Did anyone else out there happen to tune in to Gabby Logan’s programme on BBC Radio 5 live this morning? The topic of the Chinese Olympics took great prominence as the Olympic Flame travels through London today. We had wise old cove Former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Don McKinnon, in the studio to tell us that protests about the Olympics were all very fine but that the Chinese thought in terms of centuries, so they would achieve nothing. Indeed I felt that this was the theme running throughout the programme – protest is futile so better to just lie back and enjoy the BBC coverage of the Games and never mind about the oppression in Tibet. Even as blood runs through the streets of Lhasa, the BBC publicity machine runs through the streets of London, sanitising the behavior of the tyrants in Beijing and with its eye firmly focused on summer ratings. Could it be that with all that investment in its planned coverage of the Beijing Games the BBC is reluctant to grasp the barbarity of the host nation?
SHILLING FOR BEIJING.
Bookmark the permalink.
I am sorry that Joel is leaving, and I hope he will reconsider. Hillhunt did exhibit classic troll behaviour and it is not surprising that eventually he got banned. However in recent times he did at least begin to engage with the issue occasionally.
You get lots of rough and tumble on sites like this but occasionally people get to grips with the real problems and at least attempt to discuss. Not everything reverts to a Manchiean viewpoint and there are usually useful things to be said on both sides of the argument.
O/T How many of the London torch carriers will be part of BBC coverage and hence need a visa for China (ie don’t speak out)
Konnie Huq, Steve Cram, Denise Lewis, Steve Redgrave et etc etc ?
FOul: I’m a believer in letting Countries run their own affairs. WE in the west have enough problems sorting out our own mess. That’s why I was against the wars in Iraq nad Afghanistan.
However, what I object to is China using the streets of London to promote its propaganda and the BBC going along with it because it wants to ensure that its coverage of the Olympics is not disturbed.
Why? Because the BBC has almost no “real” sport left. When it goes to the Government demanding ever more money to feed the overpaid luvvies at the BBC it can show endless clips of the Olympics as an example of “fine BBC sports”, even though the BBC appears to be unopposed in covering these pointless games.
Many people will object to China and yet if they pay for a TV licence, they will in efect be paying for Chinese propaganda to be pumped into our Country.
Will China cover the UK games in the same “open way?” No of course not.
This is why the BBC must now be sold off or broken up.
Let those that want to pay for the BBC pay for it. Those of us that don’t want to shouldn’t have to.
If Sky made the Olympics a pay for view event, then those that wanted to support it could pay and those that want to protest could refuse. Is that not democracy at work? Perhaps that’s why the fat idle Beeboids fear democracy at work in the world of TV?
The fearsome Chinese dictatorship allowed live coverage of the whole of that radio 5 broadcast. Mr Mugabe, on the other hand….
Guess which is higher in the BBC’s esteem?
Can anyone point me in the direction of the BBC’s coverage of this:
Lord Coe blasts ‘horrible Chinese thugs’…
It appears that the BBC has decided to lay blame elsewhere for the embarrassment of the recent Chinese torch wrestling incident. We keep seeing footage of “Olympic Officials” in those swell blue track suits, but they’re just guys from the Beijing office, no problem, never saw them do nothin’.
I did enjoy the interview with the very professional Met Cmdr. Bob Broadhurst, which can be found on the right (third clip) side of this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7332942.stm
First, though, I must point out that in this otherwise tolerable article, the BBC makes sure to point out that whilst Mr. Brown made a cameo appearance with the torch, he did not hold it. A brave act of defiance, I guess. LibDem leader Cleggie also gets a quote in, and its even critical of Mr. Brown on the back of being critical of China.
Guess which other major party is left out?
Oh, and I’m sure we’re all getting tired of the BBC’s endless promotion of how the Olympics are cool but we still think China ought to be less mean about Tibet. But the Olympics are still cool.
Anyway, back to the interview with Cmdr. Broadhurst. I felt sorry for the Beeboid here, because it seemed as if he was very poorly prepared. This all smells a bit of a set-up, especially the little headline accompanying the video clip in the iPlayer saying “Broadhurst has denied allegations…” The mood is already set.
The BBC’s first line of questioning – weren’t the police too heavy handed – was summarily dismissed by the first words out of Cmdr. Broadhurst’s mouth. Increasingly desperate to get some sort of jab at the police (I can’t imagine why else the interview even kept going at that point, unless they’re just trying to fill air time), the BBC talking head asks:
“It wasn’t exactly uplifting for the Olympic ideal, was it?”
Is he kidding? The unlawful protesters were the ones who committed the “unhelpful” acts, not the police.
