It’s bad enough that Britain has already ruled any possibility of boycotting some or all of the Chinese Olympics even as China brutally crushes all those who dissent against its thugocracy in Tibet. But now we see that the BBC is sending its biggest ever squad to China to cover the Games. I guess the attraction of being in a Communist regime for weeks on end care of the British tax-payer is too good a chance to miss! An amazing 437 BBC staff will be China bound but the only reason we know this is because the folders with addresses, passport numbers, pictures, and hotel details of this battalion have vanished from Television Centre in west London. What amuses me is the BBC “fear” that the files may have been stolen, possibly for identity theft or an attempt to embarrass the BBC over the number of staff going to the Games. How paranoid are they? Guilty feelings?
Just because you’re paranoid….
Bookmark the permalink.
alex:
it’s not the BBC’s job to push issues to the surface.
I disagree. If ever there was a need for journalism that takes a fresh look at things, it’s now. Dispatches at C4 does a good job, but we long ago lost shows like First Tuesday, This Week & World In Action, prepared to poke their noses in where they’re not wanted and take the lead on stories.
Panorama occasionally breaks out of its Tonight with Trevor me-tooism on blindingly-obvious populist subjects, but, good though much of it is, too much BBC coverage involves sticking to other peoples’ news agendas.
.
Hillhunt | 31.03.08 – 11:47 am | #
Presumably you long ago cancelled your Sky football subscription because of Rupert Murdoch’s long-established and profit-driven kowtowing to the very same Chinese authoritarians, for example:,…..
At least people have the choice with Sky and can withdraw their susbscriptions. If they do that with the BBC ‘subscription’ – prosecution, fine, jail if you don’t pay the fine, and a criminal record follow. Your comparison of Sky and Murdoch to the BBC is quite frankly absurd.
“If ever there was a need for journalism that takes a fresh look at things, it’s now.”
Arguably so, but if the BBC is going to dig our new stories, would we be happy with it doing so impartially and, say, covering something uncomfortable in the Tibetan Nationalist movement?
Meggoman,
Thanks for the feedback, I was away for a few days and couldn’t post so sorry if the absence of a general comments thread has been a pain. Also, my thanks to ALL B-BBC readers for coming up with some great ideas for posts. I was actually emailed this one several days ago and put it up when I saw it!
anon:
Your comparison of Sky and Murdoch to the BBC is quite frankly absurd
Not really. Peter’s viewpoint was on the moral case for withdrawing funding to the BBC. Either the BBC’s alleged behaviour re China is immoral or it’s not…and there’s no proof yet that they have gone soft on Beijing. Whereas Rupert most certainly has….
“I really hope you are joking. Are you mental?
David Essex | 31.03.08 – 11:35 am |”
No I’m not being mental. The Dalai Llama wants a Tibet free of Han Chinese. He wants control of the borders. He’s a petit bourgeois ethnocentric recidivist and fascist.
The Tibetans are an indigenous people facing destruction by having their land colonised by uninvited incomers. The British are….etc.
WoAD | Homepage | 31.03.08 – 2:21 pm | #
‘No I’m not being mental. The Dalai Llama wants a Tibet free of Han Chinese. He wants control of the borders. He’s a petit bourgeois ethnocentric recidivist and fascist.’
——————————————————————————–
Which one are you? Eric Idle, Michael Palin? You can’t be Graham Chapman because he is dead. 😉
WoAD is mostly correct about the truth lurking behind the saintly charade that is the Dalai Llama. He’s not a fascist, really, nor petit bourgeois. His hangers on may be, but he is simply a feudal lord who wishes to return to his throne. What’s more, his “government in exile” claims a much larger amount of territory as their own than that which was controlled by the provisional government under the previous DL before the Chinese came in.
The current DL wants his throne back, and would not object to the forcing out of Han Chinese that that have taken over business and key real estate in Tibet.
The Dalai Llama is a feudal lord, and the whole peaceful monk thing is a bit of a scam.
‘No I’m not being mental. The Dalai Llama wants a Tibet free of Han Chinese. He wants control of the borders. He’s a petit bourgeois ethnocentric recidivist and fascist.’
Even if this is the case (which wouldn’t surprise me much), would that in any way justify China’s crackdown on Tibetan protesters?
