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.
Bad publicity for the BBC’s World Service Trust (patron Glenys Kinnock)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=542369&in_page_id=1770
i just note that bbc news 24 refuses to make ANY mention of the following story that emerged from the Popes easter cermonies today:
“Pope Blessing For Muslim Convert”
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VIR44G0&show_article=1
http://www.drudgereport.com/
hmm.. i wonder why they avoided it?
additional note: i have watched the bbc news 24 reports this evening ,and there were reports from the vatican .
but no mention WHATSOEVER of the baptism for a muslim convert to catholicism.
and he’s not just any muslim..
“Italy’s most prominent Muslim, an iconoclastic writer who condemned Islamic extremism and defended Israel, converted to Catholicism Saturday in a baptism by the pope at a Vatican Easter service.”
the equivalent would be Ed Hussain, who wrote “the islamist”, to convert to the Church of England , and to be baptised into it by the archbishop of canterbury no less.
(ok – thats HIGHLY unlikely, considering the archbishops dhimmi status, but that is the nearest non-catholic equivalent i can think of)
sidenote: i am not inferring that ed hussain will convert. i merely give that as an equivalent example.
The BBC are flogging the notion of a patriotic government changing the law to allow the Union Jack to be flown from public buildings, sounds great doesnt it eh?
Er, not really when you realise just why this gang of pseudo patriots are pushing this.
The REAL reason for the change in the law on flag flying is to enable the EU flag to be flown from all public buidings!
The central Brussels government has ordered the regional Westminster regime to start flying the EU flag from all buildings, but as this would be unpopular the sneaky NuLabour commisars are trying to hide the introduction of the UKs new EU flag behind the Union Jack! What a sneaky and dishonest bunch of traitors they are!
Make no mistake about this, the EU flag is the only real reason for the law change and very soon you will see the EU’blue N stars’ flying from every public building in the land.
Gordon Brown has shown himself to be a quisling of the first water and the BBC are his enablers!
archduke | 24.03.08 – 2:39 am
Yeah, amazing isn’t it? Susan also mentioned it at 9:59 pm.
From your breitbart link:
Allam, 55, told the newspaper Il Giornale in a December interview that his criticism of Palestinian suicide bombing provoked threats on his life in 2003, prompting the Italian government to provide him with a sizable security detail.
The Union of Islamic Communities in Italy—which Allam has frequently criticized as having links to Hamas—said the baptism was his own decision.
“He is an adult, free to make his personal choice,” the Apcom news agency quoted the group’s spokesman, Issedin El Zir, as saying.
Right, and free to get death threats and fatwas, no doubt, for his trouble.
Does the BBC currently have a Vatican correspondent? It used to:
http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2002/03/20020318_a_main.asp
But I guess it must at least have a Rome correspondent these days. I wonder where he was while the Pope was baptising Muslims. Probably in the mosque.
I also wonder what our resident stalwart Christian, John Reith, has to say about this.
archduke:
Can’t speak for BBC News 24, but the conversion of Magdi Allam was covered by BBC News Online…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7310255.stm
.
Excellent, Al Beeb, that’s THREE Al Qaeda propaganda messages of lies and murderous threats against us, and our allies, which you have UNCRITICALLY transmitted in the past week. (Yes, other parts of the MSM do it too.) We pay for Al Beeb to appease Al Qaeda and the Islamic jihad against us.
What’s the problem, Al Beeboids? Laziness or genuine appeasement of Islamic jihad? Is this Al Beeb ‘impartiality’?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7311005.stm
George R:
You forgot to tick the box marked: “No Thanks – I don’t want to know what the likes of Al Qaeda are up to.”
.
Here’s an absolutely classic depiction of the standard left wing approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – this time from a professor at Hebrew University who maintains that Israel’s attacks on the Gaza Strip are only driving more Palestinians into the arms of the terrorists. When the news anchor points out that terrorist attacks from Gaza will continue irrespective of Israel’s actions and asks the good prof what he would do to halt attacks on Israel he says, “I don’t have a plan and I’m not saying they should do one thing or another.”
Click on “English TV News” on the right. About 12 minutes in. Link only good till sometime tonight.
http://www.iba.org.il/
Hillhunt x 3
I admit these discussions began primarily about semantics, my points about BBC bias are broader than that. I don’t often cite things from Wiki to prove this that or the other because it often goes nowhere. I have great admiration for Anat, Bryan, Simon etc. when they take the trouble to do that though because these particularities do exemplify bias where the broader points are more difficult to pin down.
