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?
The only BBBC critics of Vance have been ‘Sue’ and ‘Umbongo’. They therefore march in lockstep with the likes of Joel, Ben, Hillhunt, AYA and John Reith. Why not start a new site featuring all 7 of them?
Slightly off topic, but B-BBC readers may be amazed to hear I just received this response from the BBC complaints division:
“We should not be using the word activist in relation to militants of any kind. I’m afraid mistakes are sometimes made.
I have taken the word out of the article you point to.
Best regards,
Middle East desk BBC News website.”
This is in response to a complaint I sent in as follows:
“Dear Sir,
The BBC is in grave, hypocritical, and outrageous violation of its own journalistic mandate, as well as in violation of an official BBC letter sent to me stating unequivocally and indignantly that it does not use the word “activist’ to describe members of Hamas’ military wing. For in the current article on Gaza’s “rocket threat’ to Israel, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3702088.stm it does precisely that: “Development of Qassam technology (named after the early 20th-Century Islamist preacher Izzedine al-Qassam) has been spearheaded by Hamas since the outbreak of the current intifada in 2000 to use against Israeli civilians and retaliate for deadly incursions and assassinations of its activists.”
Moreover, the BBC made exactly the same hypocritical move on Dec. 24, 2007, when describing rocket-firing Hamas militants as “activists.”
As the BBC responded to me directly: “An activist is of course a much more general term for someone who is
engaged in non-violent political struggle of some kind. You gave the
example of ‘Greenpeace activists’. We might also refer to political
party workers for the ruling party in Britain as ‘Labour Party
activists’.”
Also, the BBC stated to me in their letter: “We do not use the word activist to describe
members of Hamas’ military wing. If we have, I would very much
appreciate examples of this.”
Below find the letter complaining about the December 24th, 2007 article, which was never responded to, as well as the exchange between me and the BBC in 2005, in which the BBC insisted it only used the word “activist” to describe Hamas’s political wing, not its “military” wing.
The truth is, the BBC, by using the term “activist”, as if the Hamas members firing rockets are actually just making campaign contribution phone calls, distributing flyers, and organizing rallies, like Greenpeace activists, or Democratic activists, or Human Rights activists, simply debases the term, by lumping those types of activists in with the civilian-murdering, rocket-firing type.
Here are the previous letters and exchanges: ETC”
Sue is someone who’s comments I read, of the others only John Reith is worth debating because you actually learn something about the BBC bias.
bob
Thanks for providing the perfect example of the brainless comment which is destroying this blog.
And yes, they have indeed changed the word describing those being targeted by Israel in Hamas from “activists” to “militants” in this article. Though it is 6 weeks late and nobody will likely read it except for those on this site.
Still, it’s an admission of real error.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3702088.stm
“Development of Qassam technology (named after the early 20th-Century Islamist preacher Izzedine al-Qassam) has been spearheaded by Hamas since the outbreak of the current intifada in 2000 to use against Israeli civilians and retaliate for deadly incursions and assassinations of its militants.”
They still credit the use of rockets to “retaliation”, which is ridiculous, but there appears to be some movement here.
simon | 05.03.08 – 6:11 pm |
Still, it’s an admission of real error.
The BBC resopnse you got was another Helen Boaden-type dodge. “Oh, sorry, they’re very, very young and are paid very, very low wages.”
I still don’t buy it. “Militant” and “activist” are not analogous and are not easily confused by intelligent people. They got caught out, and fixed it.
How is it that they hire people who think Hamas is an “activist” group? What does that say about the people they hire? What does that say about the BBC’s hiring practices?
“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.”
You’re joking, right? You can tell what their worldview is because of how they make you feel? I prefer demonstrable facts and quotes to someone else’s wishy-washy gut feelings. And it will take more than that to convince non-Telegraph readers of your cause.
“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?).”
Yes, I did momentarily. Hold that thought.
”
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.”
My contention to B-BBC’s contention is that the BBC should never acknowledge any worldview as valid or invalid. The reason I read this blog is because I am interested to see if they are sticking to this.
