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?
I was surprised the Arch Bishop of cant was not wearing an orange jump suit at the Synod gig.
Female priests could have worn the Burkha to complete the “Let’s all be of one faith” party
Do you have any left/nationalist/other ‘writers’ for your blog? No, everybody must have the same right of centre point of view is you, but you hold the BBC to a different standard?
Typhoo | Homepage | 11.02.08 – 3:42 pm | #
The unpaid David Vance whose blogging is not supported by any licence fee has been a breath of fresh air for this blog. He has certainly brought a few pro-Beebies from out of the undergrowth.
Alas, the average pro-Beebie commenters’ IQ seems to have taken a tumble. What with Typhoo wanting presumably pro-Beeb bloggers on an anti-BBC blog and Aussie “Consonent” Bystander.
Keep it up David V.
This invented ‘decline’ is yet another of your polemical devices to discredit this site. Unchanged over the years.
I should add a correction and apology for the “unclarity” of my remarks (as the AB of Cant likes to term it). Of course the arrival of David Vance has changed the character of this site. It is the polemical devices to discredit the site by BBC posters that remains unchanged. Hope that clears that up.
What with Typhoo wanting presumably pro-Beeb bloggers on an anti-BBC blog
Err.. where did I say that, or is that just you jumping to your own (wrong) conclusions?
The other point raised in your comment was already covered.
I too think the BBC was surprised (even appalled) at the miscalculation. The BBC appears to have been actively promoting the positive aspects of muslim culture whilst simultaneously downplaying any negative connotations for some time probably dating back to 9/11. This may be because they felt that otherwise this section of society would become demonised, I don’t know.
However promotion there has been, to the point where one would think that muslims made up a very significant proportion of the demographic, instead of the minority that it actually represents.
In my opinion the BBC did think giving the Archbishop the microphone to promote the acceptance of some aspects of Sharia would be beneficial to this agenda and would be seen by the musilim community as positive and by the rest of us as inevitable.
The response took everyone, the BBC included by surprise, and there is now an active damage limitation exercise being pursued, instead of an open debate about the issues that have been raised by the Archbishop, which in fact are of much more concern than just the almost throwaway remarks about Sharia.
Will we get a serious programme debating these issues from the BBC, don’t hold your breath. The best we will get is their trivialisation on the Today programme, (sorry to cut you of but we haven’t got much time….)
Do I listen to Today, yes for some time every morning as part of my anger management training…
BJ:
“I hope none of you are posting from desks owned by companies in which I am a shareholder….”
Ooooh, imagine that BJ. Wouldn’t want the proles creaming off the stack of your own ill gotten gains, would we?
Shareholding? What a terminal upper middle class twat you are. The fact you can’t see the irony of your anti-capitalism clap-trap at your beloved BBC and being a share-holder yet again proves the hypocrisy and total disparity of what the Beeboids pump out and what they actually do.
Posted from your house indeed. No doubt some palatial home counties property in your predominantly all white neighbourhood.
I’m self-employed and work 12 hours a day. No time for dinner parties, or hoovering up lines of coke off an Islington toilet cistern for me. Any time spent here comes out of MY pocket. Not snatched out of the purse of some single parent mother or coshed out from under the mattress of some gullible elderly couple who actually believe the intimidation tactics used by TV Licensing, when they don’t even OWN a TV.
Drone on BJ. You’re just a cookie cut-out like the rest ’em.
Ali P | 11.02.08 – 5:06 pm
“Since the start of Feb in 11 days there have been 21 posts, all but two by DV.”
I do agree. Less is more.
The People’s Front of Judea:
Its unfair to transpose your, heartfelt, dislike of the BBC onto BJ. It comes over as an ad hominem attack that doesn’t add anything to the debate.
Sue,
“Less is more” – mmm, the BBC should listen to you. I hold no monopoly on posting here and hope colleagues will join in.
Do you have any left/nationalist/other ‘writers’ for your blog? No, everybody must have the same right of centre point of view is you, but you hold the BBC to a different standard?
Typhoo | Homepage | 11.02.08 – 3:42 pm |
Think about the implications of your own comment. If all writers at this blog have right of centre views then this must indicate that the institution they’re blogging about – al-Beeb – must be giving them cause. With pro-left, pro-lib bias, pro-Palestinian output.
