Here’s a fascinating insight into Beeboid thinking concerning Iran. The headline announces that “Iran claiming victory despite sanctions” and it covers the Mullahs response to the effete sanctions, passed by the UN Security Council on Monday, which extend the two previous ineffectual tranches of sanctions aimed at tightening the economic and trade squeeze on Iran. The BBC asks Mark Fitzpatrick, a nuclear proliferation expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, for his view and he suggests that the UN Security Council has failed to achieve its stated objectives. The BBC goes on to quote the Supreme Tyrant Ali Khamenei declaring that Iran had “honestly and seriously achieved a great victory”, for which he praised the country’s political leadership. By way of balance, ahem, the BBC then allows well know peace-maker Iranians President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to weight in with his take: “Everyone has understood that Iran is the number one power in the world. Today the name of Iran means a firm punch in the teeth of the powerful… ” I’m guessing you know who he is referring to – and so do Al Beeb. They just love anyone who hates the US, eh? The bit that really gets me is when the BBC author of this report, Paul Reynolds then editorialises that “it remains unclear as to what Iran can do with its “victory”. Wiping Israel “off the map” would appear to be the stated objective – has Paul forgotten what Ahmaddie said a while back? It’s all about finishing what Hitler started for the Mad Mullahs – and yet the BBC seem perplexed about it all! Maybe they believe, along with the Fabulous Baker boys stateside, that Iran can be a force for stability in the region – once Israel is gone of course?
OT – just heard Justin Webb on R4 – he sounds bewildered and gobsmacked that Clinton is back in the race. What’s a spurned lover gonna do?
It’s become an MO for losers. No matter what happens, declare victory. 1st Hizbullah, 2nd Hamas, 3rd Iran, 4th ?
The really annoying thing which makes it relevant to this blog is how the BBC accepts the claims. Within days claiming ‘victory’ becomes since the victory.
Perhaps some enterprising academic could devise a scoring system for battles on the lines used in competitive ice-skating or boxing?
Deegee,
You are quite right. In fact IRA/Sinn Fein were the first to do this back in the mid-90’s when their cavalcades celebrated their defeat by the British Army and RUC.
Dunno about this one, David. Paul Reynolds used to contribute to this blog, but stopped around the time I began to comment here. Some veteran B-BBCers were impressed by his reasonable approach to debate and saw him as a relatively unbiased BBC journo. From what I’ve read by him, I think that’s true. Note that he puts victory in quotes:
However, in the long run, it remains unclear as to what Iran can do with its “victory”.
That said, he should be aware that it is not only Israel that is unconvinced by the NIE assessment that Iran had stopped trying to develop the Bomb. Americans are also uncomfortable with the conclusion. And no doubt if he dug a little he would find plenty others who don’t agree with it.
Taking the BBC as a whole, there are endless examples of its extraordinary love affair with Iran – but I don’t think this is one of them.
It’s a slightly bizarre article but to me the tone infers that the UN should be doing more on the sanctions front, with the veiled threat at the end that the US might do so unilaterally. Possibly reading between the lines too much, but then so is the conclusion that its all about hating the USA and supporting the destruction of Israel.
Again, Biased BBC getting its knickers in a twist because the BBC, shock horror, quoted someone.
Nothing, absolutely nothing in that article suggested the writer agreed with the Khamenei or Ahmadinejad. It just dedicated a paragraph to showing just how triumphant smug and self-satisfied the Iranian top brass is feeling, which is entirely factually accurate.
Now, of course, the BBC didn’t argue with the statement “Iran is the number one power in the world”, but frankly, who would bother.
“Wiping Israel “off the map” would appear to be the stated objective – has Paul forgotten what Ahmaddie said a while back?”
Weird how you can spend hours hammering at the ‘shoah/ha-Shoah’ incident, but not for a second doubt the translation catastrophe that is ‘Israel should be wiped off the map’.
