I caught the BBC Radio 4 News headlines at 6.30am this morning and noticed that the “Save The Guantanamo Six” campaign has now kicked off, following the news that the US intends to try six men, including alleged plot mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, with plotting the events that led to the mass terror attack on 9/11. The BBC are foaming at the mouth about this story because it combines several of their innate leftist prejudices. The Bush regime (bad) is going to take Guantanamo inmates (innocent, in the wrong place at the wrong time) to a military commission (always bad) and if they are convictedthey could face – gasp – the death penalty (double bad) The first comment came from the UN Rapportuer on torture Manfred Nowak(Remember, Gitmo bad) who was given free reign to imply that the poor Jihadi might not get a fair trial. Indeed I was entertained to hear the BBC reporter explain that he had “broken the news” to Manfred (who was on a ski-ing holiday, natch) that the Gitmo inmates could now face the death penalty. How interesting that the BBC thinks that the first person to speak to after this breaking news is a representative of the morally bankrupt UN which has consistently opposed the war on terror. Here’s a hint for the BBC – why not get in contact with those who lost loved ones on 9/11 and who crave that justice be done? The BBC has been a constant echo-chamber for the anti-war lobby who knee-jerk that Guantanamo be closed and that if there is evidence against those interned there, then bring them to trial. Now that the US is doing just that, they are even more upset because it’s the wrong sort of trial and as all good Beeboids know, there is no justice in the USA, right? (OJ apart) I look forward to the trial and conviction of these alleged Jihadi and hope that they will made their fate – and the death penalty seems about right to me. The world is divided into September 10th and September 11th people – the BBC remains resolutely stuck in September 10th 2001.
THE SEPTEMBER 1OTH PEOPLE.
Bookmark the permalink.
Peter | 12.02.08 – 4:03 pm |
I can understand the Jewish contributors,since they get Beebed so frequently…
“Beebed”. I like that. Americans get Beebed as well. It’s even more offensive now because they have created a news broadcast targeted directly at us. The contributors have made it very clear that they believe it is important for us dim-witted Americans to learn the foreign perspective, and they’re here to tell us.
We get Beebed for an hour each weeknight, and we do pay for it, albeit slightly voluntarily. Sometimes I can’t walk properly afterwards.
Angry Young Alex | 12.02.08 – 4:16 pm |
“Alex, Get back to me when you move on past 9/10.”
Is that far-right ideologue for “talk to the hand”?
Yes, talk to the hand, because the ears of my dead neighbors ain’t listening.
This is a perfect example of the bad craziness of the morally relativistic, handwringing weenie brigade, a.k.a. The Left. They piss, moan and cry (and over use the word fascist) for ages because these poor, innocent, peaceful, innocent genocidal maniacs aren’t getting a trial (‘Z0MG teh illegal detenshuns!!1!LOL’) and then when they do get a trial they…piss, moan and cry some more. They won’t be happy unless there’s a 100% change they’ll be found innocent.
Anyway, I haven’t been watching BBC News (I can’t stomach it; it’s biased and shoddily produced), but I presume Liberty has been all over it like a fly on a freshly-laid pile of horse poo. Maybe one of you could take a tally of how many times they – and by ‘they’, I mean Ms. Chakrabarti – have made an appearance to peddle their Islamic Terrorist-appeasing propaganda.
David Preiser,
It would be interesting to see how many in the BBC were members or supporters of the Socialist Worker’s Party.The SWP with strong links to Islamic organisations,oddly well funded,but incapable of making mainstream political progress.
I say “Give em a fair trial,then hang the bastards!”
Keep up the good work work David. Spot on.
I was reaching for the sick bag on my way into work this morning listening to one lefty theme then another. Was particularly amused about this mosquito subject (a high frequency device which deters teenage chavs / layabouts from chav magnets such as shops)
Obviously the BBC lefty reporter did nothing but debate the infringement of human rights this was. Very funny when she went into a local business and the shop owner said he’d be happy to see machine guns on top of these poles! Not a response she was hoping for i bet!
Good work David. Good work B-BBC.
David Vance:
“The point is that in the war on terror, the BBC should be on our side.”
You’re joking, right? You have an entire website, updated twice daily, about how the BBC is biased, and then expect it to take sides in a war?
“You’re joking, right? You have an entire website, updated twice daily, about how the BBC is biased, and then expect it to take sides in a war?”