Why is the BBC trying to shift blame from China and rabid Dalai Llama supporters? This fiasco is somehow the fault of the police?
Still trying to get some admission of guilt or error from the clear-headed Cmdr. Broadhurst, the guy goes on grasping at imaginary straws. He starts attacking Broadhurst’s statement that they had to deal with very large crowds, and the police had a very difficult task at hand. If the crowds were so difficult, asks the Beeboid, how come there were so few arrests? As if Broadhurst is just exaggerating the situation to make the actions of the police seem more justifiable. The intelligent cop was having none of it, and after one last attempt (it was so hopeless the professional BBC newsman was just barely able to stammer out a slightly re-worded version of the same question), again easily slapped away by Broadhurst, the BBC gave up.
How disgusting that the BBC decided to hassle the police about all this instead of the real culprits: China and the rabid Dalai Llama crowd. Where are the interviews with Chinese government officials, or anybody in one of those blue track suits? Where are the BBC talking heads giving some nutty protester a dressing down about ruining the Olympic ideal, rather than the police?
Just desperate to deflect the attention from the recent negative light cast upon China, maybe? Or is it more that the BBC News folks are sticking up for the violent protesters who got bloodied when they tried to get physical with the police?
David Preiser (USA) | 08.04.08 – 3:45 pm |
Not so long ago, and I can’t recall the circumstances, but the BBC were interviewing a police commander in New York.
After three or four questions from the BBC woman the police commander burst out laughing and said, “This isn’t an interview, it’s an agenda” and promptly walked off.
Since when has China been ‘socialist’? It’s a fascist dictatorship, and has been one for ca. 60 years.
Those of you who have sane MPs: how about urging them to heckle the Scottish thug at the next PMQ, about allowing foreign state security goons to control the behaviour of peaceful Brits? My understanding is that this is a treasonable act.
For the record: I was proud to be British when this country went to war in Iraq. Until today, the most shameful day has been when the majority of the Commons joined the Nazi propaganda machine about the mythical ‘Jenin massacre’.
Rabid Dalai Lama crowd? I would have assumed this loonie was simply pulling our legs and splitting his side laughing, but the rest of his rant suggests otherwise.
Imagine if America were arming that foul Islamic terrorist regime in Khartoum to the teeth in exchange for oil and obstructing all UN attempts to stop the regime’s genocide of black Muslims in Darfur.
The BBC would be spluttering with indignation. This oil-for-bloood story would be all over Newsnight and Question Time and World Briefing and splattered all over the News website. Yet because China is the one cuddling up to Khartoum the BBC has virtually ignored its complicity in the genocide.
I wonder why. Could be that the BBC is still full of old communists who think Mao was the greatest thing to happen to the planet. Or could be that the BBC loves China since it is strongest threat to American power and influence worldwide. Whatever the case, it would be fascinating to check out the political orientation of the excessive 437 BBC hacks going off to cover the olympics.
I understand that the ghastly Yentob has a bust of that mass-murderer Lenin in his office. That should answer your question.
“Yet because China is the one cuddling up to Khartoum the BBC has virtually ignored its complicity in the genocide.”
You know this how, exactly?
Nearly Oxfordian | 09.04.08 – 12:04 am |
“Rabid Dalai Lama crowd? I would have assumed this loonie was simply pulling our legs and splitting his side laughing, but the rest of his rant suggests otherwise.”
That’s right, I said “rabid Dalai Llama crowd”. Have the actions of the protesters in the last few weeks (up to and including the torch-grabbers and the actions in San Francisco) been anything like the peaceful Buddhists they’re supposed to be?
Of course not, because these are not Tibetan Buddhists, at least most of them aren’t. We do see a few expat Tibetans prominently featured (and why not, it’s their scene), but the vast majority of these protesters are Western Leftoids who are not Buddhist monks or followers of the Dalai Llama (other than buying t-shirts).
If one looks at all the various footage of the protests in several cities, it’s clear that most of the people engaging in violent acts with local police are White Westerners. The few ethnic Tibetans who got bloodied were not standing innocently by when some copper thumped them for no reason. The two guys putting the banner up on the Eiffel Tower were white, as were those who put the banners up on the Golden Gate Bridge, as was the guy who grabbed the torch from Konnie Huq. These people are not Tibetans, and are likely at the very most Champagne Buddhists.
The violence against the police is not helping the Tibetan cause, and does not reflect the non-violent principles of the monks. Violence against British, French, and US police does not impress China at all. Furthermore, these White, non-Tibetan, non-Buddhist protesters most likely don’t even know the historical realities of the situation, and don’t think they are trying to restore a feudal lord to his throne.