I wish Murdoch would put Sky football on the internet for a subscription. Then I could get rid of my BBC subscription for ever. Trash like Eastenders, Jonathan ‘w*nker’ Ross and boring sports like the olympics are not worth the licence fee. I don’t even get the old stand by of the ‘wonderful wildlife programmes’ for my cash. They are tedious, and Attenborough’s commentaries are lame.
What a disgrace that the government is allowing its broadcaster to screen the olympics, and how shameful that 437 normally ruthlessly PC BBC staff have no problems associating themselves with and publicising such a disgusting regime.
“Either the BBC’s alleged behaviour re China is immoral or it’s not…and there’s no proof yet that they have gone soft on Beijing.”
Yes, Beijing is quaking it its shoes. You sound like John Simpson “Liberating Kabul”.
The BBC can’t bycott the Olympics, its supposed to be impartial remember!?!?
Is 430 staff a lot? I don’t know, how many does it take? Does anyone here actually have any expertise in the area?
If the report had said 530 staff were going, I am sure you’d think that too many. I’m sure you’d think 330 was a lot too. The reality is, neither you nor I know if 430 staff is a lot to send for tv, radio and online coverage of the Olympics.
An objective comparison? It’s ‘a small fraction of the staff sent by the main American network and significantly less than German broadcasters’.
Angry Young Victoria:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3216569.ece
Over forty Chinese swimmers since 1990 have failed drug tests. More than any other nation.
Why aren’t the Beeb digging into this stuff, let along Tibet?
I vote to ban Angry Young VictoriAlex.
I normally subscribe to free speech for all. It a very important building block of our society.
There are 2 important exceptions to free speech.
1) Shouting “Fire” in a crowded theatre.
2) Deliberately making a lot of noise outside a music school.
Ban AleVictoria under rule #2.
This thread picks up on what is, in my opinion, a real gap in the BBC’s reportage.
They deal quite well with such topics as wildlife, culture and history – there was an excellent programme recently on Chinese gardens. Economic and environmental issues are also covered competently.
But there is insufficient analysis of the darker side of Chinese politics – the arrest and torture of religious dissidents -imprisonment and execution on a gulag scale- censorship that reaches even into the internet.The repression in Tibet is only the tip of an iceberg
I would like to see the BBC doing a lot more to bring such issues to the light of day.
Thank you Arsenonymous, interesting article though I can’t say it diminishes my opinion of China any further.
AndrewSouthLondon:
London to Beijing – who gets the air miles? 5059 x2 x 437
AndrewSouthLondon | 30.03.08 – 8:35 am | #
So according to http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-calculator.htm (first working link on google, no other recommendation) 5059 x 2 x 437 ( / 12 for the form) results in:
368464 miles air travel per month, giving 2,144.46048 tons of CO2 annually. Puts a bit of a dampener on their ‘climate change’ orthodoxy.
Just noticed the end of the form 🙂
It reckons al-BBC needs to plant 10,722 trees to offset all that.
Not necessarily, Arsenonymous. As humans naturally breathe out CO2, it would suffice to blow into a hole in the ground and then fill it in. Do that 10 722 times and it would be just as effective as planting trees.
What did David Vance say about ad hominems and banning?
Thank you Arsenonymous, interesting article though…
Alex | Homepage | 01.04.08 – 1:09 pm
Not necessarily, Arsenonymous…
Alex | Homepage | 01.04.08 – 1:37 pm
I vote to ban Angry Young VictoriAlex.
Jack Hughes | 01.04.08 – 2:24 am
I second that.
And unban Biodegradable!
[Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added]
Unban Biodegradeable!
BioD is no troll and deserves another chance.
I second Biodegradable that he’s not a troll (though I don’t know what it was he got banned for).
Note:
“Angry Young Victoria:”
“I vote to ban Angry Young VictoriAlex.”
Sauce for the goose and all that.
Unban Biodegradable.
There are plenty of trolls and nutters whose contributions add little or nothing to the debate. BioD isn’t one of them.
Note:
“Angry Young Victoria:”
“I vote to ban Angry Young VictoriAlex.”
Sauce for the goose and all that.
Alex | Homepage | 01.04.08 – 2:25 pm
“Angry Young Victoria” is not quite the same as “Angry Young Arsehole”, is it?