Hmmmmmmm, I’ve just seen Laban’s article below. I think I’ll have to revise my opinion of Reynolds. That’s a real hatchet job he did on America, using mostly insinuation and speculation.
Oh come on, Angry. How many times does that little psycho have to trumpet his hatred of Israel before people take him seriously? Why bend over backwards to defend a megalomaniac with genocidal intentions? If you really think there is a comparison between Israeli rhetoric and that of Madmood I’monajihad then you are suffering from chronic moral equivalence.
Ot: i notice the five live call in is ignoring the eurppean debate again, with a generiv disvussion about drugs and crime
Huh?? What happened to Laban’s post??
I can’t find either bias or imbalance or inaccuracy in an article which is simply decribing a situation and quoting what the Iranians think about it – and setting this against the background of reasonably sensible comment.
If one had a clear idea of exactly how the mighty Vance feels the story should have been reported it might have been helpful – my impression is that in his ideal world he’d expect the Beeb to go into Vance Rant mode every time Iran, Iraq or Islam is mentioned.
“If you really think there is a comparison between Israeli rhetoric and that of Madmood I’monajihad then you are suffering from chronic moral equivalence.”
I never mentioned moral equivalence. When a “Shoah” is translated as “a Holocaust” and one right-wing journalist complains, the whole Anti-Aunty brigade is up in arms. Yet Vance and others seem to be repeating the equally-contested “Wiped off the map” translation verbatim.
Well a number of people have checked both statements and found that the Israel one was incorrectly translated by Reuters and that Dinnerjackets one was also backed up by many other comments in rallies across Iran, but that does not matter you will ignore it any way.
It was amusing to see that the USA had got hold of data that verified that the Iran weapon programme exists, but the BBC did not mention that at all, well that is typical of the BBC. Instead there was Dinnerjackets triumphant visit to Iraq, loveingly detailed as one in the eye for the good old USA.
BBC the news for fools.
Weird how you can spend hours hammering at the ‘shoah/ha-Shoah’ incident, but not for a second doubt the translation catastrophe that is ‘Israel should be wiped off the map’.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 05.03.08 – 9:21 am |
Except for the fact that that particular translation was issued by IRNA (official Iranian news agency) and picked up by everyone.
In fact, all Iranian official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away.
It is only a well known Islamist Western fellow traveler like Juan Cole that have objected to that translation.
The latest Ahmis pearl for Israel is “Filthy Bacteria/Microbe”.
His Homeini quote was not a one off shot. It is a consistent tirade of threats and incitement (like that cozy little conference involving David Duke, et. al.)
The “shoah/ha-shoah” as you state is not just about the word, it is about the colloquial expression Matan Vilnai used:
“Yamitu al atzmam shoa gdola yoter” – used quite frequently in sophisticated Hebrew in a lot of contexts, meaning “they’ll bring upon themselves a bigger disaster”. The genocidal Holocaust simply cannot be fit into that sentence in any meaningful way. “Bigger Holocaust” – bigger than what?
Again an Arab Reuters journalist pushed it through, not an official site of the Israeli Govt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
Found it – the original quote on “holocaust” was mistranslated on purpose by Reuters “journalist” Nidal al-Mughrabi.
Note the Guardian’s Jonathan Steele also disputes the translation http://rc23.overture.com/d/sr/?xargs=15KPjg14FSt5auwuf0L%5FiXEbqUkwwB5Z3C881oCZh9baNW9HQcVPYuPa7By%5FVIOe1m5gmlyvaU9dEeOqz2kPyUEAqGW1KIEf39343SnN8wavDiHcEDxeJyhba42t8RYmlXN2PyIJbrlL2TfYusYToSvdlBmEiHqrQ%5Fg5vvlLkAQ%2DXGnQlo%2D7jkFc0J7LZ41sEPHaVmAu8JEJzC%5FGXDId4Tk44q2IK%5FMhEnPnrm6Wca%2DwLAEgolrK%5FbLoJR%5FfGxkJCHckfNgT1vW3CMrqs9uVrOmCDyis42YybXlrFZkFgbM5vMQHqCy09AqavakqqfdIB9%5FnL2F4iMVW%2DhIxsuIhEtG7W4MVT%5FFVE%2E
Translating idioms is bloody difficult. Euphemisms like “the regime occupying al-Quds” is even more difficult – especially when we in the West don’t really use euphemisms for Israel. The fact that he was quoting Ayatollah Khomenei and got it wrong makes it even more difficult.
