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. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would also be appreciated!
General BBC-related comment thread:
Bookmark the permalink.
No prizes for guessing the Beeb view of Michael Martin. Beeb clearly doing all it can to rehablitate him.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7262190.stm
Note the reference to Mr Martin being cheered by MPs (not Labour MPs which was undoubtedly the case)
Note the continued reference to Conway in the story. (It’s all his fault obviously)
Note the “no suggestions that Mr Martin used his allowance incorrectly”
Careful to strees that Mr Martin had not been at fault over the taxi expenses (even though Martin has had weeks to correct the inaccuracies)
Only one expression of dissent from Martin Bell (right at the botton of the story).
Why is it that BBC articles these days look like a written piece of advocacy drafted by a lawyer on behalf of a client.
Well I watched the tail end of that panorama program of that “Murder by British Soldier” which the BBC in its infinite wisdom decided to air. I came in where the BBC graphically recreated what they wish you believe is the truth. But the strange thing was, while they had no problem getting the cast of Wood Green to play out the wet dream of every anti-war protester going. They kept repeating the fact that nothing could be substantiated. In fact in the 30 mins I watched all the primary motivating factor in this allegation was the belief by the 2 human rights lawyers that they believed a crime had been committed. I was very interested by how the BBC interviewed 5 young men who claimed to be innocent farmers who were arrested by the Brits after the event and claim to be tortured and whom now are suing the British for damages. Now I’m no expert on human psychology but did anybody else actually believe those 5 men were actually innocent farmers? I mean I’ve seen Iraqi farmers and I’ve seen thugs and I know which category those BBC witnesses fall under. But hey that’s only my POV. As I mentioned I only caught the tail end of the program and to be honest I got the impression of somebody clutching at straws in which to try and promote half a story as the truth. Did the BBC need to air this story? Personally I don’t think so. They of course feel they do.lets hope none of the faithful who watched this program feel inclined in which to extract revenge for something that hasn’t gone to court. If they do I hope the BBC is itself taken to court and the producers prosecuted for inciting violence.
I often wonder what Animal Farm would read like, if written by a Beeboid.
“Apparently, the Oscars were a triumph for Europe. According to Radio 4’s Today Programme, that is.
The British winners were lumped in with a French bird who won an award for playing Edith Piaf.
Whoever was reporting from LA could only grudgingly describe Daniel Day-Lewis as “British-born.”
Littlejohn
cant resist this one
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/02/cant-resist-this-one.html
Pounce: I commented on this in the thread below. Basically the programme spent the first half going back through the pointless 6 month trial where it ended up with one soldier admitting a bit of naughty treatment and no one else being found guilty (therefore innocent – although I notice the BBC don’t seem to think of British soldiers as “innocent” in the same way Muslim extremists downloading bomb making manuals are “innocent”
The programme was just bollocks. There was NO mention of the IRC investigation finding no case to answer.
If that is the BEST the BBC can come up with these days, then I suggest that Panorama is cancelled.
There was no evidence presented (apart from some guy having his dick missing) well Gordon Brown is dickless, so does that mean he’s be abused by soldiers as well?
Lurker thanks for that.
The Economist leads with the Castro story this week. In fact the main article is a hive of information on just what life under castro has been like.
http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10727899
Pity the BBC version doesn’t mention half the stuff of this article.
(It’s long but worth the read)
Gosh only the BBC could promote this headline;
Solo showers in jails boost CO2
Giving prisoners their own showers has forced up the government’s carbon dioxide emissions, official statistics have shown.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7264052.stm
The mind boggles?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7263783.stm
Who do you think the BBC is backing in the US elections?
The accusation was dismissed by Mrs Clinton’s campaign manager Maggie Williams.
“If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed,” she said.
“Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.”
Mrs Williams did not address the question of whether staffers circulated the photo.
I’m glad they cleared that up. God forbid, we might not come to the conclusion that Mrs Williams is an evil racist…
Missed Panorama, perhaps for the best, but interesting to hear about it. What did anyone make of the human rights ‘lawyers’? Are they in it for the money, the fame, or do they just really hate Britain? (Please don’t tell me they’re driven by a belief in justice.)
