I was interested in this BBC article covering what it claims to be “Rival claims over Basra Battle” The content of the story strikes me as being hypercritical of the claims made by the democratically elected Maliki government and its progress in Basra, whilst simultaneously accepting the words of Shi’ite tyrant Moqtada Sadr and his Mehdi terrorist army. The “fierce” resistance of these thugs is singled out for praise with further tributes to them “fighting to a standstill” the lawful Iraqi military. Can’t the BBC ever do a report from Iraq which actually praises the progress being made, no matter how imperfect? I think the answer is NO because in the BBC narrative, understood by all reporters, this was an “illegal” invasion by the Great Satan after precious Iraqi oil. The rest is all detail. Through this perverse prism, there can be no real progress – it’s all a quagmire. The BBC admiration for the likes of Al Sadr is sickening. Can you imagine what these latter day BBC types would have filed had they been around in WW2 – I’m betting we would have been reading about the fierce courage of the Nazis and the heroic resistance of the Japanese.
WHICH SIDE TO BELIEVE.
Bookmark the permalink.
Bryan – do you or do you not think that people cheered in BBC Newsrooms on 9/11?
Sarah Jane (20% BBC) | 04.04.08 – 5:13 pm | #
Sarah Jane – I bet they didn’t have a poster pinned up of President George W. Bush sporting a Hilter moustache did they? That very act sums up the BBC’s attitude to the USA in general not just The President.
After all the BBC rejoiced after McLiebour got elected in 1997 Sarah Jane. Did you join in that party then?
Martin | 04.04.08 – 6:38 pm | #
And here’s the proof.
“I do remember… the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I’ll always remember that”,
Jane Garvey, BBC Five Live, May 10th, 2007, recalling May 2nd, 1997.
Yeah, and where was that poster? Tucked away where few people would see it, like the inside of a cupboard door?
No, it was on the wall of the bloody newsroom.
So again, which BBC apologist is going to come up with the evidence that the BBC has not allied itself to radical Islam?
Meggoman: you forgot to mention the poster of Che Guevara that was up there as well.
All nice and BBC student Union like,
PS 80% of me is not dependant on telly tax to earn my keep, and that 80% is at liberty to say what it likes. But still no need to be nice luv.
Sarah Jane (20% BBC) | 04.04.08 – 5:13 pm | #
What bollocks. This country is a democracy and 100% of you is allowed to say what you like. Or are you just towing the BBC line?
Martin:
Meggoman: you forgot to mention the poster of Che Guevara that was up there as well.
All nice and BBC student Union like,
Martin | 04.04.08 – 7:00 pm | #
Martin: Bet they’ve got one of good old Fidel up there now.
This country is a democracy and 100% of you is allowed to say what you like. Or are you just towing the BBC line?
meggoman | 04.04.08 – 7:02 pm
That’s it. The 20% of Sarah Jane that works for the BBC has to watch out for his/her job.
They’ll have to take down the ones of Stalin and Mao. They’ll start running out of space.
Bryan:
which BBC apologist is going to come up with the evidence that the BBC has not allied itself to radical Islam?
Spurious question, and you know it.
There’s a repeated theme here that the BBC should give Islam, never mind Islamism, a good kicking day in day out because of the sins committed in its name. That’s not its job. There are plenty of opinion sources doing just that.
The BBC reports news and does it fairly. The complaints made by Vance are tendentious; he’s straining hard to make any of his points stick. Do you honestly think any reader of the BBC’s plane trial story has the slightest doubt about the nature of the alleged plot and the motives of those accused of it? Do you imagine that events in Basra are clear-cut and can only be reported in terms of heroic victories?
When I first read this site, people were making grand claims that it was a resource for challenging the BBC’s record. In recent weeks, any pretence of that has vanished. It’s an echo-chamber for the kind of sad keyboard commandos who really believe that the BBC employs people who cheer the terrible deaths of innocent men, women and children.
.
Hillhunt,
I agree with you that it is unacceptable for some posters to claim that BBC employees were cheering the murder of innocent workers by Islamic TERRORISTS, however, you are wrong to say that the BBC reports the news fairly.
The very fact that the BBC has had to apologise for it’s Middle East coverage on what seems a weekly basis shows how much bollocks you are spouting in claiming that the BBC reports any news fairly.
Hillhunt, why is it that the apologies have all been to Israel rather than the Palastinians?, could it be because the BBC has a seam of Anti-Semetic hatred running through it’s news department?.
