anti-Britishness of the BBC comes through in all its glory. Do you ever listen to the “Today” programme and if so, can you share how you do this for more than 15 minutes without feeling nausea?
Sigh.
Biased BBC used to be a pretty good read, some of the time. I used to look at it — from my desk in TV Centre — once or twice a day. I disagreed with, and was able to disprove, a lot of what was written. But every so often it would correctly point out where we’d gone wrong. And often, it would do so with a reasonable amount of humour.
Nowadays it’s just a big rant. Every time the BBC does a story featuring gay people, or Muslims, or anyone else disliked by the religious right, up pops David Vance. “Eeeeeeeevil gays! Eeeeeeeeevil Muslims! Dhimmidhimmidhimmi!”
Sort it out, chaps. The more you use cogent argument to keep us on our toes, the more people will tkae notice of you.
BJ, get back to work. Read this site in your own time, not mine.
David Vance:
Sometimes I wonder whether Ulster Loyalists find it hard to live up to their worldwide reputation for living life to the full, for their easy-going charm and general joie de vivre.
And then I read this:
A pacifist army that travels the world is probably the BBC’s fantasy – a crack legion of aromatherapists is something they MIGHT just tolerate!
I might just stomp around the streets dressed as a 1950 bank manager to celebrate. Now, has anyone got a big bass drum and a banner reading “No Surrender”. Let’s all have a laugh…
.
Calls for Rowan Williams’ resignation were “downplayed”? So far the Beeb – which has reported such call’s bulletin after bulletin over thre days has only found two members of general Synod ready to make such a call – one I’ve never heard of and the pother one of the usual suspects – there’s lots on the the side of the church that calls itself “evangelical” who never like Rowan.
In my own pretty parish in S. London he is held in immense regard and the only mention of the issue yesterday was an angry denuciation by a senior QC, after our service, not of Rowan but of what he saw as media hysteria and distortion.
The Beeb – to a mainstream anglican like myself – seems to have clamberd onto the Mail/Sun bandwaggon of denunciation – for its own inscrutable reasons – – but that doesn’t seem to be the sort of BBC bias that interests the new Vance-stle Biased BBC, does it?
Oops – too many typos there – lets try again:
Calls for Rowan Williams’ resignation were “downplayed”? So far the Beeb – which has reported such call’s bulletin after bulletin over three days – has only found two members of General Synod ready to make such a call – one I’ve never heard of and the other one of the usual suspects – there’s lots on the the side of the church that calls itself “evangelical” who never like Rowan.
In my own pretty ordinary parish in S. London he is held in immense regard and the only mention of the issue yesterday was an angry denuciation by a senior QC, after our service, not of Rowan but of what he saw as media hysteria and distortion.
The Beeb – to a mainstream anglican like myself – seems to have clamberd onto the Mail/Sun bandwaggon of denunciation – for its own inscrutable reasons – but that doesn’t seem to be the sort of BBC bias that interests the new Vance-style Biased BBC, does it?
MattLondon | 11.02.08 – 10:21 am | #
As someone pointed out on ATW David likes to fight to the last drop of everybody elses blood.
Since David has never served, nor are his children in the forces this view he puts forth is understandable.
He reminds me of a woman I used to know, alway urged on the riots in Belfast while her own children were safely tucked up at home. These people are always with us.
Some of us, (even nationalists) who have family members who served under stand a little better.
Cut him some slack.
BJ,
I appreciate your endorsement. It’s what makes it all worthwhile.
Typhoo,
Supporting the British military is very much part of my mindset. My kids are too young to serve in the Army – since they are both at school. I have family who have served, and died, in defence of our British values and I don’t buy this chicken hawk argument.
Matt,
You may be a mainstream Anglican but Williams is an odd choice as good shepherd, more a wolf in sheeps clothing I venture to suggest.
The damage limitation started on Saturday and is continuing.
Two things I can see coming out of this, one will be a greater move to evangelism, and two more calls (Cranmer et.al) for the Bishop Michael Nazir Ali to be the ABC.
As Milliband said, the British people are right to ask hard questions, and thats what the interviewer did.
“with the BBC presenter seemingly oblivious of the fact that Al Qqueda have used Afghanistan as a base from which to bring terror to the West.”
Milliband pointed that out in the interview, so how was she oblivious to it?
“You know it’s when you actually reflect on how interviews are constructed, on how interviewees are chosen and allocated time, and on how running orders are established, that the anti-Britishness of the BBC comes through in all its glory”
Do you suggest the BBC were wrong to ask Milliband? Explain to me how the interview was anti British, rather than a state broadcaster asking hard questions on behalf of the British people?