The fact that official Iranian translations also say ‘wiped’ is only proof if you believe the Iranian official line – it is quite possible that these civil servants chose to up the belligerence. It’s also quite possible that they fucked up.
Anyway, that’s all academic. I just find it odd that you can get so hot under the collar about one mistranslated zero article and trust a translation of an idiomatic, euphemistic misquote 100%.
Angry Young Alex: “Note the Guardian’s Jonathan Steele also disputes the translation”
And who’s he relying on? Oh yes:
“I took my translation – “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time” – from the indefatigable Professor Juan Cole’s website where it has been for several weeks.”
So, the observation that “It is only a well known Islamist Western fellow traveler like Juan Cole that have objected to that translation” would seem to stand.
Aaronovitch’s article is interesting though:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article674080.ece
But then, we shouldn’t take that seriously, says Steele, because he’s not very good at Latin.
I just find it odd that you can get so hot under the collar about one mistranslated zero article and trust a translation of an idiomatic, euphemistic misquote 100%.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 05.03.08 – 10:36 am |
No one trusts one quote, which can always be taken out of context – but I do trust the repeated rhetoric and actions. The same rhetoric has been very consistent since the Islamic Revolution.
Was the gathering of the world’s most vile racists (including KKK’s David Duke) in Teheran just a mistranslation? – hardly they were on cameras and spoke English.
Is calling Israel a “filthy bacteria” also a mistranslation?
“Found it – the original quote on “holocaust” was mistranslated on purpose by Reuters “journalist” Nidal al-Mughrabi.”
If I was a betting man I would have bet my house and evrything I owned that it was an Arab journalist who did that mistranslation. I was going to suggest it was highly likely in earlier post, so thanks for confirming that.
They are making error after error, are they that sure of victory, with the people in charge of the West I can see why? If I was in their shoes I would feel the same way.
This is OT for this thread but – if you read my comment – you will see why identifying a thread in which to place it is difficult.
B-BBC has become a bore and, worse, irrelevant to its self-imposed task of exposing the BBC for its inherent bias. The decline of B-BBC dates from the time that it was handed over to David Vance. However, I would not wish to go down the road of post hoc ergo propter hoc. I agree with many of DV’s posts (both on B-BBC and his own blog). Nevertheless, the format of B-BBC formerly consisted of about 3 or 4 posts per week from the administrators on specific items of alleged bias and a continuous “global” thread dealing with everything else. Now we seem to get 2 or 3 posts a day from DV – many on overlapping topics – and ancient general threads: it’s often impossible to know where to post (or read) comments germane to any particular topic and thus follow – and participate in – online discussion.
Further and more seriously, intelligent and informed “conversation” has been crowded out by trolls and those who, mistakenly, respond to them. Within living memory, B-BBC commenters received responses from BBC employees who, no matter if you agreed with them or not, provided useful points for discussion and dispute. No longer. There is an argument to make which considers that the drop in “responsible” BBC participation and the re-appearance of trolling is a deliberate (and successful) ploy to degrade the B-BBC influence (such as it is) on the continuing disquiet concerning BBC bias. I would appeal to the administrators of the site to revert to the “old” methods of posting and to other commenters on this site to ignore the trolls completely.
So, the observation that “It is only a well known Islamist Western fellow traveler like Juan Cole that have objected to that translation” would seem to stand.
