We all know how vociferously the BBC has opposed the US-led liberation of Iraq. We all know how good news is no news when it comes to Iraq but bad news is of course always welcome. So no big surprise to see the BBC giving all due prominence to the latest Red Cross/Red Crescent report on Iraq under the doom-laden headline “Bleak picture of Iraq conditions.” We get the usual left wing mantra about how Iraq’s humanitarian situation is “among the most critical in the world”. (What, worse than those poor Gazans? Really?) However the BBC and the Red Cross/Red Crescent are not so keen to tell us that..
-Emergency campaigns have supported the immunization of 98 percent of children 1-3 years (3.62 million children) against measles, mumps, and rubella. As a result, there has been a 90 percent reduction in laboratory confirmed cases of measles of children under five (4.56 million) immunized against polio during the 2004-05 national polio immunization campaign, enabling Iraq to maintain its polio-free status. –
-Vaccinated 3.2 million children under five and 700,000 pregnant women, with UNICEF and WHO.
-Provided supplementary doses of vitamin A for more than 1.5 million nursing mothers and 600,000 children under two, and iron folate supplements for over 1.6 million women of childbearing age.
-Trained 11,400 staff at over 2,000 community child care units to screen for malnutrition and to provide monthly rations of high protein biscuits to malnourished children and pregnant mothers.
-Renovated 110 facilities and equipped 600 centers with basic clinical and lab equipment.
-Trained over 2,500 primary health care workers, improving access to essential primary health care.
That’s JUST in the health-care area. The reality is that the BBC driven narrative does not allow for any substantive progress. The war was “illegal” apparently, we were all “conned” into going along with it, and so the Red Cross/Red Crescent report is grist to the mill. There are many sides to the Iraq situation but the BBC is only interested in the “It’s a quagmire get us out of there” angle, which it assiduously pumps out.
Because that’s what the phrase means. I promise you. It’s a right-wing interpretation of it; it’s just what it means.
Or rather, “not at right wing interpretation”.
But it also means if they get more anti-immigration than pro-immigration, they publish more anti-. Surely there’s no complaint there.
No, I wasn’t complaining. I was just telling you what it meant. Thanks for the assumption that I’m anti-immigration, though. I appreciate it.
Clarification on my 19.03.08 – 10:49 pm post. I should have said “Recommended pages“. The bigger sample you take of the highly recommended pages against the “Most Recent” section, the more it becomes evident that the popular opinion expressed by the political slant of the highly recommended comments is not reflected in the political slant of the comments the BBC chose to publish.
There were also an unprecedented number – over 1100 – of “rejected” comments. I have an idea that’s where the comments that didn’t suit the BBC’s bias ended up. The only avenue open to these people was to recommend the minority of comments the BBC did publish that reflected their point of view.
Note that to be able to recommend comments one has to register with Have Your Say. I therefore don’t believe these people are the type who would spam the forum.
From where it comes that Quote: “Emergency campaigns have supported the immunization of 98 percent of children 1-3 years (3.62 million children) against measles, mumps, and rubella. As a result, there has been a 90 percent reduction in laboratory confirmed cases of measles of children under five (4.56 million) etc”
???
Hugh 4:29 pm:
“Thanks for the assumption that I’m anti-immigration, though. I appreciate it.”
Not what I intended. I was looking for a right-wing theme that tends to dominate Have Your Say, and, well, Have Your Say being Have Your Say, the first that came to mind was immigration. Apologies for any offence.
Bryan 10:59 pm:
“I should have said “Recommended pages”. The bigger sample you take of the highly recommended pages against the “Most Recent” section, the more it becomes evident that the popular opinion expressed by the political slant of the highly recommended comments is not reflected in the political slant of the comments the BBC chose to publish.”
Possibly. I don’t know whether the BBC’s policy is to publish equal or proportional numbers of each side.
“There were also an unprecedented number – over 1100 – of “rejected” comments. I have an idea that’s where the comments that didn’t suit the BBC’s bias ended up.”
You have an idea do you? You have as much idea as I do as to the content of these ‘rejected’ comments, so your idea is pure speculation based on your assumption that the BBC is left-wing.
“The only avenue open to these people was to recommend the minority of comments the BBC did publish that reflected their point of view.”
What makes you think these comments were a minority?
“Note that to be able to recommend comments one has to register with Have Your Say. I therefore don’t believe these people are the type who would spam the forum.”
Probably not. But even with unlimited posts, a sense of decorum would mean people would post far less than they recommended.
As I said, the worst you can accuse the BBC of is attempting to post right- and left-wing comments in equal measure.
Fair enough, I’ll try not to be so chippy.
Alex: “As I said, the worst you can accuse the BBC of is attempting to post right- and left-wing comments in equal measure.”
I don’t want to be a bore, but as we’ve established, if they did that they would be breaking their own rules.
Well, as I said, I’m not really sure what their policy is, so this is all fairly academic. I’m not even sure if they have the “balance of opinion” rule any more. My main point is that I have absolutely no idea how Bryan came to the conclusion that this policy is “systematically reject almost all right-wing comments”.