Well yes,we pay for it and it is called the British Broadcasting Corporation.
You might note that the BBC has a slightly larger budget than B-BBC,more employees,offices and resources.
“entire website” indeed,what a pillock!
If you want the media to agree with whoever pays the bill, read the Sun.
The fact that you don’t mind the BBC showing bias if towards your side exposes the hypocrisy of this poisonous nest of idiots quite neatly.
“The fact that you don’t mind the BBC showing bias if towards your side exposes the hypocrisy of this poisonous nest of idiots quite neatly.”
No,we want the BBC to have no bias whatsoever, as per the terms of its Charter.
Peter:
David Preiser,
It would be interesting to see how many in the BBC were members or supporters of the Socialist Worker’s Party.The SWP with strong links to Islamic organisations,oddly well funded,but incapable of making mainstream political progress.
Peter | 12.02.08 – 5:37 pm | #
You don’t have to look too far Peter.
Mark Steel – the BBC’s most favourite “alternative” comedian is a long time SWP member.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steel
Look at his performance record and see if you can spot where most of his work comes from:-
Radio programmes
The Mark Steel Solution (1992, 1994 – 1996) BBC Radio 5, BBC Radio 4, repeated BBC 7
The Mark Steel Revolution (1998 ) BBC Radio 4, (2007) repeated BBC 7
The Mark Steel Lectures (1999 – 2002) BBC Radio 4, (2007) repeated BBC 7
Dedicated Troublemaker (2004) BBC Radio 4
He has also contributed to or appeared on the following shows:
The Good Human Guide BBC Radio 2(1985).
Contributing writer.
Extra Time BBC Radio 5 .
Presenter. Sports programme.
Late Edition BBC Radio 4 1995).
Regular panellist on this satirical talk show.The News Quiz BBC Radio 4 several occasions from the late 1990s onwards.
Loose Ends BBC Radio 4.
Interviewee.
Midweek BBC Radio 4. Interviewee.
Excess Baggage BBC Radio 4. Interviewee.
Television programmes
The Mark Steel Lectures BBC Four(2003, 2004, 2006). Writer and Presenter.
He also appeared in the following shows:
Red Dwarf BBC Two (1989).
If I Ruled the World BBC Two (1998 ). Guest panellist.
Lamarr’s Attacks (2000) BBC Two. Guest.
Never Mind the Buzzcocks BBC Two (2000, 2001). Guest panellist on this satirical music based panel game.
Have I Got News for You BBC One (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007). Guest panellist on this satirical news based panel game.
Question Time BBC One (2003, 2005) . Guest panellist on discussion show.
QI BBC Two, BBC Four (2004, 2005, 2006).
Guest panellist.
Mock the Week, BBC Two (2005, 2006).
Guest panellist.
Room 101 BBC Two, 2006,
There must be something about him that strikes a chord with the BBC.
What can it be?
“No,we want the BBC to have no bias whatsoever, as per the terms of its Charter.”
So why insist that it supports Britain? Let me translate it into moron.
Bias towards Britain is bias.
Bias towards Britain = bias.
Bias = bias.
Angry Young Alex:
Although your posts are quite short, I wonder if you could not post so often. The constant stop starting of having to avoid your posts is given me severe mouse finger strain. I swear to god if you Beeboids continue to frustrate my mouse action any further I shall be forced to come to TV Center with a pick axe handle and a long bicycle chain.
I’ve made this point before, in reference to another Beeb apologist, but I reckon it bears repeating….
“Let me translate it into moron.”
Do you talk to real people in the real world like this Alex, whenever they disagree with your adolescent tooth fairy liberal outlook ?
I rather think you don’t 🙂
So why insist that it supports Britain? Let me translate it into moron.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 12.02.08 – 8:56 pm | #
I should go easy with the “moron” remarks young Alex.
I just had a look at your personal 911 theory on your blog. There are quite good technical reasons why large buildings don’t fall over sideways. It’s to do with their enormous weight, gravity and the fact that they’re designed to resist considerable lateral forces.
I think there might be some health and safety issues with building high explosive charges into them!
Are you very young?
My God! I wish you hadn’t told us he has a blog, JRSIHG – I made the mistake of opening it. Yes, he IS very young indeed… and seems to have far too much time on his hands, coupled with an inflated sense of his own importance – but no awareness of irony whatsoever. All is explained (but at least he doesn’t spell ‘consonant’ wrong).