“(Did you find yourself snearing at my claiming to be liberal because I read The Telegraph?)”
Yes, in the same way I sneered before. And immediately after I corrected my sneer. I thought “Yes, it sounds funny, but Liberalism is a broad church and, weird as it sounds, so’s the Torygraph.” Perhaps that’s the difference between yours and my methods of reading the BBC, how much we trust our gut feelings and initial sneers.
“It’s fine for the Beeb to employ people who don’t share my worldview but can we have some that do, please.”
Absolutely not. As I said before, the BBC should not be in the business of having worldviews.
“Why not start a new site featuring all 7 of them?
bob | 05.03.08 – 5:35 pm | #”
I don’t think so bob old bean. Other commenters have mentioned the nullifying effect of screeching. Overkill may have seen off John Reith altotether. Not seen your name before though. Perhaps your contributions are buried in the weft?
A new site, featuring umbongo, myself and trolls, in full lockstep, sounds fun. I hope it isn’t like strictly come dancing, I hate that.
I propose this
The BBC could be described as being right wing or left wing or even in the middle. IT DEPENDS, on what one means by the terms
Democracy is mob rule. It can only work in the interests of the people if the people have a free press and broadcast media. Whose primary function is to the truth and not simply reflect its own agenda ideologies bias or self interest. This of cause is virtually impossible. But if the media is unregulated and diverse enough, it can in practice be accomplished to the benefit of all.
This is why our press and the BBC in particular are so powerful and therefore incredibly dangerous.
The BBC being the most perfect example of quite how regulated and clearly un diverse it it possible for any media outlet outside the old communist block to become.
I conclude that the BBC are indeed far more powerful then democracy itself, Because of the very nature of democracy. The media/BBC does not have to change public opinion. All it has to do is brainwash a small minority of it.
Hillhunt and that other silly bastard AYA being two very fine examples of the so brainwashed , they are in reality completely brain dead.
This is often more then enough to give the obedient or on-message political party a MASSIVE majority in the HofC.
How does the establishment achieve this control of the media?
This can easily be done by selecting or bribing a very small amount of people that either own or are working inside the media, in very important positions. Possibly as few as 20-30 chief media editors and executives, in a whole country.
IMO
I personally believe the BBC is radically LEFT wing, because as I see things establishment dictatorships of all types need government control to survive.
If one places classical liberalism at 0 and fascist or communist establishment dictatorship at 100. Then I would place our main political parties in this order.
The Libertarian Party 30
The UKI Party 40
The Conservative Party 60
The Labour Party 85
The BN Party 87
The Green Party 89
The BBC party 99.999
Others may or may not agree with the above either in order or magnitude, but essentially that is my point. Some people believe that being left wing is anti establishment. I however believe it is exactly the opposite.
IMO
Marxism and Fascism are intensely evil establishment inspired, commissioned, financed and propagated products of the corporate capitalist establishment. The BBC being as much if not more a product of said establishment then the Royal Family itself. The BBCs masters are the establishment of not only this country but the world, in the guise of The EU and The UN. Which actually makes it even more establishment then the Queen of England herself.
It has absolutely no interest in controlling the ruling elite, because it is part of the ruling elite. Its interests are the BBCs interests.
That is controlling everything as much as possible. Mainly by acute repetitive brainwashing and deliberately created ‘impoverishment’ of the ordinary people, in all senses of the word.
While constantly looking for more ever increasingly repressive rules, laws and other highly profitable government or government controlled corporate action, simply to seem to solve problems they themselves caused.
While not letting on for one moment, that the cleverest way of doing this is by pretending to be doing the exact opposite.
In short the BBC is our divide and rule Ruling Classes heaviest Hegalian hammer in the tool box. Since their last big highly successful even more incredibly bloodthirsty invention, established religion.
Quite frankly giving the BBC only a 99.999 was being extremely generous.
“Hillhunt and that other silly bastard AYA being two very fine examples of the so brainwashed , they are in reality completely brain dead.”
Odd how we brainwashed automatons seem to be the only ones here not parroting the same party line. But, of course, ‘not parroting the same party line’ is the definition of ‘brainwashed’ in B-BBC land.
