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 also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.
General BBC-related comment thread!
Bookmark the permalink.
The BBC’s Justin Webb does apologise for his tardiness, re-Obama and Rev. Wright issue:
” Apologies for coming rather late to the turbulent priest issue….”
‘Turbulent priest issue’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/03/turbulent_priest_issue_1.html
One of several critiques of Obama at New English Review by Hugh Fitzgerald:-
“Barack Obama Never Once in Twenty Years Took Issue with Reverend Wright”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/13715
Jack Hughes | 19.03.08 – 10:45 am
Sorry, I should have posted a warning with it.
Although Simpson’s article is mostly his usual pompous bloviation, I don’t think the use of “volunteers” for the people concerned is wrong or biased in this case. He is clearly talking about the military balance between a large conventional force (the US) and a few thousand irregulars. Using “terrorists” or even “militants” would not get the point across. He is not trying to identify what the irregulars do, or what motivates them, he’s just noting how they are organised militarily – the fact that they aren’t part of a regular army. “Irregulars” might have done instead of “volunteers” but I think “volunteers” is probably better. “Irregulars” are usually still raised by a government and these aren’t.
Interesting to note the BBC interview of jonathan powell, who invited gerry adams and martin mcguinness to his wedding, they became personal friends. I think the interviewer was much too easy on Powell, no hard questions asked at all,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7290000/newsid_7299300/7299389.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&asb=1&news=1&bbcws=1
Further more I see a squabble developing over the show to be screened on bbc when Brendan Duddy reveals his role as a peacemaker. There appears to be a media campagin to bring out this now. With the BBC hand in hand with the print press.
Questions in the interview again re Al-Q. A fight for hearts and minds with a concerted effort by the media. Secret channels are now being put forth as the way forward with Al-Q.
Powells film, hmmm. wonder if it will be a BBC production?
Interesting to see the role of the bbc in the unfolding of this. Perhaps the fight for hearts and minds is the way forward in this, and the bbc are to play an active and constructive role.
Don’t mean to be facetious, but in the absence of conscription aren’t all US soldiers also “volunteers”
“Volunteer” is of course the name the murderous thugs of IRA used to dignify themselves. Wonder whether people they forced to conduct proxy-bombings count as “volunteers” as well?
Interesting interview on BBC good morning Ulster. They didn’t push Powell to comment on the personalities involved
http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/ncaradio/
Yet the print press write, (sorry no link subs required)
Jonathan Powell describes two encounters with Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and members of the Blair family.
At one stage he writes how Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were found in the garden at No 10 learning how to skate with the Blair children.
“I looked out of the window to see them playing with the Blair children and trying to ride Nicky Blair’s skateboard down the path through the rose garden.
“I was terrified they would be photographed and rushed outside to shepherd them back in.”
At another stage, in 1999, Cherie Blair was showing fashion designer Ralph Lauren around No 10.
They bumped into McGuinness and he introduced the designer to Gerry Kelly, asking him what he thought of Kelly’s matching grey and beige outfit.
Now why weren’t the bbc able to extract that information from Powell.
More here Great Hatred Little Room, making peace in Northern Ireland.
I noticed in the earlier post a few comments went off topic about the adaptation of the Passion by the BBC. Pointing out how it was relatively benign and also that churches are relatively supportive.
But I watched the first 2 minutes (if that), the first scene showed Judas paying for the donkey which Jesus was to ride on. The scripture is really quite clear that the donkey was never paid for (see Matthew Chapter 21 verses 2 and 3).
Christians are notoriously bad for not knowing their Bible and for seeing a bad adaptation as better than none.
But crucially, why would the BBC adapt a story about which every Christian holds dear and then proceed to change what suits them? – Because clearly these Christians really have misunderstood the text and the BBC know better! If they refuse to do it accurately they shouldn’t do it at all. It’s only Christians they do this to.
Victoria Derbyshire just had 3 guests on to discuss Obama – Newsweek’s Stryker Maguire, the Guardian’s Michael White, and some bloke from Operation Black Vote. All agreed how great he is. There’s balance for you.
I see the BBC advertising a secret service blog by 4 Israeli operatives, yet they provide no link to this chatty blog?
Is it just me or is BBC breakfast programme even more Bias than ever before ? every morning they are pimping blatent PC bollocks with some report or another , i wish they would all just f**k off.
Still no news on Ken and the Electoral Commission. Ohh, but they do have time for this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7304393.stm
And entire study based on specious reasoning – nice. It’s like claiming eating lots of bacon prevents polar bear attacks.