Hugh | 05.03.08 – 10:53 am |
The same Juan Cole is also known to push the theory that Syria’s 30 year occupation in Lebanon had a “pacifying effect” and promoted peace in the region – Sure if you call 100,000 killed by Syrians in Lebanon as “pacifying”.
“No one trusts one quote, which can always be taken out of context”
Mr Vance seems to.
“but I do trust the repeated rhetoric and actions.”
And you’re right to. Being mistranslated does not exonerate one from being a colossal bell-end.
“Is calling Israel a “filthy bacteria” also a mistranslation?”
I’m not sure, it would take a lot of looking into even without a knowledge of Farsi. But, assuming it was, childish insults are not the same as threats of genocide.
If it is the will of the majority here that my frequency and style of posting is a problem, then I will walk away. You tell me.
I have been coming to this site for ages and I still think its excellent, I even had the pleasure of a post from John Reith that I was able to use to show the reason for the BBC bias in terms of Islam.
I like this format, with a general commenters thread for examples of bias and comment by David Vance on the most dangerous ones, or ones that take his fancy. I just wish that a new general post was at the top each day.
As for trolls, sometimes you have to make them look ridiculous, though this particular one dos not need much help in doing that, like most young men he thinks he is smarter then he really is and is an excellent example of the decline of eductation in this country, or which I am an earlier example.
There are a lot of people posting excellent details of bias and please keep it up its really important.
If it is the will of the majority here that my frequency and style of posting is a problem, then I will walk away. You tell me.
David Vance | Homepage | 05.03.08 – 11:16 am |
No – you are quite right to post!
Don’t let Angry, et. al. distract you.
There is an entire Leftoid swarm of newspapers espousing their very narrow view of the world, with their pet causes and ideological zeal. Their world view ignores all fact that don’t fit the mold. BBC is on several major issues now further Left than the Guardian.
This blog is essential! And your posts are generally very good, and sometimes eye openers even to people like me.
I was not aware for example, that the BBC was consistently anti-British Military for a long time.
Thank you!
Apparently the BBC is PRO-Israel?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/jun/20/israel.broadcasting
And from the Guardian too!
I’m not sure, it would take a lot of looking into even without a knowledge of Farsi. But, assuming it was, childish insults are not the same as threats of genocide.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 05.03.08 – 11:15 am |
Typical Leftoid flip side of racism. Third world people are little children, not to be taken seriously no matter what they say or do!
Just little irresponsible monkeys – Right?
Sorry, but some people are not racist and would like to treat them as grown ups!
Also the word “incitement” obviously doesn’t mean anything to you.
Even for children, if you call someone a “filthy bacteria” for years, what kind of an effect would that have on other children – they will become happy to beat up the “filthy bacteria” – n’est•ce pas?
Nazis never said – “Hey, let’s go kill all the Jews, Roma and enslave the Slavs”. They demonized them together with making them look subhuman to the point that a lot of people wanted to participate in mass murder!
You really should learn some history.
And, you won’t find it on Guardian pages – only some Che adulation.
Not only that but it is also Pro-Conservative:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=525289&in_page_id=1770
One tree does not make a forest
Actually Vance, this was a fairly good post. Plenty of quotes for discussion, though I generally think your tendency to rant detracts from the credibility of your points.
Remember as a Gaytheist Communist Muslim Beeboid who hates Britsrael, I’m your target audience. It’s people like me you should be trying to convince.
Remember as a Gaytheist Communist Muslim Beeboid who hates Britsrael, I’m your target audience. It’s people like me you should be trying to convince.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 05.03.08 – 11:48 am |
So your trolling is only to make us convince you?
Try focusing on what we are saying, not on what particular Khomeini quote Ahmedinijad used on a specific day.
The overwhelming evidence is there.
It is like a switch that goes off in your head – it happened to me.
One day the evidence was simply overwhelming. I used to think, couple of years back, that BBC is the way to go for broadcast media.