Now before you pipe up with words like “imagined”, where on earth are the examples of Beeboids admitting on air about weeping for Ariel Sharon, making on-air slips about champagne bottles in Broadcasting House after John Major’s 1992 election victory, giving left-wingers a real roasting on the Toady show while letting the right-wingers off with a cozy chat.
Where is the left-of-centre equivalent of Biased-BBC? There isn’t one because the BBC is in the image of The Grauniad not the Daily Telegraph.
But your point about holding the BBC to a different standard to a blog is pretty poor. The standard of pro-Beebie commenting has taken a dive.
Let’s have more of David Gregory and less of these muppets who’ve discovered the site.
It is my position, and always has been, that if I ask someone else to do something, I’d be prepared to do it my self. If I hold someone else to a particular standard I try to hold myself to it.
As far as I’m concerned, the BBC give David his fair share of air time, they do not seem to be in any way restricting or censoring his opinion. Thats pretty good, despite the fact he is not elected, or a spokesperson for any group. Then he comes off air and criticises all other interviews but those he is involved in…..
I see that as poor form.
“The standard of pro-Beebie commenting has taken a dive”
You don’t like my comments? That is your problem, my advice is don’t read them, for I intend to make many more.
Aussie Bystander
…But be sure – you certainly don’t earn as much as me…..
Then he comes off air and criticises all other interviews but those he is involved in…..
I see that as poor form.
If there is merit in his criticisms then I couldn’t care who sees it as “poor form”. This blog is exactly what it says on the tin – about bias in the BBC. And that is all too easy to find in the BBC’s output.
“If there is merit in his criticisms”
Indeed!! Which is why I took issue with him on his inclusion of the Milliband interview. As I already said, I found NO evidence of bias therein. Who else should they ask, he was the proper person, and the interviewer asked ‘hard questions’ on behalf of the British public.
I thought I’d already covered this.
Typhoo:
so just because the BBC gives him employment he should ignore what he sees as their ingrained institutional bias? Surely THAT would be real hypocrisy?
Not what I said, nor hope implied in what I said. They do not give him employment, he is self employed. They give him air time. Telephone input on the Nolan show, and on BBC NI Talkback, and the TV show hearts and minds, and radio sunday sequence. I doubt David depends on the BBC for income. The issues he has talked on are broad. Nuclear power stations, lessons from NI on the WOT, all sorts of things, and no restricting of his views or opinions. Despite the fact he is a private citizen with a blog. How many bloggers get that sort of air time? Very few.
I’m asking no one to over look bias, I will agree with bias when I am presented with it. But I’m off the opinion there was NO bias in the Milliband interview.
I’ve never said the BBC were not guilty of bias in their reporting. But I cannot agree with someone elses take on bias when I do not see it in front of me. Again, I repeat, I’d no problem with the Milliband interview.
I really have no more to say on the matter. Anything I had to say I’ve said, I’m only repeating myself.
“Clearly there are lots of new posters who have ‘all of a sudden’ taken an interest in this blog, why?”
Because they’re longtime readers suddenly appalled that David Vance is making the rest of us anti-BBCers look like extreme right wing dickheads. Like him.
“Isnt it strange how all these ‘anti DV posters’ come along just as DV starts posting?”
Because DV starts posting stuff that is both inflammatory and wrong? Nah, too easy. It must be a conspiracy.
“Is this a concerted leftist smear campaign?”
No. Concerted leftist smear campaigns are better paid than this.
“I for one am puzzled by the emergence of this new breed of poster at this time BUT perhaps its a little early to draw conclusions?”
Its never too early to get out the tin foil hats and start typing on the laptops from under the stairs. Ask David for more details.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7239786.stm
Is the Archibishop of Canterbury over the worst of sharia row?
Bleedin’ typical bit of sympathy for the AB of Cant from al beeb trying to frame and skew the HYS debate. They make it sound like he came down with a nasty bout of flu – thank goodness he’s over the worst of it. Funny – I don’t think there were any headlines saying ‘Is Enoch Powell over the worst of rivers of blood row?’ I wonder whose side they’re on?