For me the BBC is clearly biased, and for you to keep defending them come what may makes any of your comments suspect.
Martin – so someone who is Jewish who works at the beeb are they a lazy anti-Semetic beeboid? Do you see the contradiction in your statement?
(by the way I was a bit rude earlier, sorry for that, you do make some valid points about science, engineering, absence of interesting commentors from a ‘man in the street’ perspective eg Littlejohn, Liddle etc)
Bryan – I very much understood your inference about hyperbole, but wanted you to type it – fortunately for you TPO, ever the gent, has done the decent thing and said no on your behalf.
However you chuck a lot of accusations around based on a very narrow view of the BBC and you expect me to prove absence of dhimmitude? I can’t really see how one can prove absence of something so I think I will rather leave it to you to uncover my Koran, or find me in a mosque or even saying anything vaguely positive about Islam other than ‘not all Muslims are terrorists’.
Good luck…
That’s it. The 20% of Sarah Jane that works for the BBC has to watch out for his/her job.
Bryan | 04.04.08 – 7:10 pm | #
While there is an element of truth in this, the point I was making was that the ‘I pay your wages’ line is only partially relevant in my case.
‘…fortunately for you TPO, ever the gent, has done the decent thing and said no on your behalf.’
Sarah Jane | 04.04.08 – 7:49 pm |
As ever, you overwhelm me Sarah Jane.
Just one point, saying “I doubt it very much” isn’t quite a downright rebuttal.
I do think that there are some in the BBC who harbour the view that ‘The US had it coming to them’, and to that extent there was an element of shadenfreude.
I’m getting very lax these days.
that should read schadenfreude
Well TPO, I have an American passport, and can be a bit butch when required ;), and I also had a 15 stone producer from NY, so any expression of ‘schadenfreude’ in my studio would have been dealt with in an undiplomatic manner.
Fortunately the closest it came to it was hyperbole on this blog 7 years later.
Actually TPO the way you have expressed it, among 28,000 there may be a small handful “harbouring” some anti-American sentiment of that kind eg in a dark corner, just off the Strand somewhere, it would be churlish to deny the possibility .
Not the ‘newsroom cheering’ is it though?
and can be a bit butch when required
Sarah Jane | 04.04.08 – 8:45 pm |
The alta ego again. I thought I hadn’t seen Gordon Corera recently.
😆
However, surely you cannot deny that there are some in the BBC who hold the view that ‘the US had it coming to them’.
Now I really must get on with the plumbing and rewiring before the child bride gets home (I always have her pipe and slippers waiting for her when she gets in).
The liberal cognitive deficit
Liberals permit people to–
A. Practice the religion of Islam
whilst,
B. Expecting people to not behave in an Islamic manner.
Effectively Liberals hold Muslims to a different set of moral standards than the Muslims themselves:
“BBC should give Islam, never mind Islamism, a good kicking day in day out because of the sins committed in its name. ”
The crucial world there is “sins”. I mean, talk about Eurocentric.
Sorry – posts crossed.
Really MUST go now.
i’m really struggling today;
Alta ego — read alter ego
why is it that the apologies have all been to Israel rather than the Palastinians?,
Bernard Sanderson | 04.04.08 – 7:34 pm
The BBC apologized this week for referring to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and promised not to repeat “the mistake,” following a complaint by four British organizations.
Arab Media Watch, Muslim Public Affairs Committee, Friends of Al-Aksa and the Institute of Islamic Political Thought sent a joint complaint to the BBC …..
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1181813036973
Bernard Sanderson:
The very fact that the BBC has had to apologise for it’s Middle East coverage on what seems a weekly basis shows how much bollocks you are spouting in claiming that the BBC reports any news fairly.
How many apologies was it, exactly?
In any event, I’m afraid there’s a chicken and egg thing going on in any event…..
Friends of Israel see bias in much the BBC does. So they complain very loudly indeed – and in large numbers – and the impression emerges that the BBC is bent.
There are other sources – the Glasgow Media Group is one – who see the BBC as shading permanently in Israel’s favour.
Nick Davies, the author of Flat Earth News, who has been quoted favourably here several times for his campaign against “churnalism” describes very well the power of Israel’s reach….
Journalists who write stories which offend the politics of the Israeli lobby are subjected to a campaign of formal complaints and pressure on their editors; most of all, they are inundated with letters and emails which can be extravagant in their hostility.