“Some people believe that being left wing is anti establishment. I however believe it is exactly the opposite.”
This is a fairly simplistic analysis. Surely it all depends on what establishment?
Atlas shrugged | 05.03.08 – 7:24 pm |
Very interesting use of Hegel re: the BBC. Definitely something there.
“Very interesting use of Hegel re: the BBC. Definitely something there.”
I’ve made the same point.
You know, when people say “alienation” they are reproducing a piece of Hegelian rhetoric.
i.e. the 7/7 bombers were alienated.
The person who says this, despite not knowing it, is advocating Hegels perfect universal state of Freedom that is all things to all people and doesn’t exclude anyone.. This would also be the distilled essence of progressivism.
AYA, I’ve just come across your comments for the fist time. Your pathetic attempts to whitewash Pres. Ahmadinejad’ rants about Israel including his use of Nazi rhetoric shows that you are an utter fuckwit.
The term troll is too good for you.
If alex thinks all here are biased against the beeb all the time, can he illustrate where and when he is out of lockstep with his beeb masters? I could parrot his lefty position on any topic…somrthing he couldnt do to me or many here as it seems the readership here is rather eclectic.
D. Vance: 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.
Sorry David but I don’t believe the IRA were defeated by the British Army or RUC. They packed it in because the Loyalist terrorists had begun a mass slaughter campaign against uninvolved Catholics.
This is in contrast to the Palestinian gunmen, who just love it when their people are killed or injured by the IDF. The more the merrier as far as they are concerned, especially when there’s an obliging cameraman on hand.
Keeps the infidel dollars rolling in, doncha know.
Greencoat,
I agree with you re the Palestinians. I profoundly disagree re the IRA but that if for another thread, if I do one.
Odd how we brainwashed automatons seem to be the only ones here not parroting the same party line. But, of course, ‘not parroting the same party line’ is the definition of ‘brainwashed’ in B-BBC land.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 05.03.08 – 7:30 pm |
Angry, read Nick Cohen’s book “What’s Left?”
It might open your eyes to the moral depravity of the modern Left.
He puts it into words much better than I ever could.
David Preiser (USA) | 05.03.08 – 6:51 pm
“I still don’t buy it. “Militant” and “activist” are not analogous and are not easily confused by intelligent people. They got caught out, and fixed it. ”
I agree with you 100%.
The BBC, how it defends terrorism and tweaking the story.
Ex-US sailor convicted of spying
supplying a pro-al-Qaeda website with information on American warship movements. Hassan Abujihaad, 32, was found guilty of providing material support to terrorists and disclosing secret national defence information. He was arrested last year in Phoenix, Arizona. Abujihaad, a Muslim convert previously known as Paul Hall, faces 25 years in jail when he is sentenced on 23 May…
Abujihaad had served as a naval signalman on board the USS Benfold while it was part of a battle group in the Middle East engaged in anti-Taleban and anti-al-Qaeda activities. He used his security clearance to e-mail Azzam diagrams of ships and their susceptibility to attack, as well as details of the US Navy battle group and its planned movements through the Straits of Hormuz in April 2001. The spying took place just months after a suicide attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2001, killing 17 sailors.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7280460.stm
A mistake on the date or could it be how the BBC rewrites history in which to present Islamic anger at the US for invading Afghanistan. Just for the record the USS Cole was attacked in Oct 2000 almost a full year before 9/11 and a full year before they attacked Afghanistan. I mean everybody knows that 9/11 happened in Sept 2001. But if the BBC wrote 2000 they would have to admit that Islamic terrorism started long before the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Something the BBC just can’t have you believing.
But even stranger is how that BBC defended innocent man Babar Ahmed
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=d&q=Babar+Ahmad&go=Search
Just happened to have all that sensitive info on his computer.
The BBC, how it defends terrorism and tweaking the story.
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,.
Sue | 05.03.08 – 4:45 pm
Like it. You have my vote. :+:
The only BBBC critics of Vance have been ‘Sue’ and ‘Umbongo’.
bob | 05.03.08 – 5:35 pm
No! The only ones to write on the issue.