Anyway, I have a post on the BBC’s enthusiastic coverage of the Heathrow ‘climate change’ protest here:
http://monkeytenniscentre.blogspot.com/2008/02/bbc-falls-for-climate-change-stunt.html
Wish I had time to post on the Gaza non-event that the Beeb spend the day plugging.
Forget the BBC for news, theres more here than in a month of Andrew Marrs Sundays:
Thus, from the EU’s obsession with global warming, we can see all sorts of stresses building up, with resistance from member states to implementation of plans they themselves have agreed in principle. This definitely puts the EU on the line. To maintain any credibility, it will have to trying to force member states to comply with its plans but, as the economic situation gets tighter, this will prove extremely difficult.
We have always felt that global warming could prove the nemesis of the EU and, if these current problems are any guide, we are starting to see the shape of things to come.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/02/taste-of-things-to-come.html
Lurker in a Burqua | 26.02.08 – 2:12 am |
Aye. Things will move quickly, I think a post-EU future is on the cards. What will life be like without the EU?
david vance, fuck off this site and go back to jippo land
a bbc employee
garveys champagne hangover | 26.02.08 – 2:49 am |
Wow..Nice comment, did you just finish a line of cocaine off the body of your regular rent boy.
I suspect Garveys is not really a BBC employee. Most people who work here would know how to spell “gyppo” wouldn’t they?
The replies to BBC Nick Robinson’s Newslog about the Speaker highlights just how far out of step the BBC are with the universe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2008/02/theories_on_the.html
Have a look (if you can stand it) at Justin Webb’s fanzine, er, blog on the US election. He’s clearly a man in love with Barack, and even some of the comments are calling him out on this.
Just as the BBC is inclined to underplay the violent, aggressive message of Islam, as indicated by its reporting on Sharia, so now the BBC on the ‘Today’ programme this morning, in the form of that expert on Islam, James Naughtie, enthuses naively that the Turkish government is looking at possibly less vicious interpretations of the hadith.
This is where the BBC’s ‘multiculturalism leads: ‘oh, Islam can’t be all that bad, and in any case, it’s easy to change.’ The reality is that the practice of Islamic Jihad and Sharia are much worse than the BBC reports, and the BBC does not even mention the increasing Islamisation which is going on in Turkey now; but Turkey will be able to con its way into the European Union, with the support of its gullible ‘multicultural’ friends.
Yes, great comment to the most recent post of Webb’s:
“Thanks Mr. Webb for your courageous and sincere reports. Allow me to also thank all Americans involved in the “Obama surge”. He is raising hopes all over the Earth, silently connecting people who believe in the possibility of peace, in spite of so much hating and pain … His presidency may have a very strong and lasting impact.”
I’m not sure the writer’s being ironic, which actually makes it all the more telling of that extent to which Webb’s abandoned his duty to report impartially.
WoAD:
Lurker in a Burqua | 26.02.08 – 2:12 am |
Aye. Things will move quickly, I think a post-EU future is on the cards. What will life be like without the EU?
WoAD | Homepage | 26.02.08 – 2:35 am | #
If Norway and Iceland are anything to go by bloody brilliant!!!!!!!
http://www.propertysearchnow.com/top50_placestolive/best_placestolive.htm
“Apparently, the Oscars were a triumph for Europe. According to Radio 4’s Today Programme, that is.
The British winners were lumped in with a French bird who won an award for playing Edith Piaf.”
And Javier Bardem, the Spaniard who won the best supporting gong. The point being that for the first time in ages an American hadn’t won one of the four big acting awards, which is noteworthy.
Well, another telling contribution from a beeboid staffer !
The really are pulling out all the stops on behalf of that venal and incompetent mr. martin aren’t they ?
The bbc, spinning for nulab, its what we do.
garveys champagne hangover:
david vance, fuck off this site and go back to jippo land
a bbc employee
—————————————–
Good grief! Oscar Wilde lives!