Sounds remarkably familiar to any reader of these pages…
Hillhunt 04.04.08 – 7:14 pm,
No, it’s a serious question. Rather than mockery and insult, which is predictably what you have just indulged in, why don’t you BBC apologists come up with verifiable facts and examples to support your case? Truth is, you don’t have a case and there is no defence of the treacherous BBC:
*Loaded post 9/11 Question Time audience baying out its hatred of America.
*Paintballing with terrorists and covering it up.
*Calling for info on coalition troop movements in Iraq in the “interactive” section of the website and then excusing it as a “bad phrase.”
*2IC Mark Byford saying he was “immensely proud” that the BBC had interviewed the Taleban.
*Jeremy Bowen accusing Israel of “war crimes” over Lebanese civilian deaths resulting from Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah terrorists.
*Loaded Have Your Say during the Hamas/Fatah conflict in Gaza with only apologists for Hamas terrorists invited.
*Hardtalk’s Stephen Sackur insisting that Saeb Erekat was “selling out” the Palestinians by talking to the West and Israel without Hamas.
*Alan Johnston off “to have breakfast with the Prime Minister” (chief Gaza terrorist Ismael Haniyeh) on his release from his kidnappers.
*Beslan terrorists described as “gunmen” after shooting fleeing children in the back.
*Covering up the racial motivation of the genocide of black Muslims by the Islamic Arab terrorist regime in Khartoum.
*Portraying some of the Muslim Sudanese mob baying for the death of Gillian Gibbons as “friendly” with “smiling faces.”
*Describing the attacks by Egyptian Muslims on Copts and the destruction of churches with the words, “Violence flared.”
*Covering up the role of radical Islam in the decimation of Christian communities in Lebanon, Gaza and Bethlehem.
*Allotting ten seconds (no, it’s not a typo) of TV time to the coverage of British troops returning from Afghanistan.
*Unable to mention the war on terror without using quotes or prefacing it with “so-called.”
*Virtually banning the ‘T’ word.
Are you beginning to get the idea yet, Hillhunt? This list is a very small fraction of the appeasement of (and sometimes active support for) Islamic terror on the part of the BBC. Much of it has been documented on this blog. Now let’s see your evidence proving that we are wrong.
If the BBC were truly impartial I would agree that it shouldn’t be attacking radical Islam. (Though it should obviously not be covering up for it and minimising Islamic terrorist atrocities, as it does.) But since the BBC cannot resist laying into Israel and America and Christians with its gloves off, it should at the very least give radical Islam the same treatment. It doesn’t. It treats barbaric Islamic terrorists with respectful deference while pouring scorn on those who fight the terrorists. The BBC is rotten to the core.
Bryan – I very much understood your inference about hyperbole, but wanted you to type it – fortunately for you TPO, ever the gent, has done the decent thing and said no on your behalf.
No, he said it on his own behalf. I then agreed with him by saying he had put it in a nutshell.
However you chuck a lot of accusations around based on a very narrow view of the BBC and you expect me to prove absence of dhimmitude? I can’t really see how one can prove absence of something…..
Sarah Jane | 04.04.08 – 7:49 pm
Prove the absence, if you can, by disproving the presence, as indicated by the list I provided at 9:41 pm.
Bryan:
Not sure your case actually stacks up as appeasement…
Some of it is simple error, like the errors all news organisations make.
Much of your complaint is a disagreement about the way many reputable journalists work on contentious stories. The BBC is clear, for example, on the way it uses the T-word. It is an ethical and reasonable approach. I think it’s well-established that B-BBC doesn’t agree. The world still turns. What it isn’t is appeasement.
Similarly, the BBC is well within its rights to seek interviews with people like the Taleban. I want to know what the Taleban, al Qaeda and the rest are up to and I am happy the BBC • like many other media • try to find out. Interviewing them is part of that process. Banning the voices of the IRA was one of the dumbest things we Brits ever did. It made them look like martyrs to those who wanted to see things that way, and was hypocritical because HMG were talking to them anyway.
Alan Johnston had just been freed in Gaza. Why would he turn down a meeting with the de facto leader? The Gillian Gibbons coverage made clear the threat she was facing and the reaction stirred up against her in Sudan. You’re clutching at straws with stories like these.
In an over-heated and long-running conflict like Israel-Palestine, partisans are always going to object if their side is accused of foul play. Are you saying that there’s never any justification for criticising the Israeli state or its defence force? Didn’t see the 10-sec clip of UK forces returning from Afghanistan, but there’s been some outstanding coverage • especially Leathead’s films for Panorama • of what they’re doing over there.