AB: “…longtime readers suddenly appalled that David Vance is making the rest of us anti-BBCers look like extreme right wing dickheads. Like him.”
Spot on. The problem is not that DV has a platform here – fair enough, he’s a BBC contributor and undoubtedly has insight into the organisation that others don’t – but the sheer volume, creating the impression that B-BBC is only here to advance Vance’s own agenda.
And really give it up with the “you’re doing well, you’re getting under the Beeboid’s skin” conspiracy stuff.
In fact if I were a BBC employee I’d be delighted by the arrival of DV. B-BBC has become a lot easier to dismiss.
“Is this a concerted leftist smear campaign?”
No. Concerted leftist smear campaigns are better paid than this. ”
You’re getting paid for this then?
If David Vance has succeeded in coaxing out the wall flowers on this blog, then he has done a good job.That is what blogs are for ,comments.Come on girls don’t be shy,give anger management a miss for a while,let it all hang out.
The BBC and how do you solve a problem like Sharia
(Note the pictures are graphic)
The view from inside a Sharia court
For many people Sharia courts are seen as brutal institutions where zealots in hardline Muslim states pass down draconian punishments. But there are already Sharia courts operating throughout Britain in ways that have very little to do with the stereotype.One of them is the Islamic Sharia Council, which is run from a threadbare converted corner shop on a backstreet in Leyton, east London.
…….
An unshaven young man reaches across the desk and holds the hand of his cleric as he pleads for a second chance with his wife. The young man’s eyes are red and swollen from crying.
…
Najma Ebrahim, a former coordinator with the Muslim Women’s Helpline, which received 2,000 calls a year, 70%-80% of which are from women with marital problems, says the council is providing a vital service. She says: “It’s very important for [the wife’s] self, for her healing. Her faith – her fate – is important to her, so when she goes to the council and gets that decision, at least for her she knows she is not doing something wrong.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7238890.stm
What is it with the BBC and this force-feeding that sharia isn’t so bad once you’ve tried it angle. Err to you all you f-ing tossers at the BBC who just love swallowing everything the mullah unzips in front you. The genie is out of the bottle. We know how bad Sharia law is. We know it oppresses women and non-Muslims, trying to tell us otherwise is simply a waste of time and space.
Tell you what how about reporting on the negative aspects of Sharia law, you know like;
Hitting women with a stick (as instructed in the unholy Koran.)
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/1356/image1akf0.jpg
Slotting a woman for backchatting.
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/227/image2sd1.jpg
Strange how the BBC never complains (Quoting Human rights activists) when women are executed by Sharia law.
Lets not forget how Sharia law lets you kidnap and fuck senseless a little 11 year old girl. (Shame she couldn’t provide 4 male witnesses in which to gain justice)
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6524/image3wa1.jpg
Remember that bit in the BBC article about the poor crying man upset that his wife wouldn’t return to him. Ah Bless. Here is what sharia law really allows you to do to that stupid bitch who won’t do as she is told.
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/7376/image4qm7.jpg
And the BBC presents this image that women in Muslim lands who immolate themselves do so because of personal problems.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7235021.stm
Really?
Thank Allah for the Internet.
http://www.kwrw.org/index.asp?id=112
All the pictures are from here;
http://www.rawa.org/gallery.html
No doubt the Sharia loving BBC Clones will say it isn’t so.
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/1671/image1mh0.jpg
It’s very important for her healing Indeed?.
The BBC and how do you solve a problem like Sharia
The last was from me.
Ali P
“B-BBC has become a lot easier to dismiss.”
Not much dismissing going on.
I’m totally with Mr Vance on this.
Whether or not THESE SPECIFIC items are indicative of bias, Today itself IS pretty representative of the BBC’s general bias as discussed every day right here on this blog.
I myself gave up listening to the prog in 2006 during the Israel-Lebanon war, when they seemingly didn’t even try to hide their anti-Israel prejudice.
In fact I was so disgusted with the BBC’s reporting that I finally stopped listening to any of its news all together. Being woken in the morning by an alarm, rather than an alarm radio, and thus waking up to silence, is wonderfully soothing.