Especially to people who are comfortable with their own perception of the issue and are psychologically predisposed to hear what confirms, and not hear what contradicts their original preconception. (Cue for you to say that’s me)
I heard that theory on Thought for the Day this morning by the way, pinched, itself, from Evan Davis apropos something entirely different. It’s the consensus thing again.
So I’m not only talking about labels as I’m sure you know.
Mel is not mad or bad. I don’t agree with her on some of her other issues, but on the Middle East she is spot on. Informative, accessible, intelligent and, actually, fair. One sided? yes, but the right side. My side.
Hillhunt:
You forget to tick the box:
“I, Hillhunt, expect, nay demand, that Al Beeb make no criticism of the latest propaganda messages from Al Qaeda”.
George R | 24.03.08 – 1:49 pm | #
George, go on then tell us how you’d report and critique it. I think most people are pretty aware that Al-Qaeda aren’t the good guys. I’d like to be aware that they are still out there and that a significant threat still exists.
Does the fact that the other MSM sources are transmitting this not make you think instead that you are the one with the problem?
Of course not, it’s everyone else that has the problem…
George R:
You ought to have ticked the box marked:
“Yes, please: I know that it’ll be blindingly obvious to everyone what al Qaeda is up to and how obnoxious it is, but I’d really like the BBC to throw in some adjectives to make me feel they’re on my side. Oh, and editorialise the news like they’re not supposed to…(please).”
Hillhunt:
“Where’s my box: Report Al Qaeda as it wants to be reported, the impartial Islamic jihad way. And no health warning on the packet from Al Beeb, because it’s bleedingly obvious what we have to do to achive social cohesion: continue appeasing.”
Hillhunt — thanks for the link, but I see the story of Magdi Allam’s conversion was buried in a general story about the Pope’s Easter message. This is typical of Al-Beeb hiding and/or trivializing anything that’s unflattering to its beloved Is-lame. The story is “news” enough to warrant its own feature, not a few paragraphs mentioned in an article about something else.
BBC bullying killed my wife, says widower
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/24/nbbc124.xml
What on earth is this all about?
Oh now I see, some of the Kinnock filth is involved
BBC now driving people to suicide.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yo8pab
ooops, should read the other posts before replying. Sorry to repeat!
I notice in the story about the boy found abandoned in West London that the BBC feels the need to point out he is a Sikh. How come not an “Asian” then BBC?
What relevance is his religion here?
Funny that the BBC seems to think that when there is a potential negative story involving “Moozlums” the BBC never mentions it and instead we get “Asian” instead.
Any thicko camp beeboid care to comment?
How odd, given trumpet blaring from the BBC about the Mo cartoons, that this should be buried away.
Ugandans ‘forgive’ Gaddafi remark
Ugandan Church leaders have asked Christians to forgive Libya’s leader for suggesting the Bible was forged as it didn’t mention the Prophet Muhammad.
Amazing really. Not a riot in sight. Can’t be the ROP then.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7311564.stm
Anybody ever heard of the rumours about Kate Adie and the lunatic Gaddafi?
Martin:
What relevance is his religion here?
Possibly because the authorities are trying to trace the poor child’s family. Better not to have well-meaning Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or Christians getting in the way.
Wouldn’t you think?
Biased BBC: A Child’s Distress Is No Reason To Avoid Making A Cheap, Slimy Point
Hillhunt: Again I ask you. Of what matter is the childs religion?
Hillhunt, I do not believe that you do not understand the point being addressed, so do not try and make what is a very valid point out to be something it is not.
Hillhunt and a tale of different perspectives.
Martin:
Hillhunt: Again I ask you. Of what matter is the childs religion?
You don’t think that it would be helpful to say as much as possible about the child so that relatives can be traced? Clearly not…
.
Hillhunt: You haven’t got a clue have you? Why would the religion of the child make a difference? They have his name and a photograph!!!!!
I’ll tell you why I think the BBC did it. Normally the BBC simply use the term “Asian” when any negative story involves “Moozlums”
In this case the BBC didn’t want to use that term as “we” would probably think they did mean “Moozlums”
As it only appeared to involve Sikhs and the associated story about child smuggling, the BBC felt it safe to actually use the religion to highlight that it didn’t involve their belived “Moozlums”
Martin:
Hillhunt: You haven’t got a clue have you? Why would the religion of the child make a difference? They have his name and a photograph!!!!!