I am a liberal atheist – but blind Leftoids, of BBC and Guardian ilk, now seem primitive to me.
Vance, you need to continue…as for convincing people like alex…a worthless task.Your energies are best spent on hammering home the points you have already made before,as you are one of the few who speak out against the beeb and its twisted agenda.
Apparently the BBC is PRO-Israel?
And from the Guardian too!
Joel | Homepage | 05.03.08 – 11:38 am |
Of course – from the current Guardian viewpoint Marx is a filthy capitalist, and fascist Muslim Brotherhood is something to be admired. They’ve closed the circle between the left and the right, and are now at the meeting point of the two – and diametrically opposed to all common sense.
Ever since USSR collapsed they’ve completely lost their compas, descending deeper and deeper into the netherworld of post-colonial moral equivalence.
If they could, they would be saying that the fact that more criminals die in shootouts than police makes it a war crime.
Ensuring that there is always a general comments thread at the top of the page would go a long way to tidying up this place.
Angry – maybe read this for starters,
Nikbakht certainly knows Farsi:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=406E097A-9A42-480E-A2E6-C0D2C34353D1
“The decline of B-BBC dates from the time that it was handed over to David Vance.”
rubbish – it’s perhaps more tabloid since David came on board but that’s no bad thing. this is the internet – it’s supposed to be FUN.
I’ve noted that a number of people have noticed that the proliferation of trolls on this board is having a negative effect on the message this board is trying to promote. Simple solution. Open up once a week a troll thread. Any stupid and misdirecting posts get placed in there. (Yes it will take some policing) however it won’t be censorship as the posts are still active. The remainder of us can carry on and the Trolls well they can also carry on albeit in their own little world. I think you will find that after a while they will bugger off and die.
“Try focusing on what we are saying, not on what particular Khomeini quote Ahmedinijad used on a specific day.”
Ok then:
“The headline announces that “Iran claiming victory despite sanctions” and it covers the Mullahs response to the effete sanctions, passed by the UN Security Council on Monday, which extend the two previous ineffectual tranches of sanctions aimed at tightening the economic and trade squeeze on Iran.”
An informative title, presenting Iran’s somewhat ludicrous claims as exactly that, claims, while in no way agreeing or disagreeing with them.
“The BBC asks Mark Fitzpatrick, a nuclear proliferation expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, for his view and he suggests that the UN Security Council has failed to achieve its stated objectives.”
This seems to imply that the UN Security Council should have been tougher on Iran, or at least that that is Fitzpatrick’s opinions. If anything this part seems to be agreeing with you that the world needs to do more to fight Iran.
“The BBC goes on to quote the Supreme Tyrant Ali Khamenei declaring that Iran had “honestly and seriously achieved a great victory”, for which he praised the country’s political leadership. By way of balance, ahem, the BBC then allows well know peace-maker Iranians President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to weight in with his take: “Everyone has understood that Iran is the number one power in the world. Today the name of Iran means a firm punch in the teeth of the powerful… “”
Now the key word here is “quote”. This is not the BBC’s opinion, and it can’t very well omit Iran’s reaction. So this quote bit could go two ways. If the BBC had put any kind of agreement in, along the lines of “Iran’s claim to victory is further backed up by…”, it would sound like praise. However, in isolation, it becomes: “Look what this lunatic dictator thinks of his own country – exactly what you’d expect him to say.”
“I’m guessing you know who he is referring to – and so do Al Beeb. They just love anyone who hates the US, eh?”
What are your reasons for believing this is the BBC’s stance? Kindly illuminate, otherwise this remains little more than conjecture.
“ The bit that really gets me is when the BBC author of this report, Paul Reynolds then editorialises that “it remains unclear as to what Iran can do with its “victory”.”