I think I might have figured it out.
Since David Vance’s arrival the BBC have unleashed their secret weapon – the “work experience” crew!
Curiosity killed the cat…I wish I’d never had a look at the blog either. Must go and wash my eyes.
He certainly likes the sound of his own “voice”.
Actually Alex has a good point. ‘Supporting the war’ (as DV would like the BBC to do) obviously requires an editorial decision that the BBC ought to be broadly pro-British. That’s bias, whether you like it or not.
Of course so is _not_ supporting the war. In fact, whatever position you take, you’re exhibiting bias.
Lack of bias is an absurd construct. The BBC has to plant its stake somewhere on every issue it tackles. It would say that it tries to find an ‘everyman’ position; that might have been possible in 1940 but I would suggest is much harder now. Certainly the majority of commentators here feel alienated by its position on many issues much of the time; me too, for what its worth.
What the BBC needs to start doing is abandoning the crazy notion that there is some mythical unbiased standpoint worth striving for. It’s intrinsically dishonest; and that, I believe, is the nub of most people’s problem with the BBC. There’s not a single national newspaper editor who isn’t keenly aware of his or her paper’s political standpoint – why can’t the BBC be equally honest, instead of maintaining the fiction of a neutral tone?
The worst manifestation of this is unthinkingly giving two sides of an argument equal prominence in the belief that it’s somehow neutral – it’s not, it’s just cretinous moral equivalence, and cowardly too because it obviates the need to really think about the issues.
So the BBC, like every news organisation, has to say every day: here is where we make our line in the sand on this issue. But it pretends it doesn’t. They won’t ever explain how they come to editorial decisions about the tone of their coverage, because to do so would be to admit to the elephant in the room; and that would be the end of the BBC as a ‘national institution’.
“So why insist that it supports Britain? Let me translate it into moron.”
Oh dear of dear, the poor little fuckwit has just made it open season on Angry Young Alex.
“We want the BBC to have no bias whatsoever, as per the terms of its Charter.”
Remember?
Explain this,
“The fact that you don’t mind the BBC showing bias if towards your side exposes the hypocrisy of this poisonous nest of idiots quite neatly.
You say “your side”, which side are you on Alex? We should be told.
Now take your angst, acne and wanker’s doom and shove it up your Alex.
Ali P,
You are so right,Lord Haw Haw could have had his own studio at the BBC.
“I just had a look at your personal 911 theory on your blog. There are quite good technical reasons why large buildings don’t fall over sideways. It’s to do with their enormous weight, gravity and the fact that they’re designed to resist considerable lateral forces.”
Read it again. I didn’t say that was my theory. I said that if the controlled demolition hypothesis were the case, it would not necessarily mean the hijackings were a government conspiracy. Besides, the Twin Towers were designed to resist considerable fires, and didn’t. Belt, braces and elasticated waistband.
What the BBC needs to start doing is abandoning the crazy notion that there is some mythical unbiased standpoint worth striving for. …The worst manifestation of this is unthinkingly giving two sides of an argument equal prominence in the belief that it’s somehow neutral”
This I something definitely agree on. But might I add that the BBC makes the mistake of giving equal weight to two sides when there are quite often three or four, the rest of which get ignored. For example an article on reform in the Pakistani rape laws basically pitted busybodying Western liberals against ultraconservative Pakistani theocrats. Why did interfering Western misogynists and rapists get a say. More importantly, where were the Pakistani liberals who had campaigned for reform. Surely they should have been first port of call. And omitting their opinion made it sound as if the civilised West was finally making some progress with the Pakistani savages. But this wasn’t bias, it was just laziness and stupid binary thinking.
Now come on the rest of you. How could the BBC possibly reconcile being both pro-Britain and entirely unbiased?
The BBC isn’t entirely unbiased,it is biased against Britain.What is being asked for is that to stop.
“Twin Towers were designed to resist considerable fires, and didn’t.”
They stayed up long enough for the evacuation of the floors below the fires and the aircraft strike.
Remember the towers were designed to be proof against accidents,not homicidal fanatics who had meticulously planned to bring them down.
You said that yes, you expected it to take sides in the war. I may have misunderstood you. But David Vance said in no uncertain terms that the BBC should be actively supporting Britain. That’s bias in my book.