“My kids are too young to serve in the Army”
What about you? How come you didn’t serve Queen and country in defence of British interests?
Does the backlash from Afghanistan not affect Germany and France too? Are the British people not entitled to ask why its their sons and daughters and husbands who are carrying the burden since the UK is the second biggest contributor in the region? Is questioning now anti-British?
I must have missed the “Afghanistan: It’s a Quagmire” segment on the BBC and I’m completely unaware that anyone in the West, even if they don’t support the Iraq War (the majority of Britons, Europeans and Americans), they do support the invasion of Afghanistan and the continuing war against the Taleban.
It must be the voices in Vance’s head because there’s nothing in those interviews that remotely suggests a pull-out or that Afghanistan is unwinnable. I don’t see this on the BBC, I don’t see this on ABC here in Australia, so what is Vance talking about?
Certainly Afghanistan is tough, made harder because the occupying army is composed of many nations, and the fact that it has not imposed itself completely on the population via the political system.
Is Vance suggesting that reporting on the war is laundered in the way that reporting on global warming/environmentalism is? Because it ain’t so.
BJ, the Beeboid at the top, is correct – Biased BBC used to be thoughtprovoking and interesting to read with a dash of humour. Now its David Vance’s Big Rant, and because of that, B-BBC is losing its value in engaging the BBC to correct errors, respond to questions of news judgement and apparent bias.
There are many of course including myself who deeply object to the BBC’s coverage of many news subjects, but we’re not foaming at the mouth at every perceived slight when it doesn’t come from an extreme rightwing point of view. There’s such a thing as pluralism of speech that must be defended even if you don’t agree with that speech.
I think Rowan Williams should resign. By the same token, so should David Vance.
It is noteworthy that the BBC’s stance (and it does have a stance, it doesn’t just report “facts”) is similar to the Guardian’s – i.e. this gentle man of letters is much misunderstood, as is Sharia etc etc.
My answer to the Today programme spoiling one’s day:
Listen to Wogan, or if you must listen to Today, just download the bits available on the website. Tuning in to Today on a regular basis will add nothing to your quality of life.
Would agree with DV that the toady coverage was predictably and laughably supportive of the weirdy beardy. Small wonder that the C of E has imploded over recent years is it ?
Superb work David. Its noticeable the beeboid brains are mounting an orchestrated attack against your contributions to this fine blog.
The British public must be at least 9:1 against the Ayatollah of Canterbury’s words yet somehow the BBC usually have a 2:1 ratio in defence of the dhimmi.
Last Friday’s Newsnight was a perfect example: a known associate and funder of terrorists was simply described as a “professor”. He was supported and backed up by an Archbishop yes man. Only one person was allowed to give a counterpoint view to these religious extremists.
Miliband defends Afghan presence
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7238435.stm
There, the BBC got the headline they were looking for. If the BBC were impartial, I’d be asking “That’s interesting, I wonder why Milliband had to defend UK policy in Afghanistan – who is criticising it?” However, as I know the BBC is not impartial, I should have guessed, it’s not the Tories, LibDems, Liberty, NATO or any other group that Milliband has to defend UK policy to, it’s the BBC themselves who are attacking him!
Figures. Thank-god we didn’t have this BBC during WW2. We would be speaking German now of that I have no doubt. Imagine, Humphries circa 1943 interviewing Churchill “Defending yourself is just to difficult and nasty isn’t it? Why can’t we just give Hitler what he wants – then he’ll be nice to us wont he?”
R4 Today is one thinly veiled left wing rant. I am sick of it.
“The British public must be at least 9:1 against the Ayatollah of Canterbury’s words yet somehow the BBC usually have a 2:1 ratio in defence of the dhimmi.”
The UK is not a representative democracy. Since when has a majorities of the British people ever prevailed in single issues if it conflicts with what the British State dictates?
Never in my lifetime nor anyone else’s.
It’s barely a story that “the State-owned Broadcaster came out strongly in favour of the embattled leader of the State-sponsored Religion” is it?
Aussie
“It’s barely a story that “the State-owned Broadcaster came out strongly in favour of the embattled leader of the State-sponsored Religion” is it?”
Couldn’t agree more. Time to terminate the contracts of both.
Well done David!
My feelings exactly about “Toady” – for twenty years of my life I woke up to it every day without fail. Now about 10 minutes for the headlines is all I can stand.
You’ve also actually succeeded in getting the BBC trolls into their offices before 10.00am, so you must be doing something right.
Ritter – ever heard of the Munich Agreement? And what was the political affiliation of the foreign policy genius who came up with it?