“Quad bike film MP called to court”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7304536.stm
Eton-educated Mr Soames…
What’s his school got to do with the story? Do we expect higher standards than a “bog-standard” state education?
Here are just a few articles, written by American commentators about Obama, which grovelling, obsequious Beeboibs seem to have missed:
1.) ‘Osamababble’
(by Clarice Feldman)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/03/obamababble.html
2.) ‘The Real Agenda of Black Liberation Theology’
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_real_agenda_of_black_liber.html
3.) ‘Obama’s Coming-Out Speech’
( by Lee Carey)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_comingout_speech.html
4.) ‘It’s Timeto Call Democrats on Race Demogogy’
(by James Lewis)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/its_time_to_call_the_democrats.html
George,
how
much
do
you
get
paid
per
referral?
I just fisked John Simpsons bloviations about Iraq at my blog – http://www.di2.nu/200803/19.htm
I quite like the Obamantion.
Bryan,
One of the things Sarah Montague hammered away at in her interview with Sderot’s mayor was the Ha’aretz opinion poll purportedly showing that 64% of Israelis favoured talking to Hamas.
Even for a non-Israeli that figure seemed inordinately high to me. No surprise then that in reality nowhere near that many Israelis want talks with Hamas, favouring instead, let’s say, a more pragmatic approach.
Hands up if you want to talk to Hamas
Simon Mayo at his biased best. Every American guest has been asked about the US elecyions. Of course what this really is is “say you hate McCain and Boosh” but love “Obama or Hillary”
I predicted a long time ago that Mr Mayo would be doing this.
Nice to see Simon Mayo is as predictable as a Swiss watch.
I see the BBC advertising a secret service blog by 4 Israeli operatives, yet they provide no link to this chatty blog?
Typhoo | Homepage | 19.03.08 – 12:52 pm
Not surprising, the blog is in Hebrew. A quick check shows that the story received wide coverage but as far as I can tell no one linked.
I wonder if this is a case of the BBC simply publishing a press release as if it was their own research? Rare for Israel, not uncommon for Nu-Lab.
Ben:
How
Much
Does
BBC
Pay
You
To
Troll
Here?
You can’t
Believe
Most
People
Here
Comment
Out
Of
Unpaid
Conviction.
My
Subsidy
To
You
Continues.
Francis, nice fisking of the bloated toad.
George R | 19.03.08 – 6:03 pm | #
1. How is highlighting your constant off topic spamming ‘trolling’?
2. Please explain how you subsidise me – I’m interested.
You sound like Obama: ‘let me divert you’ from my original insult.
Forget about the 20 year Obama-Rev. Wright friendship.
Is your contribution to the Obama-Rev. Wright issue anything but typically Beeboid? Or do you only make personal insults?
Explain your original question: I’m not interested.
BBC Radio 4’s 6pm news included the same claim that I blogged about recently – that recent US research has shown that there were no links between Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. This is not true…
The executive summary does indeed say “his study found no ‘smoking gun’ (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda” but if you look at the actual report then you would also read that (my emphasis) “Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda-as long as that organization’s near-term goals supported Saddam’s longterm vision……Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives…Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term) considerable operational overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the regional groups involved in terrorism. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a ‘de facto’ link between the organizations….Iraq was a long-standing supporter of international terrorism…”
Maybe the BBC could look at the whole document not just the Executive Summary and maybe they could report a story truthfully not as they would wish it to be.
I see the BBC secret peacemaker small piece on the iplayer http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7300000/newsid_7302300/7302389.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&news=1&bbcws=1
has shown scenes of the twin towers, bin laden, and a look back into the other terrorist examples of the 70’s. Which is fair enough, but 2 things. Firstly the argument from Powells book today that secret channels should open between the British govt and Al-Q will be a perfect end to such a show, and secondly what are all the other leaks coinciding with this show. The show must have taken some time to make, the book some time to write, the leaks from both come out together. Can that really be a coincidence.
Peter Taylor writes about it here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7303048.stm
Can inferences be drawn that bob, the MI5 officer who was ‘sacked’ and re-instated indeed be the current head of MI5?
NotaSheep | Homepage | 19.03.08 – 7:39 pm |
They also want you to ignore the Kay report, which said at the time that while Sadaam may not have had weapons at the ready, Baghdad was like Grand Central Station for terrorists. Even if he didn’t deal with many of them directly or officially, he was allowing plenty of terrorist business to go on in his establishment. There are documents of his payments to various parties, or I should say payments from his government.
Uncle Sadaam was a big benefactor to lots of nasties, not to mention $25,000 to families of successful Palestinian suicide bombers.