An important report in the ‘Daily Mail’:-
“The white working class feels alienated, threatened and voiceless, says BBC boss”
(So, the BBC is carrying out its ‘multiculturalist’ mission successfully.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=518641&in_page_id=1773
**The point being that for the first time in ages an American hadn’t won one of the four big acting awards, which is noteworthy.**
Why?
The Oscars aren’t the Ryder Cup. They are not the USA v Europe.
Although, in BBC-land, everything is the USA v Europe, isn’t it?
Can’t wait for the Olympics and the BBC idiots treating Europe like a country again.
Have you got an anti-Iraq war book to plug? Let the BBC take care of your publicity needs. Former advisor to Bill Clinton and anti-free market economist Joseph Stiglitz was on at least three BBC programmes yesterday – Start the Week (R4), Simon Mayo (R5L), and Newsnight (BBC 2). Did anyone spot other appearances? Book at Bedtime perhaps?
BBC’s report on the Children’s Society’s latest simply trots out the claims that big business and advertising are making the poor dears miserable:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7262936.stm
Somehow it doesn’t find room for an opposing point of view. Channel Four, though, manages to include this in its report:
“But Baroness Buscombe, Chief Executive of the Advertising Association, said calls for advertising bans were “ill considered”. She said: “The advertising industry continues to work with government to lift horizons, enrich lives and bring great benefits to British society. And indeed funds the commercial media, including children’s television.”
Wasn’t so hard, was it?
On “Toady” this morning Jim Naughtie happily got stuck into the bloke from the ABPI on antidepressants. Evil Bg Pharma Boo Hiss. Unfortunately, when asking about drugs approval process, he got a bit confused between what the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) does and the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (aka NICE). Bloke from ABPI (who’s paid a shedload to know about these things) tried gently to correct him, but Jim just ignored him, talking about NICE when he really meant the MHRA.
Two thoughts struck me:
1) Naughtie still sounded as if he knew what he was talking about even though he demonstrably didn’t
2) He didn’t sound like the sort of bloke accustomed to being corrected.
“Why?”
If you can’t understand why events that deviate from the norm make headlines, I can’t help you.
“Although, in BBC-land, everything is the USA v Europe, isn’t it?”
And the Jerusalem Post
“Europeans monopolize top acting awards”
And New York Times
“In Los Angeles, Oscar Statues Become a Popular Export”
And the Daily Telegraph
“It was the perfect Oscar ceremony for this year’s leading films in competition: smarter than average, grown-up and vaguely sophisticated in tone, European in outlook”
And ABC news
“Europeans Sweep Acting Oscars”
among countless others.
Hugh:
Channel Four, though, manages to include this in its report:
“But Baroness Buscombe, Chief Executive of the Advertising Association, said calls for advertising bans were “ill considered”.
Excellent point, Hugh.
Just two small things:
1. Is it news that the ad industry disagrees with the ban?
2. Channel 4 (excellent station though it is) depends almost entirely on advertising for its income. Why wouldn’t it big up the Baroness?
Biased BBC: News Values Elude Us
BBC News Values Elude Us:
From present ‘BBC News Front Page’:
Other Top Stories: ‘Truancy Figures rise slightly’.
1993: World Trade Center bomb terrorises New York
Is the subject of the BBC’s “On This Day” today.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/26/newsid_2516000/2516469.stm
The BBC provide an update on the story via an “In Context” box. What’s glaringly left out of the update is the 9/11 commissions findings that Iraq was behind the terror attack.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2008/02/us-1993-world-trade-center-bomb.html
Mark:
The BBC provide an update on the story via an “In Context” box. What’s glaringly left out of the update is the 9/11 commissions findings that Iraq was behind the terror attack.
Top find, Mark.
Few small things:
1. It’s not a finding of the 9/11 Commission at all.
2. It’s a submission to the Commission by Laurie Mylroie, whose work is described in Wikipedia as “controversial and heavily criticized”.