Thank you, Det Super Martin.
My first brush with this was on the radio, where photos have limited use. If one BBC outlet is describing him in that way, chances are the others will. Are you saying that the BBC should not include details which have been provided to help trace his family?
I’ll tell you why I think the BBC did it. Normally the BBC simply use the term “Asian” when any negative story involves “Moozlums”
In this case the BBC didn’t want to use that term as “we” would probably think they did mean “Moozlums”
A collectors’ classic, and no mistake:
The BBC publicises details of a lost child, and is showing bias in doing so because… well, because we just know they’re biased.
QED.
Biased BBC: We Really Do Have A Problem With Muslims. And Gays. Obviously.
Hillhunt: You still haven’t answered my question. On BBC News 24 just now they again used the term Sikh. Why?
Can you please link or tell me about a single post where the religion of Ben Smythe or Shannon Mathews is mentioned?
So I take it that whenever any “Asian” children go missing in the future (perhaps killed in “Moozlum Honour killings”) the BBC will give their religion out?
I don’t think so, at least not if they are “Moozlum”. You know that Hillhunt.
Your pathetic defence of this story just shows your bias.
And where do homosexuals come into this story? Been “cottaging” today have we?
Has anyone else noticed the impressive contortions the various BBC reporters are going through in their coverage of China and Tibet? They have finally been forced by reality to honestly cover China’s violent oppression of anyone who disagrees with the government, in this case Tibetans. There are so many elephants in the room to dance around, it’s amazing they can fit so many Beeboids in there at all.
First, I must say that this is a welcome change from the seemingly endless stream of encomiums I’m used to seeing about China on the BBC. How unfortunate that it took getting their own voice silenced before they stood up and took notice. Still, at least now the public is getting some reality about China.
But the BBC is still tiptoeing around some very large elephants. From smallest to largest:
Elephant No. 1 – China’s aggressive development policies, intended to bring all those Tibetans out of poverty didn’t work because the Chinese just repopulate the place with ethnic Han Chinese. Guess who gets the new jobs and the vast majority of benefits from that development. The BBC has noticed the tail of this one, at least.
Elephant No. 2 – The Tibetans were illiterate, poverty-stricken and starving before the Chinese got there because they were basically living in a feudal society. Guess who was the Feudal Lord. The BBC is aware of the current high illiteracy rate among ethnic Tibetans, but to them it’s just a fact of life, and maybe China’s fault a little bit.
Elephant No. 3 – Who, exactly is supposed to be the government of this newly independent FREE TIBET (sorry for the all caps, I just can’t think of those words without hearing some hippy shouting them with raised unwashed fist)? Who is the Tibetan Government in Exile that will take over? The Dalai Llama (the predecessor of the current one, obviously) was the head of the government of the autonomous region of Tibet before the Chinese took over. But the Dalai Llama is just the Tibetans’ spiritual leader, right?
Elephant No. 4 – The Dalai Llama – feudal lord – and his “Government in Exile” claim not only Lhasa, the various religious sites and buildings formerly belonging to the feudal lord, but a wider area that is supposedly part of some “Greater Tibet” that wasn’t even under their control before. It’s way more than just letting the monks back into their monasteries.
Elephant No. 5 – The BBC had clearly lost their way if they even had to ask what to do about covering China. For Marek Pruszewicz of BBC World to admit his colleagues’ confusion on his blog gives a clue that there’s a problem. It’s evidence that they were wondering which was more important, extending Auntie’s reach, making money from Chinese advertising and from broadcasting BBC World in China, or telling the truth to the license fee payers.
I guess they’ve answered that question for themselves, finally. But it must be killing them on the fourth floor to have to show China’s brutality (and potentially lose all that ad revenue, never mind the Olympics trough), which may help world sympathy for and lead to the re-installment of a feudal monarchy.
Anybody ever heard of the rumours about Kate Adie and the lunatic Gaddafi?
Disinterested Bystander | 24.03.08 – 6:43 pm
No. Please do elaborate!
David,
Yes I too have watched with some amusement as the BBC struggles to define its “house opinion” of Tibet and China.
I think this is often called “cognitive dissonance” – where the sufferer really, really wants to believe something even though he can see its just not true.
My wife has a copy of the 2006 PC Handbook (she worked in local government) : this has no mention of how to think about China or Tibet so it looks like the beebers are having to make up their official view on the hoof.