Give over on worrying about the dumb-ass HYS and interactive website stuff. It’s not central to what the BBC does and is a sop to the over-egged idea of audience participation. The BBC would be better off without such gimmicks.
Yes, the QT audience post 9/11 was a cock-up and the BBC held its hands up to that. The paintballing thing was discussed at length on these pages. I’m firmly of the view that the lack of flack from those papers most eager to attack the BBC clearly suggests that the security forces were comfortable with the BBC’s actions (my hunch is that the BBC did inform the police by one route or another) and briefed that there was no story. I can think of no other reason why The Sun, The Mail and the Telegraph failed in their perpetual desire to stir things up for the Beeb.
The BBC is extraordinarily open in discussing its own failings and its desire to meet its high standards • when was the last time Murdoch admitted just how vile his big money-spinner the News of the Screws really is • and puts itself up for criticism by being so open. But the history does not show the pattern you suggest. There have been apologies to the Palestinians over Jerusalem, heads rolling over Crowngate, mea culpa over Blue Peter competitions, even expressions of regret for the volume of rugby coverage one weekend (one rugby match is one too many for me).
It treats barbaric Islamic terrorists with respectful deference while pouring scorn on those who fight the terrorists. The BBC is rotten to the core.
Just ain’t true. Where is the respectful deference? (Is it possible to have disrespectful deference?) Your pouring scorn is most other people’s objective journalism.
Bryan: Spot on.
No more needs to be said. I salute you sir.
Sarah Jane: You miss the point. When employed by the BBC you have a DUTY to be impartial. If you work for Fox New or CNN I really don’t care what your opinion is. If I don’t like it I’ll go else where.
But with the BBC it is funded by all and therefore MUST be strsight down the line.
Looking at the polls about the BBC, a large section of the public is unhappy with the output of the BBC.
I think the BBC has an agenda on climate change, on Islam on Israel and on homosexuals.
We’ve posted enough links her to show that many people who work or have worked for the BBC agree with us.
Why can’t you put your hands up and agree?
For once I do not think the BBC is misdescribing the chaos in Basra.It is clearly deteriorating and “positive” reporting will not alter anything.Militarily our postion is untenable and our troops are in danger.To admit this does not mean support for insurgents just facing facts.However this does not mean a licence to gloat which comes naturally to those of the right on anti war party but rather we should express regret at the way things have turned out.To suggest that we acted malevolently is an insult to our soldiers and to us as a nation.I do not believe the BBC has ever suggested this but such is our suspicion of it that it can seem that it has.
“One of the core criticisms of the BBC is that its heavy investment in the web stifles commercial concerns. so no, it really doesn’t hate the internet.”
The BBC has its piggy little eyes on an internet levy,those with broadband can be charged because theoretically they can received the BBC’s output.
The interest is purely a snout and trough exercise.
“If this blog is a fact checking facility then I’m Elvis.”
Stick around chippy,many of your lot are going like Elvis.
“Much of your complaint is a disagreement about the way many reputable journalists work on contentious stories”
Sorry Hillunt,I couldn’t get beyond this for laughing.Journalists,in general are merely pimps of other peoples experience.Many simply regurgitate news the get on the wires,most know nothing of the subject which they report.All they care about is getting a story and earning a crust,so don’t make them out to be some kind of ethical crusaders.
The BBC is extraordinarily open in discussing its own failings and its desire to meet its high standards •
Hillhunt | 04.04.08 – 11:23 pm | #
Balen Report???????????????
Martin | 05.04.08 – 12:18 am
Thank you, kind sir. And this:
We’ve posted enough links her to show that many people who work or have worked for the BBC agree with us.
Why can’t you put your hands up and agree?
Martin | 05.04.08 – 12:24 am
– is precisely the argument that BBC people on this site ignore, because there is no counter-argument. The first step towards being able to do something about the bias is to acknowledge it. They wont or cant.
The most impressive confession I’ve seen was from ex-BBC man, Anthony Jay:
But we were not just anti-Macmillan; we were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/nbeeb314.xml
It’s a bit long, but it’s an excellent analysis of the motivation that drove (and still drives) much of the BBC’s output.
Martin:
We’ve posted enough links her to show that many people who work or have worked for the BBC agree with us.
Having a bit of trouble with many. Can you help?
So far I can recall…
Robin Aitken, without a doubt.
Jeff Randall, certainly.