Why can’t we have a poll on the site, occasionally? Several blogs, user groups and newspaper I read have them.
Let’s begin on an ‘uncontroversial’, administrative issue – the structure of the comments section.
I’m in agreement with some that the tabloid style of Vance has eralyl harmed this site. Highlight examples of bias, and point out errors by all means. Tehre’s plenty of it to do so. But Vance seems to aim his fury at things that are tenuous at best.
How am I so sure? None of the BBC spokeespeople bother with this site anymore. And why would they? What is the worth of arguing with an hysterical loon? The last time I read a conversation between Reith and Vance it was Reith handing his ass to him because virtually all the facts in his complaint were just plain wrong. And did he admit error? No, he obfuscated with a nonsensical argument that the facts dont matter because bias was implied. That is the antithesis of this site. Factual examples are fundamental to an argument. Yes bias can be implied and ever so frequently is. But for God’s sake please can the other main contributors to this site pick up the slack so that I don’t feel like I’m reading Michael Savage.
I too would like more postings from people who are not David Vance.
I quite often agree with his views – but they often seem to be just that: his views rather than a discussion of BBC bias.
People should stop feeding the trolls: it encourages them.
Oddly enough “Hillhunt” sometimes makes a coherent argument – instead of the petty playground rubbish. Please do not descend to this level. That applies to everyone.
Please, DV, do not sulk. Maybe moderate your tone and aim at some real targets.
Alex
As I said before, the BBC should not be in the business of having worldviews.
Though it’s a handy shorthand used on this site to say that the BBC has a worldview, clearly it can’t unless all the journos sat down and worked out what it should be.
But individual journos do have a world view. You can’t not have one. How can you decide what to report, who to speak to, which information to filter out unless you have a preconceived mental picture of how the world works? This picture may be subconscious and it may not be internally consistent but humans need it to be able to operate.
We see the world as a totality and we fit ‘facts’ into our own picture. We don’t atomise it and make case by case judgements. We can’t, because we have to know in advance what’s important to us.
So impartiality is impossible. All we can hope to be is self-aware and balanced. But the trouble is that if you’re surrounded by people all of whom share the same worldview then it becomes very difficult to be self-critical.
You may mock this gut-instinct approach but this is how humans deal with the world. You’ll never be convinced by any evidence that the BBC consists of individuals who share the same worldview because you’re happy with the way the BBC reports things. It doesn’t grate with you. Any evidence we put forward will just seem reasonable to you because you have no gut reaction to it.
But it grates with us, not because we deal with each sentence bit by bit (though this is the only way of discussing it in a blog) but because we just know that the reporter sees things differently.
Everyone on this blog feels sufficiently strongly to spend their valuable expressing their frustration. And despite not knowing each other and never having met we all independently agree what is wrong with BBC reporting.
I can see why you think evidence is important but we see the world so differently that we couldn’t even agree on what constituted evidence.
“But individual journos do have a world view. You can’t not have one. How can you decide what to report, who to speak to, which information to filter out unless you have a preconceived mental picture of how the world works? This picture may be subconscious and it may not be internally consistent but humans need it to be able to operate.”
I agree wholeheartedly – but the BBC’s objective should be to minimise the impact of its journalists’ individual worldviews rather than, as you suggest, balance out the left-wing bias with some right-wing bias.
“Any evidence we put forward will just seem reasonable to you because you have no gut reaction to it. But it grates with us, not because we deal with each sentence bit by bit (though this is the only way of discussing it in a blog) but because we just know that the reporter sees things differently.”
Grating, gut reactions and “we just know“. That’s exactly my gripe with this site – it is a bunch of almost exclusively right-wing people complaining about their gut feelings and that the BBC offends their delicate Tory sensibilities. What you assume the reporter’s politics to be then becomes an article of faith and no effort is made to justify this assumption – especially in Vance’s case. And so even considered, detailed criticism is met with anger and bizarre accusations rather than rational argument.
