As I write this, there is a bomb scare at Belfast International Airport. The fruits of peace, I guess. The BBC on their main news portal for Northern Ireland choose to illustrate this with an image of two Irish airlines, one of which does not even fly into Belfast International! Could it be that the BBC think Belfast is in Dublin? The following arlines also fly from Belfast International; Easyjet, BMIbaby, Jet2g0, Manx airlines, Zoom, Air Transat, Continental, Fly globespan…but apparently only images of Irish carriers are available on a Sunday.
Very good point pete. I think most of us know what an aeroplane looks like without visual confirmation.
Pictures help tell a story.
Anyone notice how the only voter supporting Mike Huckabee is completey freakish looking:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7267370.stm
Part of the conspiracy?
“Pictures help tell a story.”
Sometimes, yes. Thanks for clearing up why my newspaper is littered with them.
Of course. I thought that without saying.
Lance | 03.03.08 – 2:24 am | #
Correction:
Of course. I thought that went without saying.
Cockney,
Yeah, I think we are in more or less agreement. I too despise the subsidies – aimed at propping up a vast unproductive public sector that needs demolished!
BaggieJohnnie:
The matter is clearly important and an example of bias to many and they have every right to attempt to expose it as such.
Now that I see your extraordinary sense of proportion, I think I now understand your devotion to West Bromwich Albion.
.
David Vance, what you call subtle, I think most people would call non-existent.
Joel | Homepage | 03.03.08 – 11:23 am |
It accumulates, Joel.
Incompetence breeds bias. As was repeatedly proven on this board. BBC’s news services are full of humanities majors, totally incompetent in covering Economic, Military, Scientific and to an extent Real-Politik news. Their world view is based on rosy-eyed college idealism, often blind to the complexities of reality.
BBC’s tendency to focus on the “soft” side of issues (more feelings, less facts) and taunt the latest fashionable cause (for example Global Warming) is a direct product of their lack of experience and frankly, lack of meaningful education – If you want to write a book critique, an English major really helps, but if you want to comment on NATO operations in Afganistan or Global Warming it really doesn’t. Editorial policies also mirror this – articles naturally focus on things that the BBC establishment understands the best – the latest Guardian inspired fashion.
One thing is completely obvious to anyone who has watched American networks over time. Not to say that American networks are perfect, but they tend to bring a lot of experts that have had real experience: ex-Generals, bankers, investors,
ex- political campaign managers, MDs and sometimes Science PhDs.
They come from a myriad of backgrounds and can understand the complexities of the real world and real decision making processes. They bring experience into the story.
The race to obtain the best experts for newscasts comes directly from a free competition. As soon as one network brings an ex-General consultant, another one has to do the same.
Competition in this case works, and improves the in-depth coverage of events.
This is exactly the opposite of what BBC does – on average they only tend to bring other lefty friends with similar educational backgrounds into the herd.
When was the last time BBC had a full time ex-British General on payroll on staff to comment on multiple conflicts Britain is involved in, and in general on conflicts around the world?
This would be an anathema to the BBC pacifistic crowds.
But then, what exactly are the British paying for?
Just another Humanities/English Major to tell them what to think about world events.
I don’t understand, where does the BBC provide an advantage to an average person, whose educational level and, more importantly, experience in the real-world is much greater than that of the most of BBC staff?
Surely with all those billions, BBC news services can contract a couple of ex-Generals to comment on world’s conflicts?
In general the problem with lack of real world experience is that you don’t see other people’s experience as all that relevant. In other words, much of BBC news staff are a bunch of know-it-alls. They feel competent to comment on issues that are simply beyond their level of expertise.
For example, the only thing a humanities major would understand in a conflict is the human suffering. But then again, everyone understands that – what about other issues, forces, soldier training, combat mentality and I don’t even want to begin to talk about equipment – there have been multiple examples on this board showing BBC’s total incompetence when it comes to military hardware. Instead, BBC simply avoids the subject all together, assuming that it would be as unimportant to their viewers as it is to them.
David Vance:
Lance,
I understand your point but is the BBC not supposed to have at least the basic intelligence to illustrate a story concerning a British Airport with images of ..erm…a British Airport?
David Vance | Homepage | 03.03.08 – 8:10 am | #
…………
It’s partly unthinkimg ignorance and partly the result of a particular stance that the distinction often isn’t made in the case of NI.
This is loftily, sneeringly dismissed by the supercilious as being of no importance. That’s why it will keep happening.
The BBC is ignorant and sloppy in its use of language in other contexts as well. It’s a mystery why they don’t have proper subeditors.
Yes you should. The name of this blog is ‘Biased BBC’, not ‘Good God We Hate The BBC’. Portraying mildly amusing laziness as virulent left-wing bias is dishonest.
Angry Young Alex
Like the BBC very precise when it suits, e.g. objections to the use of “war on terror”, however Google produces a return of 12300 instances of the BBC news site using “save the planet”, when the planet is in no danger at all, it will exist until consumed by the sun.
The irony surely is that the BBC panders to the Nationalist/Catholic/Republican side of the NI issue – yet it is in that community that there is a large culture of non-payment of TV licences; the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist side fully consider themselves British and remind me what the first letter of BBC stands for again?
Try not to join in the game played by Hillhunt / AYA / and other assorted losers.
Resist the temptation to compete with them, outsmart them, psychoanalyze, or even banter with them.
Not only do you reduce yourselves down to their level, you also distract yourselves from what is really important, which is pouring piss over the BBC.
Try not to join in the game played by Hillhunt / AYA / and other assorted losers.
Gog | 03.03.08 – 11:13 pm |
Hey, don’t touch AYA! I love him. 😉 I read his confused blog. It’s a much needed comic relief.
I am confused,
With his party of choice in power,and with his head firmly wedged up the sphincter of nulabours global mouthpiece,
what`s he so angry about?
Surely not this little island of clear air in in the miasma of multi-culti,eco-panic,pc,jew hating,
english hating,muslim loving,
beebworld
Do you think `angry` is a euphemism for `please find me interesting`?
WOaD 7:00 p.m.:
I agree with you.
“BaggieJohnnie:
The matter is clearly important and an example of bias to many and they have every right to attempt to expose it as such.
Now that I see your extraordinary sense of proportion, I think I now understand your devotion to West Bromwich Albion.
Hillhunt | 03.03.08 – 5:20 pm”
Only worthy of one response.
F*ck off *ill*unt!
Angry Young…?
Angry Young Men
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Young_Men
“Their political views were seen as radical, sometimes even anarchic, and they described social alienation of different kinds. They also often expressed their critical views on society as a whole, criticising certain behaviours or groups in different ways.”
“Feelings of frustration and exclusion from the centre and The Establishment”
Angry Young Alex
The Establishment and that BBC aren’t they just so lovely and always right.
Its that flying circus that does it, terribly funny yet really cutting…
People think that saying “I think everyone should agree with me. People should hang on my every word.” is unreasonable. But we all do it. That’s why I posted that.
“I think everyone should agree with me. People should hang on my every word.”
If it makes you feel any better WoAD, I also think everyone should agree with you and hang on your every word.
Bastard, someone did my joke before me. And embarrassingly so. Now I know how Kick the Establishment must feel.
bizarre. dont they have a single photo of belfast airport in their archives?
Hello Mods, can we have a new open thread, please?