Rod Liddle, fired for writing in the Guardian that the Countryside Alliance reminded him why he voted Labour.
Anthony Jay above.
And, um…..
Let’s say several hundred thousand people went through the BBC in the time since Anthony Jay was there. We’re not even beginning to approach David Vance’s magic 1.5% representation.
Are we?
You can have as much “trouble” as you like with “many”, Hillhunt. If anything, your trouble indicates that BBC employees are enslaved by their groupthink or are simply too scared to rock the boat. Sara Jane admitted as much in a recent post.
From your 11:23 pm post it looks like you genuinely haven’t grasped what I’m talking about. I could carry on for the next month or three listing evidence of the BBC’s appeasement of and support for radical Islam, from Barbara Plett’s weeping for Arafat to CBBC indoctrinating very young children that bin Laden is the kind of person their fathers could have friendly chats with over the garden fence on a Sunday afternoon, but what’s the point? Vast reams of evidence have been documented on this site and other blogs and in the media that is not part of the fascist far left.
Have Your Say is an important aspect of the BBC’s propaganda package, purporting to genuinely want to canvas people’s opinions, but in reality tweaking the results to favour the BBC line. This is why Peter Horrocks was so flustered by the highly recommended anti-Islam comments flooding the site after the murder of Bhutto – flustered to the extent that he was considering deleting the “Readers Recommended” function. Time and time again people on this site have noticed that what the BBC gleans from a given HYS topic, and publishes on the main page, suits the BBC’s own agenda, even when public opinion is strongly against that agenda. (There are some signs that someone at the BBC has finally recognised this and the new look HYS seems to be taking it into account. Let’s hope so.)
No, I don’t expect the BBC to be supportive of Israel – what a thought – but it seems too much to ask for the occasional glimmer of understanding of Israel’s position in the front lines facing Islamic terror against the West. Instead we get the BBC slavishly pumping out Hezbollah propaganda during the Second Lebanon War and reserving its frantic “war crimes” accusation for Israel, and Israel alone.
That entire bunch of BBC hacks reporting on the Middle East needs to be put out to pasture, where they will do no damage, starting with “editor” Jeremy Bowen.
While rereading Anthony Jay’s article linked to above, I was wondering how so many “media liberals” at the BBC could have embraced radical Islam with such unquestioning enthusiasm, especially since it essentially contradicts everthing they believe in. That radical Islam has made serious inroads into the BBC is not even open to debate anymore. What is open to debate is the extent of the infiltration.
Senior BBC TV “editor” Jawad Iqbal blustered his way through a justification of the ten second clip the BBC grudgingly showed of British troops returning from Afghanistan. It was on Newswatch but I can’t find it now. I’m sure with your BBC connections you’ll be able to.
meggoman:
Balen Report???????????????
It was tested in the courts, which are notoriously unsympathetic to the media, and the BBC’s position was upheld…..as you almost certainly know.
Bryan:
While rereading Anthony Jay’s article linked to above, I was wondering how so many “media liberals” at the BBC could have embraced radical Islam with such unquestioning enthusiasm, especially since it essentially contradicts everthing they believe in.
This is, of course, the canard at the heart of Biased BBC, and its key contradiction works better in the opposite direction, if only you’re prepared to turn your gaze.
There is something in what Jay and Marr say about individual views tending towards the liberal, there is no doubt. From my experience it’s there in all other established media, not just the BBC. (The armed forces, by the same token, attract a lot of conservative people who manage very well to serve the interests of a wider society. Why do you assume media people can’t pull off the same trick?)
There is no interest in turning the UK into a harsher, more priest- (or imam-) ridden society. Media folk do not accept the subjugation of women or the immolation of innocents in the name of a judgemental God. Nor do they want to see barbaric punishments for adultery or homosexuality. Medialand has no interest in the promotion of a harsh and illiberal interpretation of any religion.
So it doesn’t promote it. It reports it. If the Archbishop wants to um and arr in public about sharia, they bring it to you. If al Qaeda announces its latest threats, they bring that news to you, too. Why wouldn’t you want to know?
The BBC has set out in public its professional standards on reporting, and has done so on the endlessly-controversial use of the T-word. Uniquely among UK media (only the Grauniad comes close), it has published a number of critiques of its own coverage, and has taken the flack that that brings.
The issue of social cohesion is a fraught one which the BBC may not always get right, and there is an important issue of public trust if they consistently get it wrong. On the other hand, some posters here would clearly like a free-for-all in which the perpetrators of every crime would be identified by religion, race and skin colour, whether or not those details are relevant to the crime committed. I’d rather not.