“There were also an unprecedented number – over 1100 – of “rejected” comments. I have an idea that’s where the comments that didn’t suit the BBC’s bias ended up.”
You have an idea do you? You have as much idea as I do as to the content of these ‘rejected’ comments, so your idea is pure speculation based on your assumption that the BBC is left-wing.
I laid that trap especially for you, Alex and you didn’t disappoint. Instead of trying to evaluate the argument, you immediately leap on the word idea. You really do need to up the level of your argument and actually examine concepts before you rush to judgement.
What makes you think these comments were a minority?
Because far fewer of them were published. I’ll try to make it as plain as possible. One would expect there to be at least a rough equivalence between the general slant of the debate (pro-Iran or anti-Iran) and the direction of the recommendations (pro-Iran or anti-Iran). Here we see the reverse:
*Over the entire debate, the BBC published a small minority of comments unfavourable to Iran.
*Those comments attracted a big majority of recommendations while the pro-Iran comments attracted a small minority of recommendations.
*Through their pro-Iran bias, the “moderators” favoured the pro-Iran comments over the anti-Iran comments. Being over-enthusiastic in their defence of Iran they rejected over 1100 comments when they could have just ignored them and let them languish in the “Moderation Queue”. This is where I believe those unpublished anti-Iran comments ended up. Do you have a more plausible explanation for the discrepancy?
Now if you really have “absolutely no idea” about my conclusions (though I didn’t say what you quoted me as saying) then maybe you need to slow down and actually look at the argument. I’ve told you before that sometimes things really are just what they seem. Like BBC bias. Now take a deep breath and use your head.
“Instead of trying to evaluate the argument, you immediately leap on the word idea.”
No, I also pointed out that you have no way of knowing what is in those rejected comments. Even if you had said “I am 100% certain and have the microfilm to prove it” I would still have been sceptical and wondered how you knew the content of posts that were never published.
“Over the entire debate, the BBC published a small minority of comments unfavourable to Iran.”
I counted the first four pages of ‘most recent’. A good twenty comments disarming Iran by any means necessary. With fifteen comments per page this makes a third – a sizeable, rather than small minority. If you take out neutral, or pro-sanction but anti-war posts, this means that there is not such a huge difference between the anti-Iran or pro-Iran comments.
Now if you compare this to the ‘most recommended’ pages, you will see that the vast majority of recommended posts are favourable to Iran. About ten, half of in ‘most recent’, are pro-war. If we are to believe your arguments then, if anything, the BBC is posting proportionally more anti-Iran comments, presumably to balance things out.
Now I would assume that the increased dominance of the pro-Iran view comes from the fact that people recommend far more comments than they post.
“Those comments attracted a big majority of recommendations while the pro-Iran comments attracted a small minority of recommendations.”
Not the case. See above: the recommendations favoured Iran. Maybe picking a different thread would work better, as Iran and Iraq threads tend to be the exception rather than the rule.
“*Through their pro-Iran bias…”
How do you know such a thing exists?
“…the “moderators” favoured the pro-Iran comments over the anti-Iran comments.”
I don’t see what evidence you have for this. Recommendations would imply that more pro-Iran comments were received.
“ Being over-enthusiastic in their defence of Iran they rejected over 1100 comments when they could have just ignored them and let them languish in the “Moderation Queue”.”
I fail to see how this would affect the debate. Apart from anything else you have absolutely no way of proving this claim and you know it.
“This is where I believe those unpublished anti-Iran comments ended up.”
I have no doubt that you do. But it simply boils down to that: belief. After all, the only rejected and unpublished comments you have to refer to are your own, which I would assume have rather a right-of-centre slant.
“Do you have a more plausible explanation for the discrepancy?”
I have several non-conspiracy-based factors that you have overlooked. Firstly the fact that number of recommendations will naturally reflect the political consensus of the posters than number of comments. Secondly that unregistered posters will also throw out the statistics by posting but not recommending.
And of course, in the Iran thread, the BBC has actually posted more anti-Iran comments than recommendations would suggest.
“I’ve told you before that sometimes things really are just what they seem. Like BBC bias.”
And I have explained to you that this is no argument, as:
1) What things seem is far more subjective than what they actually are.
2) It fails to demonstrate that this actually is one of the occasions when things are what they seem.
And of course, to me it seems the BBC is not biased. Are you saying this is the case?
Hmmmmm, looks like I’m going to have to revisit this one. I based it from memory on an old post, thinking that the recommendations were mostly against Iran – and concluding bias from that impression. Now I see they are mostly against the US and therefore there are no grounds for suspicion re which comments ended up in the rejected group. It’s possible that in this case the moderators did fairly represent the comments that came in.
I will have a look for the topics where the discrepancy does occur.
Now dammit Alex, why didn’t you check those recommended pages in the first place and point out that I was wrong about them instead of arguing blind? You could have saved us both a long, pointless exercise.
I like long, pointless exercises. Why didn’t you look at the most recommended yourself? Weird thing was I noticed early on (I counted 12 “doves” and 1 “vague dove”) and it didn’t dawn on me that this would invalidate your point.
Anyway, give me a ring when you can be bothered with another thread.
thank you
http://www.youtubeline.com