BBC World had been trailing to Johnny Foreigner their News Night show for a little while now.
The uninitiated wouldn’t recognise from the clips that most of those being hectored by Paxman etc. were Conservative politicians, but ho hum.
So last Saturday morning the missus and I had a lie in and watched BBC World’s version of News Night at 9:00 am in bed.
It turned out to be a compilation spread, I imagine, over a week. One of the first items had our interest. It was to do with binge drinking in the UK. Paxo announces that the BBC have sent their cameras to Guildford to cover the nightly mayhem.
Cue nighttime footage of Police Officers in uniform struggling with drunken, abusive youths. Splice in daytime interview with Surrey Police Superintendent standing in Bridge Street, Guildford, patiently explaining to BBC muppet cause and effect. (Both wife and I have known Superintendent for a long while and, prior to departure, used to see each other at Haslemere Swimming pool when we took our respective offspring swimming).
Anyway, on conclusion of interview, cue back to nighttime footage of more policemen struggling with drunken, abusive youths, voiced over by BBC muppet who gives impression that he is now an expert on the subject.
For both the wife and me it was interesting enough, given the local angle, except for one oddity. All the policemen in the nighttime footage had Thames Valley insignia and their vans were labelled with the words ‘Thames Valley Police’.
Silly me, I thought that Guildford was policed by Surrey Police and after all, Paxo did say that the BBC had sent their cameras to Guildford.
Was Paxo lying or was he just being economical with the truth?
Of course Johnny Foreigner’s not to know is he. And so to the second item on News Night.
Now to the second item pumped out on BBC World News Night purely for the benefit of Johnny Foreigner.
I’m not sure if this was exactly as News Night viewers in the UK saw it, but this is how it came out for the colonies.
Starts with Paxo preamble about elections in Iran, switches to BBC limp wrister in hot climate with queue of burka clad women in background. Bearing in mind that this is coverage of a bogus election where the vast majority of those wishing to stand for election have been disbarred, the chat comes over as, at best, a mild rebuke as if someone had lost a WI ballot box.
Commentary ranges over the various power groups including the Revolutionary Guard.
Cue footage of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard seizing control of the RN Rhibs in the Shat Al Arab and kidnapping the sailors and marines. The BBC still says ‘captured’.
Cue footage of Iranian film of Acting Leading Seaman Faye Turney wearing a hijab. The BBC gives us about 45 seconds of this footage, during the course of which Faye Turney repeatedly says how kind, how nice and how compassionate the Iranians are.
Cue footage of balaclava’d man holding some type of RCL. BBC limp wrister voices over with the words “But the US views this compassion………”
I don’t need to draw anyone’s attention to the obvious here. It speaks for itself. But for Johnny Foreigner. Well he’s left with the view that there’s a cuddly teddy bear side to those mad mullahs and so what if the Great Satan doesn’t like the rag heads.
Although I contribute here fairly regularly, I’m posting this item anonymously without my usual pseudonym. It’s an official BBC response to an FOI request, under my real name, for information on blogging by BBC employees. I thought it would be interesting to all here to have a benchmark of the official BBC view – whether we believe it or not. I would be interested in any comments before I decide whether to pursue it any further by way of appeal.
19th March 2008
Dear XXXXX
FOI request about employee postings
Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) dated 21st
February 2008 regarding the above query. The reference number for your request is FOIA –
xxxxxxxx. You asked the BBC for the following information in relation to ‘employee postings’.Please see our response to your questions below:
1. Does the BBC authorise or knowingly allow any employee(s) to spend working
time defending criticism of the corporation on websites or blogs?
The BBC allows BBC staff to discuss their work on their personal blogs and websites and
elsewhere on the internet provided they adhere to the BBC’s published guidance on blogging. This activity is regarded as personal and is not directed by the BBC. Current best practice is that when BBC people discuss their work in this way they should be open about what they are doing and where they are dealing with BBC matters, they would be expected to declare their identity as BBC staff. The BBC does not employ people specifically to do this, rather staff are able to do so
on an ad-hoc basis, where appropriate to their roles.Please see BBC Internet site link and guidelines which explains our policy on blogging in more
detail;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/personalweb/index.shtml
You will see that this also includes a link to the BBC’s Acceptable Use Policy for Internet and
Email (in the section on blogging)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/02/how_do_you_do_it.html
2. Does the BBC pay any employee(s) to carry out such activity in their own time?
No the BBC does not do this.
3. Does the BBC employ any external agency to carry out such activity? No the BBC does not do this.4. Does the BBC provide support for any such activity by way of computer facilities or internet access time, or by providing access to databases and/or research material?No specific support is provided, other than the general support BBC staff have access to in the
course of their normal roles.