And since I no longer listen, I no longer care what those strutting Today pygmies are saying or getting up to. Which goes also for the SPs on The World at One, PM, and The World Tonight, and, not least, on From Their Own Correspondent and all the tedious chat shows, art shows, environment shows, achingly unfunny satirical shows, and all the lecturing, hectoring, finger-wagging, bullying, Them and Theirs-type progs.
The fact is that when you give up listening to the news, or reading it, you develop a whole new perspective, so that when the odd bulletin does drift your way, you see the squalid mediocrity of not merely the news broadcasters, but all the people and politicians they’re reporting on.
And I discovered an important truth (though I’m sure wasn’t the first to do so) – bias and disinformation can’t exist in a vacuum. The easiest, simplest way to overcome all the problems of the BBC, and the media generally, identified by the stalwart contributors to this, and many other, blogs, is simply to bypass them. Disregard them completely. Shut them out.
And then John and James and Edward and dear, dear Sarah and all the rest can lie, and fib, and distort to their heart’s content, gassing away to each other into the ether, heard by none, ignored by all, “full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing,” as somebody once said, and perhaps they’ll eventually get fed up with talking to themselves, and try their hand at something more productive, and socially useful.
“and try their hand at something more productive, and socially useful.”
Might make a few quid selling them off as galley slaves.
pounce:
A brilliant posting on the truth behind Sharia courts.
What chance does such an alternate and truthful reflection of the savage cult of Islam ever stand a chance of being aired on Al Beeb?
I have an idea which may get the CofE to get shot of their New World Order Druid Prince of Darkness.
Print and distribute a simple leaflet outside your local church next Sunday morning to the incoming worshipers.
Write on it “In protest.”
Suggest that those unhappy should no longer put their money on the collection plate until this political place man is sacked from his position, and say why, when leaving.
Money talks especially in the Christian Church, even small amounts.
If you dont go to church, go for a change, maybe this Sunday, the whether forecast is fine.
There is little point in expecting the CofE to represent your wishes if you do not ever attend the place or directly protest when the idiots mess up.
I go almost every Sunday and I am a Jewish agnostic.
might as well hand over the BBC “today” program to a bunch of islamists.
i refuse to listen to it – its toxic marxist fumes became to much for me when i grew up. it is amazing that certain people in that program continue to live in a taxpayer funded teenage nirvana.
i for one would have a guilt trip about that… knowing full well that some 80 year old cant afford it.. and yet goes to jail for refusing to pay for its Marxist drivel… i couldnt live with myself for being part of that… and yet Naughtie, Humphries et al see nothing wrong with it..
what a bunch of utter cunts.
“Miv Tucker | 12.02.08 – 12:02 am ”
listen to denis praeger. its an eye opener…
http://www.townhall.com/talkradio/show.aspx?radioshowid=3
podcast feed:
http://www.townhall.com/talkradio/podcast.aspx?RadioShowId=3
Archduke –
Many thanks for the link: eye opening stuff indeed. I’ll certainly be tuning in to this guy regularly.
Y’all come back now, as they like to say over there.
Keep up the pressure Brits. Don’t stand down. Beardy Boy must go. Don’t let them sweep it under the rug. You know if he’d said something that offended Muslims, he would have been sacked in five seconds flat. He wouldn’t have even been given the time to clean out his desk.
Keep faxing, phoning, and protesting to all who will listen. Beardy Boy must go, and be replaced with Michael Nazir-Ali, a real Christian who stands up for other Christians and who is not a craven, simpering, dithering dhimmi.
Michael Nazir-Ali would be a great candidate. The conservatives will like him because he Nazir-Ali still maintains a belief in that silly little thing called the Nicene Creed. Technically, if Rowan Williams has allowed himself to be intiated as a druid he has rejected not only the Nicene creed but is now openly allied with Satan and all his little wizards. And the liberals would like Nazir-Ali because he is minority ethnic ‘n’ stuff.
Here’s a video of Al-Beebs most egregious examples of bias.
archduke
I often ask myself the same question. Come to think about it. I ask that particular question every time I slip up and forget I am currently boycotting the BBC as much as possible, and actually watch a moment or two of their product.
Questions I also ask are.