3. Dr. Robert S. Leiken of the Nixon Center is quoted thus: “Laurie has discovered Saddam’s hand in every major attack on US interests since the Persian Gulf War, including U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and even the federal building in Oklahoma City. These allegations have all been definitively refuted by the FBI, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and other investigatory bodies….”
4. The BBC, on the other hand, accurately summarises the findings of guilt made in the US courts.
These are momentous days for B-BBC.
Yesterday Mr Orange taught us how to complain about the BBC not doing interviews for a foreign TV channel.
He showed us that the BBC should swing its weight behind 1.5% of the Ulster population.
And now Marc shows us how to whinge when the BBC prefers the findings of the US courts to the heavily-contested ravings of a neo-con crakpot conspiracy theorist.
Biased BBC: Heading In The Right Direction (At Last)
anti-free market economist Joseph Stiglitz was on at least three BBC programmes yesterday – Start the Week (R4), Simon Mayo (R5L), and Newsnight (BBC 2). Did anyone spot other appearances? Book at Bedtime perhaps?
DB | 26.02.08 – 10:00 am | #
Oh dear. How exactly is Stiglitz “anti-free market”?
In reality he is very pro the free market. It just so happens he doesn’t believe that shock therapy is the way way to open up an economy to the free market, advocating sequencing and a more measured approach over a longer period of time.
Just because he has been critical of free market economists does not make him anti the free market. There’s a big difference that seems to have passed you by.
I see the BBC are still spinning the story that the Clinton campaign didn’t release the photo of Obama in traditional dress.
Funny, but the Clinton capmaign hasn’t denied releasing the photo.
Come on BBC tell the truth. It WAS released by the Clinton campaign. Hillary is a vile human being who will do anything to get power (something the BBC don’t seem to mind) which should be a very good reason NOT to give her power.
p and a tale of one chip
No the point is the BBC lumped all the actors into a mythical european identity.
For an up-dated analysis of 9/11, suggest see new book by Andrew C. McCarthy, ” When Jihad Came to America “. (The BBC is no doubt longing to feature it.)
Here is a long preview:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/Special-Preview—br—WHEN-JIHAD-CAME-TO-AMERICA-11244
Martin:
I see the BBC are still spinning the story that the Clinton campaign didn’t release the photo of Obama in traditional dress.
Funny, but the Clinton capmaign hasn’t denied releasing the photo.
Excellent analysis.
Few small things:
1. The BBC is reporting both sides fairly. Odd, that.
2. The conservative National Review website is carrying a leaked email
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGMxMWU0MDdmZTRiMWY4OWFkODVjZThmYWRlZDU3N2M=
which appears to show that Hillary campaign workers are being briefed to wash their hands of the leaked photo.
3. I get the criticism that the BBC biases its UK coverage in favour of its alleged causes (though I think that’s b*ll*cks), but what possible point would there be in the BBC, which has a minimal impact on the vast American public, trying to swing things for Clinton (or Obama – yesterday’s B-BBC line [see pt. 4])?
4. Aren’t we taking a lead from Mr Orange, who argues that the BBC is backing Obama because he’s the more left-wing? Some consistency here, please!
Biased BBC: Which Way Did We Say The BBC Is Spinning?
I see 4 Christians have been found guilty
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7256859.stm
Martin:
I see 4 Christians have been found guilty
And the relevance to BBC Bias?
.
“Yesterday Mr Orange taught us how to complain about the BBC not doing interviews for a foreign TV channel.
He showed us that the BBC should swing its weight behind 1.5% of the Ulster population.
And now Marc shows us how to whinge when the BBC prefers the findings of the US courts to the heavily-contested ravings of a neo-con crakpot conspiracy theorist.
Biased BBC: Heading In The Right Direction (At Last)
Hillhunt | 26.02.08 – 11:42 am”
1.5% is no good but hillhunt finds 2.7% muslim of the UK population to swing its weight behind is fine. That 1.2% makes all the difference then.