5. How many employees and how many man hours were allocated to such activity in the last year?
If this question relates to BBC employees spending work time blogging on third party sites this is
limited to reasonable personal usage as with personal phone calls and emails and would be subject
to the BBC’s Acceptable Use Policy for Internet and Email. The BBC does not hold the data on how many employees spend working time blogging on third party sites.
6. How much was spent on external agencies carrying out such activity in the last
year? Not applicable • see response to question 3 above.
7. What part of the organisation does this activity fall into and who is responsible for
supervising it? There is no centralised monitoring of this sort of blogging activity which as mentioned above would be covered by the BBC’s Acceptable Use Policy for Internet and Email.
8. What pseudonyms are used by BBC personnel carrying out such activity? While it may be possible that some BBC staff are using pseudonyms, best practice is that when
discussing BBC matters staff would be expected to declare their identity, as indicated in point 1. We hope you find this information useful.
Appeal Rights
If you are not satisfied with our response you have the right to an internal review by a BBC senior
manager. Please contact us at the address above, explaining what you would like us to review and
including your reference number. If you are not satisfied with the internal review, you can appeal
to the Information Commissioner. The contact details are: Information Commissioner’s Office,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, telephone 01625 545 700 or see
http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk
Yours sincerely,
T Samarasinghe
Legal and Business Affairs Manager
BBC Future Media and Technology
Anon: Only the BBC could take a whole page to say nothing!!!
I’m sure this has been covered before, but is it me or is John Simpson’s piece on the BBC “Iraq War Shows Limits of US Power” an anti-American rant and a completely biased opinion, spouted once again by this increasing pathetic individual?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7303985.stm
Can I just say – I do NOT want to pay for an opinion from this man. I could get the same opinion by paying 60p for a Guardian or Independent newspaper. I do not need this propoganda shite from the BBC.
I mean… Take this line…
“Of the other aims, one was unobtainable because Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed, and the other – bringing democracy to the Middle East – has been indefinitely postponed.
Nothing new in any of this, of course. Anti-war commentators have repeated it all again and again”
Yes John – you’ve repeated it time and time again. And now you’ve just revealed your position. You are an anti-war commentator. Why don’t you just fuck off John?
And how anti-American can you get… With this…
“America after the invasion of Iraq is no longer the superpower it was before”
Who says John? You? I’m sure they could still fire inch perfect guided missles and take you and your house out John if they wanted too. Just be thankful they let you get away with breaking the BBC Charter time and time again with no come back. Me thinks you’ve been building up quite a pay back, don’t you?
I detest John Simpson. How about supporting the current position and the progress being made now John? Admit it, things are going much better now – and you can’t stand it, as you seem to want Al Quieda to butcher innocent people to force the US to withdraw so you can proclaim they’ve lost, and you would, you’d shout it so very loud, just to vindicate your position. Stop spouting your propoganda John. You’re a disgrace to the BBC Charter, and a disgrace to this nation.
Anon
They appear to evade your first question by use of shifty terminology. “defending criticism” is now “discuss their work”.
I don’t see how John Reith’s (real name please) regular, unswerving and sarcastic attempts to propagate arguments against this site could be described as merely “ad-hoc” or an attempt to “discuss their work” in any way.
King Charles 1st
Almost as laughable as his ‘predictions’ for 2006:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4553604.stm
… and 2007:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/6175079.stm
If you take the opposite of what he says, then they are fairly reasonable predictions!
On the vote rigging issue, is it not time that the BBC ended their use of the word “Asian” as a euphemism for Pakistani/Bangladeshi. I believe that, without exception, the cases of vote rigging over the last couple of years, using the postal voting system, have all been carried out in areas of high Pakistani immigrant population. Why are the entire Asian population being smeared with the use of this description. The culprits are South Asians, from the Indian Sub-Continent and specifically of Pakistani origin. To obfuscate in this way is either sloppy journalism or intentional misinformation.
Galil | 19.03.08 – 3:49 pm,
Yes, I also noticed that suspiciously high figure. There’s so much to fisk in that Montague interview that I could only get around to a fraction of it. like how she was so keen to get out on record the alleged truth that Gaza is in a worse state than it was 40 years ago.
Still, I suppose there is a slight possibility that Montague was playing devil’s advocate at least some of the time and trying to come up with some Hardtalk.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7304811.stm
BBC! There’s an elephant in the room! Look! The huge grey thing with a trunk and tusks. Seriously, there! An elephant! What do you mean you can’t see it? It’s the size of a house! Standing in the room!