.
Of all the ‘examples’ of bias on this blog, the one below has got to be the most ludicrous:
Calling for info on coalition troop movements in Iraq in the “interactive” section of the website and then excusing it as a “bad phrase.”
You really think the BBC was asking for British troop movements on its website, so that it could pass them on to the Taleban. That’s bonkers!
Well, judge for yourself:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/vicky_taylor/
Read the comments as well as Vicky’s excuse. And it’s got nothing to do with the Taleban. That’s Afghanistan.
Hillhunt, it’s no ‘canard’ and certainly not limited to biased BBC. A helluvah lot of people are wondering about the left’s alliance with radical Islam, as you well know.
Gotta run, folks. Have fun.
Joel | Homepage | 04.04.08 – 11:18 am |
One other thing. Few things irk me more than reference to the Iraq war as ‘illegal’. I think its a total nonsense. But I have never, never heard the BBC refer to it in this way. If it did, I would be the first to criticise. You must surely know by now that a guest on the BBC expressing an opinion does not mean it is the opinion of the BBC. This is fairly basic stuff folks.
That may be so, but when was the last time any of your on-air colleagues (never mind anything ever posted on your website) even gently corrected anyone by pointing out that it was not, in fact, illegal? That doesn’t happen, does it?
The BBC allows that kind of statement from audience members or guest talking heads to pass unchallenged every time, yet they do the Impartial Journalist Playing Devil’s Advocate and Asking Challenging Questions On Important Issues thing when dealing with anyone taking the side of the US. I have always found that curious.
“You really think the BBC was asking for British troop movements on its website, so that it could pass them on to the Taleban. That’s bonkers!”
Ali ring home.
“The Iranian leadership, according to the source, then brought Moqtada Sadr to Tehran.”
thats a first. the bbc admitting to some sort of Iranian involvement in the Sadr army.
makes a nice change to their usual excuses.
“The issue of social cohesion is a fraught one which the BBC may not always get right, and there is an important issue of public trust if they consistently get it wrong. On the other hand, some posters here would clearly like a free-for-all in which the perpetrators of every crime would be identified by religion, race and skin colour, whether or not those details are relevant to the crime committed. I’d rather not.”
We wouldn’t have the potentially terminal problems we have with “social cohesion” without mass immigration and multi-culturalism.
If the BBC had reported the real price of immigration honestly there would have been a backlash against it 30 years ago and we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now.
I want revenge on the BBC for every white Stephen Lawrence whose murder went unreported.
“I want revenge on the BBC for every white Stephen Lawrence whose murder went unreported.”
There could be hundreds of them.
“BBC employees are enslaved by their groupthink or are simply too scared to rock the boat.”
We once had a BBC employed scientist posting on B-BBC admit that as well. I forget his name.
WoAD
“There could be hundreds of them.”
Many, many hundreds.
Just heard that thug Al Sadr described on World Briefing on the World Service as “influential.”
Ain’t no limit to the BBC’s imagination when it comes to the normalisation of terror.
That radical Islam has made serious inroads into the BBC is not even open to debate anymore. What is open to debate is the extent of the infiltration.
Bryan | 05.04.08 – 12:50 pm | #
As you are such an authority on this matter that you can make such bold claims without recourse to facts – perhaps you could tell me what form this infiltration takes so next time I am in there I can keep an eye out for it.
PS on another thread somewhere I made a point about one needing to be careful about what one says, which was then jumped on as evidence of groupthink. It is no more or less than the care that one takes when participating in open thread discussing one’s employer in a largely negative light.
In fact it is the nature of the BBC that I am more comfortable being critical of it here than I would have felt being critical of any of my other employers.
Prove the absence, if you can, by disproving the presence, as indicated by the list I provided at 9:41 pm.
Bryan | 04.04.08 – 9:55 pm | #
Bryan Hillhunt has effectively deconstructed your list already, just to reiterate of it the 2 major errors are:
the post 9/11 QT which was aplogised for at length, many years ago,
and the paintballing thing,
which is mainly surprising because the UK press would have crucified the BBC for that, if they could, so something else must be at play, more than a gullible researcher and producer.
The rest of it is the difference between your perspective and the BBC’s.
The kinds of things your rhetoric across many many posts imply are much more sinister than difference of opinion – that’s what I would like to see evidence for.
BBC Infiltration