Note Paul Reynolds’ use of inverted commas for “victory”. This is either a concise way to show that this is a quoted victory, which would show impartiality and good journalistic practice, or a mild touch of sarcasm, which would be wildly anti-Iranian if anything. Either way, the writer clearly does not believe it to be a victory, or if he does, he is not letting it influence the article.
“Wiping Israel “off the map” would appear to be the stated objective – has Paul forgotten what Ahmaddie said a while back? It’s all about finishing what Hitler started for the Mad Mullahs – and yet the BBC seem perplexed about it all! Maybe they believe, along with the Fabulous Baker boys stateside, that Iran can be a force for stability in the region – once Israel is gone of course?”
Again, this is mostly conjecture on international relations in general and so debating it would not really be relevant to the BBC bias debate. Except for:
“and yet the BBC seem perplexed about it all!”
I don’t quite see how the BBC is perplexed. Again, please give your reason for thinking so.
Now, this is a serious comment on a claim you lot seem to take very seriously, so I will not be awarding marks for “You work for the BBC”, “You’re just saying that because you hate Jews” “You voted for Hitler” or “Alex and Ahmadinejad sitting in a tree”.
Joel: Apparently the BBC is PRO-Israel?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/ …el.broadcasting
And from the Guardian too!”
Er, actually Joel, the Guardian is exactly the place you would expect to find a claim that the BBC is pro Israel. It’s left wing (pro palestine supporting) paper.
Angry,
Assume you were Paul Reynolds and you and everyone around you were convinced that the US “neocon” foreign policy is a disaster. And that US should be “talking” (whatever that means) with Iranian mullahs.
You cannot tell an outright lie. You’d be caught.
You can selectively only bring news items (sometimes dubious importance), while ignoring others (sometimes of much more importance) to convey your message to the reader.
You can select the quotes that will create an impression of failure of US policies without providing any context.
And most importantly – the titles – BBC always uses titles, since noone can claim that titles are news, even though most people only skim through titles.
Now consider the article only for its titles:
Iran claiming victory despite sanctions
Is Iran winning?
‘Great victory’
US assessment
First you convey the fact that Iran is winning despite the sanctions.
Then you rhetorically ask if it does.
You answer ‘Great Victory’, quoted, but nevertheless mentioning victory.
At the end instead of counterquoting based on US official story, you simply say a neutral US assesment as an afterthought.
Now consider this sequence of subtitles:
UNSC united over Iran sanctions
Uranium Enrichment
Are sanctions working?
Iran Defiant
That would be quite a different story.
Joel: “Not only that but it is also Pro-Conservative:”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ pages…in_page_id=1770
And you’ll notice that the headline for that starts “Labour accuses…” (They’re also left of centre.)
So Hugh, your saying of course they would accuse the BBC of being pro-Conservative because they are the Labour Party.
That would be the same way Biased-BBC accuses the BBC of being biased in favour of Muslims, gays, liberals, Irish Republicans etc?
Fair point Hugh.
Yes, Joel, you’re right. People commenting on Biased BBC are by and large likely to think the BBC is biased. That the overwhelming majority of commentary here and elsewhere, and the larger number of complaints to the BBC itself accuse the BBC of being biased to the left might tell you something, though. You’ll notice, possibly, that the article you linked to refers to this:
“The BBC – which is more used to claims of a Left-wing bias…”
“Assume you were Paul Reynolds and you and everyone around you were convinced that the US “neocon” foreign policy is a disaster. And that US should be “talking” (whatever that means) with Iranian mullahs.”
Is this actually the case? Please provide some evidence, or link to B-BBC posts doing so. Otherwise you’re simply resorting to circular logic – the BBC is a hive of leftism, therefore anything it produces has an insidious left-wing bias, thus proving that it’s a hive of leftism – which, won’t convince me or anyone outside the B-BBC yes-men contigent.
“You cannot tell an outright lie. You’d be caught.
You can selectively only bring news items (sometimes dubious importance), while ignoring others (sometimes of much more importance) to convey your message to the reader.”