It’s a Press Association piece to be fair and everyone is reporting it in the same way as far as I can tell.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/38655/Maternity-units-turn-mothers-away-
George R | 19.03.08 – 6:49 pm | #
What are you on about? Please highlight any personal insults.
Which contribution to the ‘Obama-rev’? I haven’t made any
In defence of the BBC: Seeing this reminded me of the days when the BBC made an honest attempt to “educate” the population.
What do we get these days? Strictly Come Dancing and Nicky Cambell talking bollocks on a Sunday morning. Where did the BBC go wrong?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7303288.stm
No doubt if the BBC were to bring this programme back, they’be advertising for a “zany” Moozlum or a “one legged black lesbian who is interested in green issues”
Ben:
You’re catching on: you don’t make any contribution.
In re John Simpson, I seem to remember there was the supremely pompously-titled ‘Simpson Returns to China’ programme which was based on the premise that the Great White Man hadn’t been back to China since Tiananmen in 1989. Can it possibly be true that the BBC’s self-styled chief foreign correspondent had avoided the biggest story the world had to offer for nearly 10 years? Someone tell me I’m wrong – even though the BBC’s journalistic effort has pretty much disintegrated over the last decade, surely Simpson can’t simply have ignored China all these years.
Quite genuinely, I can’t really believe this, and would be honestly grateful if some informed BBC employee could assure me this bizarre lacuna in Simpson’s global junketing career was simply made up by publicity-hungry producers (cf, Queengate scandal).
In general, the West’s media (inc. BBC), is so appeasing of Islamic jihad, not least murderer -in -chief, Bin Laden.
Take today: Bin Laden says he’s annoyed over re-publication of Danish cartoons, threatens to kill us kafirs in Europe, and the media uncritically reprints his words with no resisting denunciation of Bin Laden and his murderous ideology.
Can’t, e.g., the BBC think ‘Hitler 1939’ when it writes of Bin Laden now, and be less ‘impartial’ in such ‘reports:
“New ‘Bin Laden tape’ threatens EU”
(Does he want a Referendum?)
Try:
“New ‘Bin Laden tape’ echoes Hitler in
genocidal threat to European people”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7306002.stm
This isn’t exactly bias, but it does make you wonder what kind of “journalism” actually goes on at the BBC:
“UK retail sales unexpectedly rose strongly in February, driven by higher food sales at the supermarkets, official figures have shown.”
Right, so in February we all went and ate a lot of extra food did we? In February? Doesn’t it seem more likely that we actually ate the same amount of food but the prices went up? Which then calls into question the ONS offical inflation figures of course. There’s a story there, but the BBC hasn’t followed it up. Are they stupid? Incompetent? or just don’t want to find out what is really going on because it might reflect badly on their beloved Labour party, and the way they are running the economy?
Radio 4 has found a poetry book by lesbian communists. Beeboids in rapture!
(you could not make it up!)
BBC has “won back the rights to Formula 1” crows James Naughtie this morning.
Well, I am off to the shops now to win the rights to a pint of milk.
Radio 4 has found a poetry book by lesbian communists. Beeboids in rapture!
It gets better. On now:
Bollywood Jane
With Jane Little. Including at 10.45am Bollywood Jane.
Amanda Whittington’s story of a young woman who discovers the magic of Indian cinema.
I think there might be a homosexual storyline thrown in. And a bit of pro-abortion propaganda. And it’s set ‘Up North’.
Is that a straight flush or a full house?
the Ha’aretz opinion poll purportedly showing that 64% of Israelis favoured talking to Hamas.
I doubt it but if the poll is inaccurate that would be Ha’aretz’s responsibility not BBC.
Slightly OT I spoke to Khaled Abu Toameh last night. His response to the question should Israel talk to Hamas was, “Talk to whoever will talk to you. Shoot anyone who shoots at you. Israel shouldn’t wait for Hamas to change in any way. Why does Israel need Hamas recognition, anyway?”
“Is that a straight flush or a full house?”
Depends whether there’s a queen involved.
…if the poll is inaccurate that would be Ha’aretz’s responsibility not BBC.
deegee | 20.03.08 – 12:06 pm
Yes, but my point is that there is another poll which asks the question in a different way and shows quite a different tendency.
http://fugitivepeace.com/2008/hands-up-if-you-want-to-talk-to-hamas/
(Original post: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2009429185155005369/#390440 )
Why doesn’t the BBC also talk about that poll result?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7305731.stm
Senator McCain meets glorious leader Brown, “applauds” him, and then meets some guy called David something…