I love these ‘imagine if the BBC was like this, wouldn’t the world be an even more terrible place than it is’ conjecture comments which conveniently over look the role of the press in the Fourth Estate.
The beeb trolls certainly have a bit of pep today dont they?
There, the BBC got the headline they were looking for. If the BBC were impartial, I’d be asking “That’s interesting, I wonder why Milliband had to defend UK policy in Afghanistan – who is criticising it?” However, as I know the BBC is not impartial, I should have guessed, it’s not the Tories, LibDems, Liberty, NATO or any other group that Milliband has to defend UK policy to, it’s the BBC themselves who are attacking him!
Ritter | 11.02.08 – 11:37 am | #
Have you read the article at all Ritter? Because what you have written here is demonstrably false.
The questions out to Milliband were based on comments from Lord Ashdown:
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gLbBR0AFizpPILAl23mSrBT4IM4w
This blog is now officially more biased than the BBC itself. That’s an achievement of sorts I suppose.
Ritter – I somehow doubt whether S-J’s heard of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
Let’s call it June 1940:
“Now, Mr Churchill, we’ve heard all your rhetoric about blood, sweat and tears, but aren’t you in danger of ignoring the emerging consensus between Herr Hitler and Mr Stalin about the way forward for continental Europe? Isn’t it time to re-think the policy options, given that the UK has clearly lost the war militarily?” etc etc etc….
Phil I have heard of it, and that is why I know that your hypothetical interview would be almost a year too late.
But again, here we are, hypothesising about bias that has never taken place, and never will.
I guess it’s a lot easier to come up with than real bias, backed up by facts and evidence.
😉
Sarah-Jane
Don’t think Churchill was PM in 1939, nor had he made any speeches about blood toil tears and sweat. Which is why I picked June 1940.
At least in those days the Beeb came up with ITMA. Nowadays it seems to think that Jeremy Hardy’s funny. Says it all really.
Ritter | 11.02.08 – 11:37 am
Phil | 11.02.08 – 12:32 pm |
Once again you are making a foolish category error.
Even if Miliband were merely singing the praises of apple pie, the BBC would be obliged to ask him challenging questions and put alternative viewpoints to him.
That would not make the individual reporter, or the BBC corporately, ‘anti apple pie’.
Nor even, if the reporter were to venture:
you say Bramleys are best, but Lord Ashdown has been advocating Somerset Pippins……
would that mean the BBC itself took any stand on the matter.
“Do you ever listen to the “Today” programme and if so, can you share how you do this for more than 15 minutes without feeling nausea?”
No I don’t listen to it anymore. I stopped listening to it in 2004. I don’t listen to the World Tonight since they sent someone to make friends with Gazan terrorists, who were happy to show this person how suicide belts are assembled.
I still listen to the Moral Maze though.
Phil:
Sarah-Jane
Don’t think Churchill was PM in 1939, nor had he made any speeches about blood toil tears and sweat. Which is why I picked June 1940.
Phil | 11.02.08 – 12:32 pm | #
So we agree then – it IS a lot easier to make up bias than find real evidence.
Actually, Orwell commented on anti-British BBC bias at the time – and he was working for the World Service.
It seems quite a few B-BBC folk either don’t listen to the corporation’s flagship current affairs show at all, or only catch a little bit of it.
Well, that’s their right.
But forgive me if, from now on, I pay less serious attention or respect to their claims of ‘bias’, and particularly to those of ‘bias by omission’.
They are patently advanced on the basis of ignorance and prejudice.
“the BBC would be obliged to ask him challenging questions and put alternative viewpoints to him”
The BBC has failed to do this on numerous occasions when interviewing
1. Environmentalists who support AGW
2. American Democrats if they oppose Iraq or are at least black
3. Anyone else who opposed the Iraq war (now spreading to those who oppose the Afghan operation)
4. Muslims (apart from real extremists)
5. Communists and ex-communists who support, for example, Castro’s regime
6. Dawkins-like people (brights)
7. Critics of creationism and ID
8. Europhiles
9. Anyone who writes for the Guardian, Independent or New Statesman
10. NGOs, particularly if they are operating in Iraq, Afghanistan or the West Bank/Gaza Strip
11. BBC employees
No, I think it’s a fun game. Comparing the BBC of today, to the BBC of 1939/40/during WW2. Doing so reminds us how low the BBC of today has stooped.
Moral relativism wouldn’t have been considered by the BBC staffers of 1939 when looking over the water to Germany and the Nazi’s abhorent acts….