Thank you all for your support, I don’t know why Biodegradable was banned (twice) either. He was never told.
True. I’m all for a moratorium on silly nicknames.
It looks like many more BBC staff are a lot more keen to go to a vile repressive, poverty stricken dump like China than are keen to go to Salford.
I don’t want China appeasing BBC staff coming to the new BBC sports dept in Salford. They’ll lower the tone of the city.
True. I’m all for a moratorium on silly nicknames.
Alex | Homepage | 01.04.08 – 7:01 pm
Hypocrite!
I doubt anyone deserves to be banned from this site forever,however, perhaps after David Vance has given them a warning and they repeat the offence then they should be sent to the sin-bin for a day or two.
Thank you all for your support, I don’t know why Biodegradable was banned (twice) either. He was never told.
Biodegradable’s Ghost | 01.04.08 – 4:17 pm |
He got banned for sharing the odd joke with TPO, and TPO got bannned for telling Andrew to grow up after Andrew got upset over a reference to obsessive censorship.
An objective comparison? It’s ‘a small fraction of the staff sent by the main American network and significantly less than German broadcasters’
Would you like to post some factual support for that comment?
Arthur Dent – have a look through this thread (I apologise for its inherent nerdiness) http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=769004
it seems that NBC are sending several thousand and ADT 700.
It looks like the beeb help film the international feed (as do NBC) so they would send more relatively than a state broadcaster who didnt help with that.
I also assume there is a fair amount of practise for 2012 to be had, when the beeb’s responsibilities will be much greater?
Unban TPO
The BBC will need to cover the London Olympics 2012 big style.
Though I totally disagree with it being here, that it is, and given that fact then the coverage is more understandable.
I would add that it is understandable for networks to send more people to cover the fact they have far more competitors, so it not really fair to compare NBC to the BBC the US has far more to cover.
“An objective comparison? It’s ‘a small fraction of the staff sent by the main American network”
yeah, but the Olympics is a big thing for the Americans. it means bugger all to the Brits as we have proper sports to distract us (notwithstanding the fact that we’re crap at them).
re: the BioD banning, I seem to recall that Andrew was concerned about the legal implications of some of the more forthright comments and demanded that people tone it down a bit. some commentators took this as an infringement of their human right to post whatever they liked on other people’s blogs and refused to let it lie. there followed a robust exchange of views and there was only going to be one winner – the dude with the delete button.
it seems that NBC are sending several thousand and ADT 700
Thanks for the link Sarah Jane I read through most of it , just like here in many ways.
However, the two figures you quoted, which were indeed posted on the thread, also had nothing to identify whether they were genuine, no reference no link, nothing. I am sure that they are real, but who is to know. I could equally say that Japan is sending 200 staff.
re: the BioD banning, I seem to recall that Andrew was concerned about the legal implications of some of the more forthright comments and demanded that people tone it down a bit…
Cockney | 02.04.08 – 4:11 pm
I don’t remember anything of the sort.
My most recent banning came about after I complained about a light hearted and good natured reply I posted to an equally inoffensive response to me from the BBC’s David Gregory being deleted, no doubt because it was considered by Andrew to be “chit-chat”.
Previously I had been banned for posting the URL of another blog about BBC bias set up by others who had been banned here.
oh, ok. might have been someone else then. the common theme in all bannings seems to have been dissent.
might I point you in the direction of recent the recent national outcry re: Ashley Cole. ‘the referee is always right, even when he’s wrong 😉 ‘
Do I take that to mean that it’s OK for BioD to remain banned while the trolls-who-shall-not-be-named are not?
By the way, no need to un-ban TPO, banning is done on the basis of IP addresses and since he has moved to another continent he now has a different ISP and IP address.
oh, ok. might have been someone else then. the common theme in all bannings seems to have been dissent.
Cockney | 02.04.08 – 5:24 pm |
You’re wrong mate.
I stopped posting for a couple of months or so because I felt uncomfortable with the way Bowman was censoring.
When jr posted one of his more preposterous mianders I responded to it. I also added that I rarely posted anymore as I found the censorship somewhat obsessive. It lasted 5 minutes before being replaced with: Deleted – gratuitous personal insults are not welcome here
I told him to grow up and he flung his teddies out of the pram.
I think at the time everyone agreed that an ego was running out of control.