US mayor charged in SMS scandal
Hmmm, no mention of his political affiliation. Anyone want to hazard a guess?
Detroit Mayor Indicted
Martin:
Can you please link or tell me about a single post where the religion of Ben Smythe or Shannon Mathews is mentioned?
None. But they were missing, and the police wanted to find them. Had their religious or cultural identity been important in locating them, it would have been wise to mention it.
Gurrinder Singh is in the hands of the police and they’re putting out information to help find him. Good of you to advise us all on the relevant detail in this process. I’m sure we all feel better for it.
And where do homosexuals come into this story?
I can name the time and the perp…
Any thicko camp beeboid care to comment?
Martin | 24.03.08 – 6:31 pm
Evenin’ All…
.
The police are, of course, trying to find Gurrinder’s family. And not him. Obviously.
Mind how you go…
Sue | 24.03.08 – 12:19 pm,
Thans for those warm words Sue. I really enjoy reading your comments.
Hillhunt: You still haven’t explained WHY his religion is relevant in tracing his family.
Is not simply where he came from or his name more important?
You are clearly trying to defend the organisation you work for here. It’s clear to me the BBC wanted to ensure that people didn’t think “Moozlums” were involved in smuggling children into the UK.
This is the first case of its kind reported in the UK since the
revised definition of XDR-TB was published by the World Health
Organization in 2006.
However, an earlier case in 2003 was retrospectively identified as XDR-TB.
The disease is prevalent in many other countries.
About half of XDR-TB cases are fatal. It can take up to 18 months for
an infected patient to recover.
Dr Blatchford added: “The contacts of this case are being screened in
the same way as ordinary TB contacts and will be monitored closely to
ensure that any further cases are identified early and treated
quickly.”
“Somali informants express varying beliefs concerning the contraction
of TB ranging from punishment for dishonest or bad deeds, a test of
humanity, heredity, sorcery and witchcraft, environmental factors
like overwork, distrust or loss of faith.
No. Please do elaborate!
Galil | 24.03.08 – 9:19 pm |
Gaddafi was well known as being a womaniser. Do you want me to elaborate further.
Martin:
It’s clear to me the BBC wanted to ensure that people didn’t think “Moozlums” were involved in smuggling children into the UK.
It’s clear to me that you’ll take anything the BBC does and assume that it’s spinning for Muslims. Quite why they should do so is still unclear to me, even after months of reading the diatribes on these pages. Have a look at the people on the BBC – from Graham Norton to Jonathan Ross; from Jeremy Clarkson to Jeremy Paxman, from Gary Lineker to Alan Sugar…and ask yourself: What would they have to gain by smuggling an Islamic revolution under the noses of their viewers?
You are clearly trying to defend the organisation you work for here.
And you are as wide of the mark on this as you are with your stream of lip-smacking (and self-revelatory) remarks about homosexual activity at the BBC. Never worked there.
Gaddafi was well known as being a womaniser. Do you want me to elaborate further.
Disinterested Bystander | 25.03.08 – 12:03 am
I imagined that much. Is it worth the full version?
Hillhunt: Yet again you dodged answering the question. So once more I will ask it. Why in “this” case did the BBC feel that the religion of the child was worth reporting?
Was it (as I believe) that the BBC didn’t want to use the term “Asian” as that is used by the BBC when talking about stories that have a negative element involving “Moozlums”
As this story has both a human element (the abandoned child) and an issue of child smuggling the BBC wanted to ensure that they didn’t simply use the term “Asian” in case “we” thought it involved “Moozlums”. So by letting us know the boy is a Sikh, the BBC is also telling us that “this has nothing to do with “Moozlums”.
I now look forward to seeing the religion of every person mentioned in BBC reports. So the next time a “Moozlum” terrorist is sentanced he won’t be referred to as simply “Asian” (actually I won’t hold my breath)
Finally, you say you’ve never worked for the BBC. So why then if as you say you’ve never been there, you continually spout utter bollocks about how the BBC News room operates?
No word on al-Beeb about Hillary’s little problem vis-a-vis her 1996 visit to Bosnia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/default.stm
You’ll have to go elsewhere on the Web to find the ins and outs:
Justin Webb, who should really be updating us on this story, seems to regard his own organisation as deficient; check out his blog posting on Passportgate [sic]…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/03/passportgate.html
He links to a Breitbart story summarising “where we are” on that matter – not a BBC one!