As I said before, I don’t really believe the controlled demolition hypothesis. I also don’t believe that evidence of demolition is evidence of government or flying-saucer involvement. That’s the point of the blog. The other thing I don’t believe is that we should be wasting B-BBC space on an irrelevant aside of a discussion, especially when it gets so lonely on my blog.
Anyway, isn’t terrorist-fire basically the same as accident-fire? And don’t all kinds of designs end up not working in practice? Again, evidence of the buildings not being as fireproof as they were supposed to be is not evidence that the government did it.
Angry Young Alex:
Anyway, isn’t terrorist-fire basically the same as accident-fire? And don’t all kinds of designs end up not working in practice? Again, evidence of the buildings not being as fireproof as they were supposed to be is not evidence that the government did it.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 12.02.08 – 10:27 pm | #
I don’t know why I’m bothering – but the “terrorist fire” was completely different to the “accident fires” the building was designed to resist.
The difference was a few thousand gallons of accelerant – the kerosene on board the planes.
That created far more heat than any “natural” fire and softened the main steel structural members beyond their design limits.
Got it now?
“Since when did congressional committees conduct trials? Oh, and McCarthy was a Senator and therefore not involved in House hearings. And, yes, Alger Hiss actually was a Soviet agent, even though the Lefties made him a cause celebre on the grounds of his allegedly injured innocence.”
And they criticize David Irving for historical revisionism.
Amazing.
It’s nutters like you that give this place a bad name.
“Better stick with the chilled tinnies, AB. And those bug thingies, they’re delicious.”
Don’t get out much, do you?
“The People’s Front of Judea:
Aussie bystander:
Any chance you could keep your postings much shorter in future? I had to scroll down for about 5 seconds to skip your last post. Previously it was only taking half a second. Have some respect for the people here who wish to ignore you. Scroll wheels cost money you know.”
Your wasting of precious electrons has been noted.
Actually, I partially agree with Young (if deluded) Alex. The BBC can not become something it is not: it will never be completely objective, nor should it try. Rather, the BBC should be set free from the shackles of the public purse. It should be free to report what it likes, as it likes – and the people of Britain should be given similar freedom, the choice whether to fund it through private subscription, or not. It’s actually not that complex, and technically feasible when the digital switch over is complete next year. The BBC can continue to posit its unique world view to those who are willing to pay for it, while freeing itself from the wrath and criticisms of those who feel less inclined toward it.
“You said that yes, you expected it to take sides in the war.”
No.
“I may have misunderstood you.”
Yes.
“Again, evidence of the buildings not being as fireproof as they were supposed to be”
The steel girders were coated in fire retardant material,quite simply the explosion of the aircraft dislodged some of this.
The planes slice right through the buildings,certainly damaging vertical supports above the crash level.It was the floors above this collapsing which brought the whole buildings down like a pack of cards.
“Natalie K:
….
‘Hillhunt’, ‘Aussie Bystander’, ‘Angry Young Alex’ ‘P and a tale of one chip’ – clearly not BBC, though their trolling does not make this as clear as would be desireable.
…….
The biggest giveaway of all of this deception is your Damascus conversion to supporting B-BBC when Andrew was the main editor rather than David, when at the time you were actually raving against him and I have to assume would again if he returned.”
How about the idea that there are differing points of view about what constitutes bias in the BBC?
How about the idea that this blog isn’t supposed to be an echo chamber for whoever writes it?
How about the idea that in a democratic society, challenging authority, challenging other people’s opinions are the key characteristics?
David Vance writes such ludicrously biased prose that it starts to make the BBC’s bias look innocuous. He lives in a society where there are physical barriers separating different religious groups and division of nearly everything on religious lines. He lives in an apartheid society and it shows.
I have no intention of standing down. There are more important things to think about than whether “Natalie K” imagines I work for the BBC or not.
Everyone has biases. Mine is in favour of democracy, freedom of speech and accountability of authority to the people who pay for that authority to exist.
That means that Vance doesn’t get a free ride. Don’t like it? That’s a shame.
Oh, and for those who still believe an evil cabal of Neo-con/Zionists are responsible for the terror of 9-11 – have a look at this extremely detailed response in Popular Mechanics – it’s a very interesting read.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
“He lives in an apartheid society and it shows.”