Have these people got children and if so, do they give a flying fuck whether they grow up to live in a free prosperous non racist peaceful coherent sensible democratic country or not?
How is it that ALL the BBCs massively numerous and embarrassing well bribed/waged employees can not see for themselves that they are brainwashed and controlled beyond belief and are only good at imposing there disease on others.
But my biggest question is reserved for this site, because the rest could at least plead ignorance of our contempt.
How does the likes of JR, that apparently read mine and others comments, on this site. Not at least stop to think for just one second and maybe, just maybe start to believe that we the BBCs customers might actually KNOW what we are talking about. Is there mind programming that complete, uncaring or just plain nasty?
Another common one is.
How many years with good behavior would I actually do at her majesties pleasure if I did do the world a favor and blow the evil greedy monsters all to Kingdom Come?
If
‘..the Electoral Commission said it had no reason to believe a breach of the party funding law had taken place.’ then what’s the story
Irrefutable damning evidence:
‘A black bin bag containing the documents has been handed to File On 4.
It contains fragments of cheques, train tickets, receipts and invoices.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/7239316.stm
This story just stinks of let’s dig up something to deflect the attention from the dodoging dealings of the Labour
Correction:
If
‘..the Electoral Commission said it had no reason to believe a breach of the party funding law had taken place.’ then what’s the story
Irrefutable damning evidence:
‘A black bin bag containing the documents has been handed to File On 4.
It contains fragments of cheques, train tickets, receipts and invoices.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr…n_4/ 7239316.stm
This story just stinks of let’s dig up something to deflect the attention from the dodging dealings of the Labour Party
David Vance | 11.02.08 – 3:10 pm
It’s the institutionalised hatred of all things British that concerns me. And judging by comments here, I’m not the only one.
Absolutely 100% correct. From an outsiders perspective, I am constantly flabbergasted by the BBC’s vile, subversive attitude to the Britain that pays its salary and in which it apparently has its roots.
The People’s Front of Judea | 11.02.08 – 3:55 pm
But what I love the most is how much BBC wordworm has crawled out of the state owned furniture…
Wordworm. I like that one. Mind if I borrow it?
The BBC is comprised of wordworms feeding at the public trough.
I do exclude David Gregory from this comment because he is more honest than the rest of them put together
Deborah | 11.02.08 – 4:13 pm
I agree. He can also admit his mistakes. That is an exceptionally rare quality at the BBC.
As I said, I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy of running down a particular organisation and frequently appearing on it.
Typhoo | Homepage | 11.02.08 – 4:24 pm
Give us a break. You think the BBC should have the freedom to propagandise unhindered by opposing viewpoints?
“How many years with good behavior would I actually do at her majesties pleasure if I did do the world a favor and blow the evil greedy monsters all to Kingdom Come?”
That would be a threat of voilence. I think you should be careful about that.
On the ABofC row, how on earth can the BBC claim that this piece of overtly supportive commentary counts as “analysis”?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7239786.stm
“You know if he’d said something that offended Muslims, he would have been sacked in five seconds flat. He wouldn’t have even been given the time to clean out his desk.”
Not true, the Bishop of York has managed it recently and is still there (and backed by beardy). For all its faults the Anglican church does have the admirable quality of avoiding kneejerk reaction.
What makes you think they were surprised, out of interest?
p and a tale of one chip | 11.02.08 – 5:51 pm
Peter Horrocks commenting on HYS reaction to Bhutto’s murder:
The vehemence and the unanimity of these opinions against the Muslim religion were striking. So why did we briefly consider freezing this forum? A small part of our thinking was that in the context of the death of a significant international figure, who was herself Muslim, we thought that the weight of remarks could be offensive to some users of the BBC News website.
Horrocks again:
Of course in one sense it is very useful to understand the strength of feeling on this issue amongst our audiences, the majority of whom as far as we could tell were from the UK. That’s something we will bear in mind in covering aspects of Islam in future. But do I believe that those views were not truly representative of the BBC’s audiences at home and abroad.
Yes, the BBC is surprised all right. But still in denial.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/01/value_of_citizen_journalism.html
I did not know that Williams is a druid. I find that astounding – that our Archbishop of Canterbury is a polytheist.