What you lot do on your own blog is up to you, however I came here with an open mind to see if you had a point or were just right-wing crackpots. Most of the posters haven’t even tried to convince me of the former.
AYA “I came here with an open mind to see if you had a point or were just right-wing crackpots.”
You certainly haven’t demonstrated an open mind. At every point you seem to have started with the conclusion that the BBC was behaving correctly and then scrabbled around for a case to support it – and it’s led you to offering some fairly bizarre arguments: the BBC questioning whether Castro’s end could mean greater freedom in Cuba would be outside its remit, for instance; the BBC always treats statements from any government (including Hamas – and corrupt dictatorships presumably) as more reliable than those of the press, as another example.
More tellingly, I and a number of other posters here have both recorded times where we felt the BBC was doing a good job and disagreed with accusations of bias that we felt the evidence didn’t support. I don’t recall you at any point conceding that a report was biased.
Oh crap, Alex. You came here with an open mind? You came here with a mind that has been seriously compromised by overexposure to leftie “educators”. That much is obvious.
I think you are going to have to change your pseudonym to Angry Young Equivocator.
Now if you could emerge from your intellectual fog for a minute you might notice that this site is not comprised of an undifferentiated mass of people who think alike on every issue. And we approach BBC bias from different backgrounds and angles.
Well, yes, I did come here with an open mind.
Admittedly it didn’t take many hysterical and badly-argued posts to close it again. And a lot of people really seem to have gone out of their way
“I don’t recall you at any point conceding that a report was biased.”
I have yet to be convinced of a strong bias throughout a whole report. Certain parts of reports though, I have conceded to show bias. I have also declined to comment on a lot of reports which did make me suspicious.
“At every point you seem to have started with the conclusion that the BBC was behaving correctly and then scrabbled around for a case to support it”
And at every point Biased BBC contributors have started with the conclusion of bias and occasionally looked for evidence. Admittedly the comments are usually a lot more rational and engage with the debate more than the actual blog, but there is a general tendency to unsubstantiated ranting which, yes, has prejudiced my views of this site.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 07.03.08 – 6:01 pm |
I have yet to be convinced of a strong bias throughout a whole report. Certain parts of reports though, I have conceded to show bias. I have also declined to comment on a lot of reports which did make me suspicious.
Hang on, how come it’s no problem for “part of reports” to be biased? Are you saying it’s only worthy of complaint if an entire piece is biased? What sort of criteria would one use to make that distinction? If there are many reports which have, shall we say, biased content, how is that acceptable? This seems highly illogical to me.
As usual, the angry young one has jumped in at the deep end, forgetting that he can’t swim.
Alex, if you concede that there has been bias and yet you have been silent about it, that is dishonest.
That’s exactly my gripe with this site – it is a bunch of almost exclusively right-wing people complaining about their gut feelings and that the BBC offends their delicate Tory sensibilities.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 07.03.08 – 2:47 pm |
I see exactly where you’re coming from now.
Of course you will never see any bias in the BBC. You speak their language.
It does call into question your bold statement here:
Well, yes, I did come here with an open mind.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 07.03.08 – 6:01 pm |
How many people here would consider themselves left of centre, pro-Palestinian, Republican, anti-war etc. then? You can’t deny that there is an overall right-of-centre consensus here on most issues, which is just as likely to prejudice your case.
Much of the justification for the Biased BBC position is framed in terms of gut reactions and very vague and subjective things such as the “general tone” of the article, which are not and often cannot be backed up with facts and evidence. This isn’t to say you’re not right, it’s to say you are doing a piss-poor job of convincing the centre and centre-left of your point.
Case in point, the attitude to “trolls”. The more intelligent and articulate posters don’t accuse us of supporting terror or being plants but engage with us and answer our questions with valid points. However others think anyone who disagrees should be ignored to facilitate debate. Back-slapping and
preaching to the converted instead of attempting to convince your opponents is, well, strategically retarded.
Of course the fact that I came here with an open mind doesn’t mean that I will leave with one. I genuinely did want to see if there was a case for BBC bias or if it was that the centre looks left-wing to the hard right. You should have tried to convince me of the first, not the second.