No mention of the Aboriginals the you colonialist?
why can’t the BBC be equally honest, instead of maintaining the fiction of a neutral tone?
The worst manifestation of this is unthinkingly giving two sides of an argument equal prominence in the belief that it’s somehow neutral – Ali P | 12.02.08 – 9:38 pm | #
Good post Ali P. I just wanted to pick up on these two points.
The first is that ‘impartiality’ is a requirement of law for all broadcast media in the UK: ITV, BBC, C4.
So until the law changes, we have to attempt it, however impossible it is for any person or organisation to be genuinely objective.
The reporting of MMR would be a good example of the second bit of your post I have selected. The BBC gave undue prominence to the reasons why the jab was a bad idea, when the balance of scientific opinion was firmly in favour of the jab being a good thing. This actually had quite serious consequences with the public. This has had a big impact on a lot of our coverage – a really obvious example being with climate change where IMO the arguments against are underreported because the BBC is trying not to do an MMR.
Hmm, the lefty wind-up merchants are making the tone of this place rather too antagonistic to be constructive. So I am going to check out for a while until they have got bored and buggered off somewhere else.
I am not going to apologise for them as they have nothing to do with the Beeb and are not representative of it.
Lefty wind-up merchants – I am sure you think you are helping, but you aren’t, and while a bit of verbal banter is fine and too be expected, try not to be so dismissive of opinion here, it is actually reasonably broad.
Typhoo:
I think you’ll find David Vance, like Enoch before him – who was much misunderstood but generally right in what he said. (Though he isn’t right all the time )
Powell established his reputation as a parliamentarian by condemning the brutal teatment of Mau May detainees at Hola Camp in Kenya during the Mau Mau emergency. He was a convinced opponent of capital punishment throughout his life. He would probably have joined in condemning the US extra-judicial process in the case of the post 9/11 detainees and the potential penalties. He would have pointed out to overheated contributors to this blog that “detainee” and “accused” are not the same as “perpetrator” and “guilty”. Between the two comes the process of judicial trial – which the US government is using pretty devious means to deny to the detainees involved in the present process.
Oh, and by the way, Powell was a highly intelligent and fair man – who had a geat respect for the islamic faith and its adherents.
Excellent post, Ali, thanks.
As regards this comment: ‘Lack of bias is an absurd construct. The BBC has to plant its stake somewhere on every issue it tackles.’
I think what angers a lot of people, not just here but in general, is that when the BBC plants its stake it isn’t usually pro-British. Given that the organisation is the BBC and is funded by people in Britain, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that it should take a pro-British stance.
If it’s not going to do that it should have the honesty not to extort money from the British.
Sarah-Jane, Rob – thanks.
Like SJ I’m going to give BBBC a miss for a bit.
Back to Justin, I suppose…
Rob
I am not sure that the BBC is anti-British as much as pro-EU and UN and anti-old establishment.
It has a schizophrenic view on the Monarchy, armed forces and CoE, with some decent behind the scenes documentaries balancing some pretty nasty stuff coming out of its comedies and oddly focused news stories.
Unfortunately it is the drip-drip effect of the unpleasantness that leaves people questioning the roles of these establishments rather than the reassurance that the positive coverage provides. I am not sure that this is a particularly BBC thing but rather a natural outcome of satire and journalism.
Where the balance fails is in the lack of satire and negative journalism focused on the new establishment; partly because there is so much movement between the two.
“I think what angers a lot of people, not just here but in general, is that when the BBC plants its stake it isn’t usually pro-British. Given that the organisation is the BBC and is funded by people in Britain, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that it should take a pro-British stance.”
I wouldn’t say it was unreasonable to take a pro-British stance. But it’s also not unreasonable for the BBC to try to be neither pro- nor anti-British. Doing so does not damage Britain, if anything it makes the BBC (and so Britain by extension) more trusted abroad and at home.
“He would have pointed out to overheated contributors to this blog that “detainee” and “accused” are not the same as “perpetrator” and “guilty”. Between the two comes the process of judicial trial – which the US government is using pretty devious means to deny to the detainees involved in the present process.”
He would also point out the difference between “enemy combatant” and ordinary criminal.
Sarah Jane:
“Hmm, the lefty wind-up merchants are making the tone of this place rather too antagonistic to be constructive. So I am going to check out for a while until they have got bored and buggered off somewhere else. I am not going to apologise for them as they have nothing to do with the Beeb and are not representative of it.”