He might as well stick a maypole outside his church and tell kids to dance around it.
The more I read into him the less I think he is a sincere Christian.
It would be convenient to dismiss Williams as a lovable eccentric, or a
wild-eyed weirdo. Unfortunately, as the the Bible makes plain, many appear sound, perfectly reasonable and righteous:
“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.”
2 Corinthians 11:13-15 RSV
“this piece of overtly supportive commentary”
if saying that he was wrong about just about everything and the church is about to collapse is ‘overtly supportive’ i’d hate to see your definition of hostile.
Just how un-representative of the nation at large B-BBC currently is, can be demonstrated by the latest RAJAR figures.
Radio 4’s audience is up to 9.29 million.
Radio 4 listeners continue to tune in heavily to the station, with the average now standing at 12 hours and 54 minutes a week – the highest figure for any national radio station.
The total audience for BBC radio now stands at 33.12 million.
The Today programme has a healthy weekly reach knocking 6 million.
More and more people listening longer and longer.
I doubt if those listening for 13 hours a week are bitching about the modest licence-fee.
Nor about any imagined ‘bias’.
How different from the statistically insignificant little demographic that hangs out here, dittoheads shouting in an echo chamber, fooling themselves that everybody else thinks the same, when hardly anybody does.
Mark the contrast with the Rajar trend:
I have to admit I rarely listen to it these days
David Vance
i refuse to listen to it •
archduke | 12.02.08 – 12:25 am
I myself gave up listening to the prog in 2006 …
In fact I was so disgusted with the BBC’s reporting that I finally stopped listening to any of its news all together.
Miv Tucker | 12.02.08 – 12:02 am
I am currently boycotting the BBC as much as possible
Atlas shrugged | 12.02.08 – 3:59 am
I listen to the Today programme out of habit – but my tolerance levels are steadily decreasing. I turned off after about twenty minutes this morning.
Oscar | 11.02.08 – 4:43 pm
And my all-time favourite:
The fact is that when you give up listening to the news, or reading it, you develop a whole new perspective….
Miv Tucker | 12.02.08 – 12:02 am
I should say!
A report about the increase in public exexcutions in Iran. The hangings were proceeded by a Koranic recitation.
I guess thats yet another one that slipped through?
John Reith | 12.02.08 – 10:48 am
How different from the statistically insignificant little demographic that hangs out here, dittoheads shouting in an echo chamber, fooling themselves that everybody else thinks the same, when hardly anybody does.
Except of course for the thousands upon thousands who flood HYS (now that the moderators appear to have eased their censorship) with comments in a similar vein to those of B-BBC.
And the millions upon millions who can’t stomach the BBC and turn to other media.
You seem to be delighted with your weak argument.
Re: RAJAR figures.
To my mind BBC radio is the prime reason for the continuation of the BBC as a public funded state broadcaster. I’d totally agree that there’s a political bias but it does at least provide a product that isn’t remotely duplicated by anything provided by the market. It’s not ideal but an intelligent person should be able to filter out the bias and come to their own conclusions from the wider discussion.
Nowhere else on UK radio (and arguably wider media) does anything have the depth of Radio 4, nowhere else except niche publications for the already converted are the higher arts covered as on Radio 3. I’d personally argue that Radio 1 pretty much saved British popular music from a gruesome Cowell inspired and Capital/Heart/Magic facilitated death but I appreciate that’s a matter of opinion.
The scary thing is that, as Rod Liddle said in the Times last weekend, the Beeb’s management seem to think that being ‘inclusive’ means dumbing down these things to the moron level which the market provides, rather than providing intelligent braodcasting to a wide audience which surely fulfills some of their educational remit.
And as BBC and all other British TV is so crap that there’s no point seeing anything that you can’t watch in the pub I don’t have to pay the license fee. Hurrah!
“Except of course for the thousands upon thousands who flood HYS”
Right, so it’s a few thousand commenters v a few million listeners and Reith’s argument is weak?
“And the millions upon millions who can’t stomach the BBC and turn to other media.”
Well yes. One had noted that the rise of the big Middle Esstern satellite news channels might be because the BBC wasn’t the dhimmi stooge operation the nuttier elements of B-BBC would want everyone to believe.