Hey Justin – I also look elsewhere when I want to find out what’s going on in the world, not the pages of the BBC – nice of you to join the club.
Martin
Lee vs Mandla in the House of Lords (1983) established ‘Sikh’ as an ethnicity in English law.
Saying he is a Sikh therefore may have nothing to do with his religion.
If this was a legal case rather than a news report that would be highly relevant.
I don’t think in this case it was why his religion was reported. The “argument” put forward by Beeboids is that a person religion is only reported when it is relevant to the story.
However, we know this is not the case. When “Moozlums” are convicted of terrorist offences, they are simply called “Asian”, but when released they are referred to as Muslim.
What does Asian mean? If Sikh is a race, then shouldn’t the BBC be accurate in its reporting all the time?
Hillhunt never gave a decent answer to why the BBC felt it was necessary to the story to include to say the child was a Sikh. They gave his name, they gave his age and where he came from. To the best of my knowledge they don’t normally do any omre than that.
My view is that the BBC wanted to “ensure” that we didn’t think that the people involved in child smuggling were “Moozlums”. To have used the term “Asian” would have not clarified it.
Watched the BBC evening news on Good Friday. The programme showed David Cameron edging forward through a red light. He didn’t actually go through the red light mind you, just edged forward beyond the stopline. Quite why that was perceived to be headline news I’m not sure, but the Beeb certainly made the most of it “The wheels haven’t stopped spinning on this one” they intoned. I don’t remember them being quite so candid about our prime minister eating his own snot, but there you go.
Another story focussed on continuing trouble in Tibet. The Dalai Lama was held up as a kind of demi-god whilst the evil Chinese were denounced for their imperialist agression. Nothing too much wrong with that you might think – except aren’t the Beeb always telling us how they are “brutally unbiased”. “One mans terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” and all that. OK, so then the BBC must apply the same rules to the Dalai Lama – he is seen by many to be a “peaceful freedom fighter” but to the Chinese he is a “dangerous rabble rouser”. You can’t have it both ways Beeboids – either you stick with being passive observers of the wicked ways of the world, dispassionately reporting on events or you admit to your specific moral standpoint and decline to be funded by those that don’t happen to agree with it.
“My view is that the BBC wanted to “ensure” that we didn’t think that the people involved in child smuggling were “Moozlums”. To have used the term “Asian” would have not clarified it.
Martin | 25.03.08 – 11:45 am”
In context, together with everything else the BBC does, I quite agree. Out of context, it may seem hypersensitive to quibble about it. But when you consider the lengths to which the Beeb goes to accommodate, normalise and sanitise the abhorrent side of Islam it’s obvious why they told us he wasn’t a Mozzy. I must admit, before they specified, for some reason I assumed the very thing they didn’t want us to assume. Must be my phobia.
Still, I’ll say this for the BBC report on “crazed biker” Cameron – they did (inadvertantly) make him look good! He looked every inch a future PM when he was meeting John McCain. Compare those images with bogey-eating Gordon Brown wiping his snot down the back of his tie, as shown on French news!
Was it really necessary for Hannah Goff to quote all of Paul McGarr’s political slogans?
Paul McGarr, a teacher from east London, said only when recruiting materials gave a true picture of war would he welcome them into his school.
These would have to say: “Join the Army and we will send you to carry out the imperialist occupation of other people’s countries,” he said.
“Join the Army and we will send you to bomb, shoot and possibly torture fellow human beings in other countries.
“Join the Army and we will send you probably poorly equipped into situations where people will try to shoot or kill you because you are occupying other people’s countries.
“Join the Army, and if you survive and come home, possibly injured or mentally damaged, you and your family will be shabbily treated.”
Yeah, we get the point Hannah.
Unlike most teachers, McGarr has his own wikipedia entry:
Paul McGarr is a Socialist historian, author, political activist and member of the SWP and Respect. He works as a secondary school maths teacher.
McGarr has been a longtime Socialist/Marxist activist and in September 2004, he stood in the Tower Hamlets Millwall ward by-election for Respect, finishing second and pushing Labour into third.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McGarr
It’s cunts like McGarr we should be keeping away from our schoolkids, not the armed forces. Imagine his lessons – “If there are 40 murderous British troops fighting an illegal war, and a heroic suicide bomber kills 8 of them, what percentage of the imperialist scum are dead?”
NUT wankers.