I find it highly likely that these ‘wind up’ merchants DO work for the BBC. They seem to have all the juvenille reasoning and slavvering obediance that is mandatory in a BBC employee, so why shouldn’t they be?
Weird. I can sort of understand that you think everyone that the entire BBC is left wing. But it’s a bit fucked-up that you also think that the entire left wing is BBC.
Angry Young Alex:
I wouldn’t say it was unreasonable to take a pro-British stance. But it’s also not unreasonable for the BBC to try to be neither pro- nor anti-British. Doing so does not damage Britain, if anything it makes the BBC (and so Britain by extension) more trusted abroad and at home.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 13.02.08 – 6:47 pm | #
Because listeners or viewers to the domestic BBC output are,I suspect, mainly British I would have thought that the BBC would try to reflect this more in their broadcasts. Or maybe they just don’t know how to support their ‘team’ (the UK), that is, if they consider it to be their ‘team’ in the first place?
Imagine Man Utd TV being negative about or ignoring the supporters of Man Utd and instead give positive, glowing and morale boosting support for foreign opponents of Man Utd, and also, somehow or other, see nothing but league winning performances from the bottom three clubs in the EPL!
“Weird. I can sort of understand that you think everyone that the entire BBC is left wing. But it’s a bit fucked-up that you also think that the entire left wing is BBC.”
No more fucked up than you thinking anyone has stated this anywhere on this blog.
“I wouldn’t say it was unreasonable to take a pro-British stance. But it’s also not unreasonable for the BBC to try to be neither pro- nor anti-British. Doing so does not damage Britain, if anything it makes the BBC (and so Britain by extension) more trusted abroad and at home.”
The BBC shouldn’t propagandise British actions but it should at least (as it used to) start with the premise that British culture is a model for other countries and report through that prism.
“Because listeners or viewers to the domestic BBC output are,I suspect, mainly British I would have thought that the BBC would try to reflect this more in their broadcasts.”
If they did, I wouldn’t complain. But they have every right to decide in the name or impartiality not to. If you want to complain about LACK of bias, go ahead, but drop the double standards, please.
ManUtd TV is not a valid comparison. ManUtd TV is funded by the team for its fans and supporters, and like almost every media outlet in Britain, allowed to take whatever editorial line it wants. The BBC is funded by the taxpayer specifically to produce non-partisan, impartial programming. That’s the difference.
Peter:
“He would have pointed out to overheated contributors to this blog that “detainee” and “accused” are not the same as “perpetrator” and “guilty”. Between the two comes the process of judicial trial – which the US government is using pretty devious means to deny to the detainees involved in the present process.”
He would also point out the difference between “enemy combatant” and ordinary criminal.
Peter | 13.02.08 – 7:26 pm | #
To those confused the above is a comment on my comment (quoted) on someone’s laughable idea that E Powell would be saying “right on Bush” to the goings on in Gutanamo Bay.
I think Powell would point out that “enemy combatant” was something dreamed up by the Bush administration to justify extra-judicial detention, “trial” and punishment of people who could not legally be detained under the Geneva Conventions and underinternational law almost universally recognised by civilised nations, without proper legal process.
The people whose brutal treatment at Hola Camp was attacked by Powell were just like the people the US rounded up and sent to GBay – suspected terrorists some of whom probably were terorists and, being a sound Tory, he stood up for their rights to due legal process.
“I wouldn’t say it was unreasonable to take a pro-British stance. But it’s also not unreasonable for the BBC to try to be neither pro- nor anti-British. Doing so does not damage Britain, if anything it makes the BBC (and so Britain by extension) more trusted abroad and at home.”
Very true, Alex. But that pre-supposes that it’s possible to be impartial, and I’m not convinced that it is.
I can’t think of any media which is genuinely neutral • the BBC still manages it in some areas, but increasingly few • though I’d be happy to be proved wrong.
Interestingly in sport (my area of expertise), the BBC is happy to bang the drum for unashamed nationalistic fervour, but in many other instances it refuses to do the same.
I’m not sure I really care whether the BBC is trusted abroad. Sorry, that sounded unduly brusque. What I meant was it that it’s the British Broadcasting Corporation and I personally would like to see rather more emphasis on the first of those words.
Cockney, yup, I’d go along with that summary, thanks.