Williams ‘shocked’ at Sharia row
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7235550.stm
“Islamic Sharia law is a legal and social code designed to help Muslims live their daily lives, but it has proved controversial in the West for the extreme nature of some of its punishments.
Imagine it’s 1939/40/WW2…
“Nazism is is a legal and social code designed to help Germans live their daily lives, but it has proved controversial in the West for the extreme nature of some of its punishments.
Indeed. See what I mean?
I’m well used to the attack of the Beeboids on this site now, so all I can say to them is, “bring it on”. If they tried to deal with the sunstance of the issues raised. and the real concerns of many here, I would be rather more impressed,. Instead all they do is really confirm the worst about their peculiar world-view, but seem uniquely oblivious of this! Orwell had them sussed, so do we.
Thought for the day
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a5b_1202657423
The BBC, and just who it turns to for the News in Afghanistan.
Top Afghan militant ‘captured’
A leading Afghan Taleban fighter has been captured after a shootout with security forces in south-west Pakistan, police say.
They say Mansoor Dadullah was injured in the incident in Balochistan province – earlier reports said he had died.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7238512.stm
So the police in Pakistan say they have caught a terrorist. (Well the BBC actually refers to him as a fighter. But how you can define somebody who blows up schools, markets, hospitals as a fighter is beyond me) Anyway the old Bill in Pakistan have nicked this geezer and who does the BBC quote whom they ask about this ‘Terrorists’ current condition?
“There has been no comment yet from the Taleban about Mansoor Dadullah’s fate.”
Strange as anybody else would be asking the people who have him,(The Police) rather than the people who lost him.(The Terrorists)
The BBC, and just who it turns to for the News in Afghanistan.
It was very instructive to see how the BBC-Rowan-Guardinistas were taken aback by the backlash power. They thought that after many years of brainwashing everything is sewn up and people are ready to swallow a little bit of shariah medicine…
David Vance:
“If they tried to deal with the sunstance of the issues raised. and the real concerns of many here, I would be rather more impressed”
If you don’t then why should they? You duck every hard question with a blizzard of ad hominems and non sequiturs that would make Rowan Williams blush.
If they tried to deal with the sunstance of the issues raised. David Vance | 11.02.08 – 1:16 pm | #
This is because there is no substance to so many of your posts. As I have said before they are tendentious and you are using this blog as a soap-box for your political agenda.
When you have correctly identified instances of poor wording or inaccuracy, which the readers of this blog would construe as bias, we have responded appropriately.
But your attempts to portray eg the coverage of the William’s story as shilling for islam are laughable. You have yet to respond to a SINGLE comment from a regular B-BBCer who has suggested that the BBC have broadly got this right.
Ignoring your audience huh? No wonder the Beeb likes you so much…
BBC employees:
“BJ | 11.02.08 – 9:51 am”
“MattLondon | 11.02.08 – 10:21 am”
“Bill | 11.02.08 – 12:13 pm”
“John Reith | 11.02.08 – 12:42 pm”
I’m sure you guys don’t post on company time, in which case that is one hell of a lot of breaks you get there.
I don’t include BBC apologists like Hillhunt and Aussie Bystander it is clear you do not work for the BBC, in fact I rather assume you have no gainful employment.
BBC employees:
“MattLondon | 11.02.08 – 10:21 am”
The assumption that someone who posts a non ‘we-think’ post on here automatically must be a beeboid is a constant source of amusement. In this case it isn’t quite so funny as when eg Trenchard got called a Marxist because Matt is a level-headed commentator. But evidence of a cetain ‘rightoid’ mindset nonetheless.
Hannah – MattLondon is one of the many regulars who are interested in possible BBC-bias do not find themselves in total agreement with some of what David has to say.
Is that so hard to believe?
I noticed a post from Laban recently but what has happened to Andrew’s posts? Is he going to contribute any more? I miss him – his posts were polite and well reasoned even if you happened to disagree with them. Mr Vance seems to be on a bit of a Crusade with his own opinion and agenda shining through. It does seem to be getting B-BBC some attention though…
The BBC, its news coverage from Afghanistan and half the story.
World effort in Afghanistan under strain
And Afghans who welcomed their country’s return to the international fold after the fall of the Taleban, are asking where the billions of dollars have gone and why the rebels’ reach is growing.
……
The Taleban now control swathes of land across south-west Afghanistan and mounted about 140 suicide attacks last year, including some in the capital Kabul.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7232011.stm
The BBC once again promotes a vision of doom and despair in Afghanistan in which to tell the wrong story.