Again, give some examples that this is the case with Iran. Most of the posts here seem to be (hysterical and amateurish) commentaries on individual articles.
“You can select the quotes that will create an impression of failure of US policies without providing any context.”
Surely if the BBC had a left-wing/pro-Iran bias, it would be insisting that Iran was harmless and backing down. A right-wing, hawkish bias would echo claims from the White House that Iran is belligerent, a serious threat to the world and needs a good old fashioned invading. Showing that these ‘softer’ sanctions are being claimed as a victory by Iran is, if anything, implying the need for a more hard-nosed approach.
“And most importantly – the titles – BBC always uses titles, since noone can claim that titles are news, even though most people only skim through titles.”
This IS an interesting point. But look again:
Iran claiming victory despite sanctions
Is Iran winning?
‘Great victory’
US assessment
Iran is dangerous
Iran is winning
Iran has us over a barrel
Only the US dares stand up to Iran.
UNSC united over Iran sanctions
Uranium Enrichment
Are sanctions working?
Iran Defiant
The world unites against Iran
Something neutral about uranium
Is this even working
NO! Iran defies them all.
You can read a lot into both sets of titles, but either way, the idea that “Iran is winning” makes more of a case for a good old-fashioned neo-con invading than it does for lefty so-called appeasement.
Angry,
I’ll try to answer a bit later today – have to work for living :-…
But suffice it to say – BBC bias is like those stereograms, once you see it it is it is easily recognizable, but you have to change your focus a bit to see it. Staring at individual pixels won’t help…
…….this is the internet – it’s supposed to be FUN.
Cockney | 05.03.08 – 12:15 pm |
Agreed.
Angry
Evidence only really makes sense within your own worldview. My worldview runs along these lines:
– humans are inherently a good thing
– liberal democracies should always be given the benefit over autocracies
– wealth is not a zero-sum game: everyone can be wealthy
The BBC worldview runs along these lines
– humans are bad and are damaging the planet
– there’s only a certain amount of liberal democracy to go round and the West is hogging most of it
– countries become rich only by exploiting other countries and keeping them poor
How can I tell this is their worldview?
Because listening to the BBC almost inevitably makes me angry and frustrated.
Reading the Telegraph doesn’t.
This is because my worldview is more closely allied to The Telegraph than the BBC and I can tell because of how annoyed I feel. It’s a gestalt thing. (Did you feel yourself snearing at the mention of The Telegraph?).
B-BBCs contention is essentially that the state-funded Beeb shouldn’t profoundly annoy intelligent, liberal people by never acknowledging that their worldview is equally valid. (Did you find yourself snearing at my claiming to be liberal because I read The Telegraph?)
It’s fine for the Beeb to employ people who don’t share my worldview but can we have some that do, please.
Umbongo | 05.03.08 – 11:06 am |
glj | 05.03.08 – 12:09 pm
I have mentioned before that I think this site has become confused and disorganised. Several threads are open at once and people frequently duplicate each other’s points because good stuff is buried in a distant half alive thread.
I don’t like tabloid style, overkill is far less effective. If anything we said was ever likely to influence the BBC, it ‘aint now.
I would vote for one general thread at the top, and fewer new threads. Nobody has asked Mr. Vance to go away, just not to overpower everyone else. I don’t mind the trolls. If they’re not worth answering, then don’t.
We could have a special Israel-free thread so Cockerney doesn’t have to get bored.
Taking cover now,.
cockney
“rubbish – it’s perhaps more tabloid since David came on board but that’s no bad thing. this is the internet – it’s supposed to be FUN.”
Is the internet supposed to be fun? It’s actually not “supposed” to be anything – it just is. If you want fun, fine. There’s no reason why you shouldn’t feel free to enjoy the increasingly brainless exchange of views on B-BBC. Meanwhile what used to be one of the better blogs and, moreover, one which addressed a serious issue (unless, of course, BBC bias is “fun”) goes down the tubes.