His conversion and that assumed of the BBC to the US courts is also fascinating, that’s the same ones that are questioned again and again, interesting attempt to change part of your identity a la St Paul.
Re: Top terror recruiter found guilty
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7256859.stm
The picture caption in the BBC article on Mohammed Hamid says “Mohammed Hamid: Paintballing and camping trips”
the words missed out are “…funded by the BBC”
BBC ‘took terrorist trainers paintballing’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3001102.ece
“The BBC funded a paintballing trip for men later accused of Islamic terrorism and failed to pass on information about the 21/7 bombers to police, a court was told yesterday.
Mohammed Hamid, who is charged with overseeing a two-year radicalisation programme to prepare London-based Muslim youths for jihad, was described as a “cockney comic” by a BBC producer.
The BBC paid for Mr Hamid and fellow defendants Muhammad al-Figari and Mousa Brown to go on a paintballing trip at the Delta Force centre in Tonbridge, Kent, in February 2005. The men, accused of terrorism training, were filmed for a BBC programme called Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic, screened in June 2005.
The BBC paid Mr Hamid, an Islamic preacher who denies recruiting and grooming the men behind the failed July 2005 attack, a £300 fee to take part in the programme, Woolwich Crown Court was told.”
BBC dictionary – “terrorist” = “comedian”.
The Beeboids seem to have conveniently forgotten this. Shows you how close the BBC media liberals are to the terrorists, in thoughts, sympathies and tacit support, if not in actions.
What a disgrace.
And the relevance to BBC licence-payers’ money?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=518500&in_page_id=1773
I wonder if the BBC will report the “Iwantareferendum” lobby of parliament tomorrow.
You would hardly think they could avoid it on “The Politics Show” with Andrew Neil.
Top terror recruiter found guilty
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7256859.stm
Goodness, it’s the man at the heart of the BBC’s ‘Don’t Panic I’m Islamic’ programme. The man the BBC defended as a ‘cockney comic.’ And Mohammed Al-Figari guilty as well. He was in the BBC special too! The BBC, spending your money promoting Islamic terrorists as cheeky, harmless chappies.
Homer:
His conversion and that assumed of the BBC to the US courts is also fascinating, that’s the same ones that are questioned again and again, interesting attempt to change part of your identity a la St Paul.
Excellent points, (though sentence construction is a 3 on 10….)
Let’s draw up some ground rules:
1. We prefer a hotly-disputed conspiracy to the findings of the US courts (because we assume our opponents are totally anti-American and we cannot therefore accept their logic)
2. Ditto Conspiracy blogs which mislead us as to the status of the Iraq 9/11 “findings”. They may be mendacious, or just ill-informed, but, hell, their hearts are in the right place.
3. We persist in the mistaken belief that the BBC defaults to Muslim views when the totality of BBC output – drama, entertainment, music, food programmes and chat shows, as well as news and current affairs – contain myriad examples of stuff which does not conform with the kind of Muslim piety which terrifies us – sharia, misogyny, halal and so on…
4. The future’s bright; the future’s Orange.
.
.
.
(for Sue x)
Hillhunt:
Those points:
“1. Is it news that the ad industry disagrees with the ban?”
I don’t know, is it news when the government reject opposition criticism? Should we simply exclude the right to reply when the reply is predictable? Probably not, I’d reckon.
2. Channel 4 (excellent station though it is) depends almost entirely on advertising for its income. Why wouldn’t it big up the Baroness?
And the state under Labour’s leadership has become the biggest advertising spender of all. Should we no longer trust it to report on politics? For someone who can never see bias at the BBC you seem a bit quick to point the finger when it comes to Channel 4.
“1. The BBC is reporting both sides fairly. Odd, that.”
Very odd indeed,Obama,Clinton and the invisble man,McCain.
Peter:
Peter:
“1. The BBC is reporting both sides fairly. Odd, that.”
Very odd indeed,Obama,Clinton and the invisble man,McCain.
Y-e-e-e-s. McCain a player in the Democrat race, is he?
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7190323.stm