What the BBC doesn’t tell you is that Afghanistan has been a failed state since 1979. That it was on a downward spiral in 1976 and that the effects of over 30 years of war on a country will take much more than 5 years of Aid in which to rebuild it.
The education of the children is a start. By brainwashing the young that war is bad and that peace is good we are setting the stage for tomorrow. A little like how the BBC has brainwashed the young for over 20 years that the jews are bad, Terrorists are good and that the Taliban are now in control of large swathes of land in south-west Afghanistan. What the BBC doesn’t tell you is that the area they control is decreasing by the day. Yes folks the hold of the Taliban isn’t increasing as the BBC purports , rather it is diminishing. Which explains why the ISAF (NATO as 15 of the 40 countries in the country do not belong to NATO) has taken casualties as they moved into the former strongholds of the Taliban. (As I mentioned earlier. At the start of last year the Taliban held sway in 4 provinces now they hold sections of only 2) Yet does the BBC impart any of this information. NO Instead they continue to promote the Taliban as a worthy cause.
The BBC, its news coverage from Afghanistan and half the story.
Yes Simon and while there is no such thing as bad publicity I know how many of these posts will go down on the 4th Floor and that is probably to the detriment of the more valid arguments. It’s a pity because the ‘interfering PC busybody’ line is one I have time for, and that is where more than a few of them are located.
I agree that Andrew is a gent and while the moderation could be a bit heavy at times, he at least set a tolerant and civil tone for the comments.
Some recent posts have shown the true colours of some of the commentors, which is great from a beeboid pov, but less so from the pov of this blog.
Does anyone know what happened to Andrew? I am concerned about him.
Who lives on the 4th floor?
David: I noticed the immediate response from the BBC to your comments. You are COMPLETELY correct.
The News departments are out of control. They have a political agenda and they are pushing it.
They promote the EUSSR and anyone against is a loony.
They support uncontrolled immigration which is deeply damaging the cohesion of our society and anyone against is a racist and not nice so need not be given airtime – simple.
They present anything English with a sneer and ridicule any patriotism towards England as something no enlightened person would value.
From the way the News department of the BBC carries on, it must be that they hate England and English society; there is no other explanation for their behaviour. Perhaps by destroying England they feel that there will be less opposition to the EUSSR that they are so much in favour of. In holding this attitude toward the English they are the racists.
Well, we love our country, BBC, even if you do not.
They will deny this forcefully, but then they have to don’t they?
They have immense influence among the 90% of the population who get all their political information from the TV and radio. They are misusing this influence and power – they can make and break politicians and they know it. They are arrogant and out of control.
All these manipulations must stop. Their wings must be clipped.
There should be a new and legally binding CODE OF PRACTICE for the production and presentation of political news with a REGISTER OF INTERESTS so we know who they are close to and know if any bungs are being paid (that would have stopped Kirsty Wark hiding her friendship with her Labour friends). All those working in TV News and radio news must belong to a new PROFESSIONAL BODY which would exercise disciplinary control over these arrogant people.
.
i used to listen to the today program and bbc breakfast when i wanted to know in depth what was going on in the world. Now its just how to live a greener, cleaner, healthier, low carb and more ethnically tolerant lifestyle, with a lot of anti drink and canabis stories thrown in
Simon,
For goodness sake, don’t say I am on “a crusade” – some people might read the wrong thing into that.
Sarah-Jane,
Sorry, but I don’t accept a word that you say. I do not see the primary issue here as being the BBC’s euphemistic evasions of truth in their contrived wordings, though that is important. No, what is at central debate here is just how biased – how anti-British, how dhimmified – the BBC has become. I could not care less what the BBC thinks of my posts as I stand over every word written. There seem to be plenty here content with what I say and frankly, I listen to them before I listen to you.
Unlike you, I am doing this for nothing – in my spare time, whilst producing content for my own blog, for another popular US blog, preparing my first book launch, and working on a second book launch for this autumn. So, you’ll excuse me if I an limited in my time here, unlike you, I have other things to do.
It’s the BBC which uses its public platform to advance its own rotten agenda. And I will expose that in my own way.
Rockall:
Who lives on the 4th floor?
You beat me to it Rockall.
You’re not anything to do with the (now apparently defunct) Rockall Times website are you?
Rockall:
Who lives on the 4th floor?
Rockall | 11.02.08 – 2:48 pm | #
Of the Media Centre at White City; Thompson, Byford, various other bigwigs.
I am doing this for nothing – in my spare time,
David Vance | 11.02.08 – 2:56 pm | #
We have that much in commen then. Although this site does inform what I do at the BBC, I rarely comment here when I am working there.