So yes, I call them rabid.
Nearly Oxfordian | 09.04.08 – 1:55 pm,
Thanks for that.
You know this how, exactly?
p and a tale of one chip | 09.04.08 – 2:36 pm
Read this site, if you really want to find out.
“Read this site, if you really want to find out”
I’ve read a few frothing declarations that the BBC doesn’t cover x or y, but merely declaring it doesn’t make it so.
p and a tale of one chip,
Is Human Rights Watch acceptable to you as a source?
CHINA’S INVOLVEMENT IN SUDAN: ARMS AND OIL
The Telegraph?
Oil-hungry China takes Sudan under its wing
Sudan: China’s outpost in Africa
CHINA-SUDAN TRADE RELATIONS COMPLICATE DARFUR CRISIS
How China’s support of Sudan shields a regime called ‘genocidal’
Plenty more here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=China+Sudan+Khartoum
Remember, google is your friend, and you read it here.
Apologies for the long URLs; that’s what happens when I’m obliged to post using a proxy server!
It is interesting that most of the visitors of this site criticise BBC in an oppositive way from the Chinese currently do. Visit the following website, it should wider your thoughts:
http://www.anti-cnn.com/
I am an Chinese. But, I also cherish all good traditions in this country. Should we put more thoughts to make this world with all of other communities better? To do this, I would start using words in a more careful way.
Well, they certainly criticise it in the opposite way to that which the Chinese are currently allowed to, that’s true.
“Is Human Rights Watch acceptable to you as a source?”
I’m not arguing the Chinese aren’t involved in Darfur.
I’m arguing that someone outside the UK has an encyclopaedic and all emcompassing knowledge of the BBC’s output that allows them to declare, with no supporting evidence, that the BBC doesn’t and hasn’t covered China in Sudan.
And that merely declaring that the BBC hasn’t covered x or y doesn’t make it so.
And actually Bryan’s assertion isn’t true at all.
Re China and Sudan, just on the website, see below, for example. And China/Darfur has made several entries in Newsnight, not least more recentlt when Spielberg pulled out of his role in the Olympics.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6323017.stm
Chinese President Hu Jintao has agreed on a series of economic deals in Sudan, which China has protected from UN sanctions over the Darfur conflict.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7258059.stm
China has defended its sale of weapons to Sudan, amid growing criticism of its alleged failure to help resolve the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7261453.stm
China has long had strong trade and military links with Khartoum, which is accused of backing militias that have raped and murdered civilians in Darfur.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7245712.stm
There are times, wandering round Khartoum, when you might almost imagine yourself to be in China.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4917970.stm
Russia and China say they will oppose UN sanctions against four Sudanese officials accused of involvement in continuing violence in Darfur.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4654093.stm
David Preiser (USA)
You say:
“… these are not Tibetan Buddhists, at least most of them aren’t … it’s clear that most of the people engaging in violent acts with local police are White Westerners …”
The protest is about Chinese policy in relation to Tibet which, by any objective measure, is brutal. Why do you think that it is necessary for people protesting against such things to be Tibetan and / or Buddhist?
You go on to say:
“The violence against the police is not helping the Tibetan cause, and does not reflect the non-violent principles of the monks.”
Well perhaps, but I wonder what you mean by violence in this context. Most of the more aggressive acts of protest that I saw would easily pass muster with Gandhi. They consisted of trying to block the passage of the torch, or get close enough to the torch to be visible on the TV cameras. One man tried to grab the torch, and another tried to put it out with a fire extinguisher. These acts are aggressive, to be sure, but I saw no protestor trying to cause physical harm to anyone.
to call them “violent” and even “rabid” is going a bit far don’t you think?
Finally, you say: “Furthermore, these White, non-Tibetan, non-Buddhist protesters most likely don’t even know the historical realities of the situation, and don’t think they are trying to restore a feudal lord to his throne”.
I suspect that many of them have a far more sophisticated understanding of the situation that you would give them credit for. They would, for example, understand that the Dalai Lama is hardly a shining example of the modern, progressive, secular society. That, however, fails to justify the Chinese authorities torturing and murdering people who feel loyalty towards him. Perhaps if you could overcome your prejudices you’d be able to see that.
Horace Dunn | 11.04.08 – 11:54 am |
The protest is about Chinese policy in relation to Tibet which, by any objective measure, is brutal. Why do you think that it is necessary for people protesting against such things to be Tibetan and / or Buddhist?
I never said anything of the sort. In response to Nearly Oxfordian’s mocking of my use of the terms “rabid” and “violent”, I pointed out that the majority (not a vast majority, but a majority) of the protesters engaged in physically violent acts with the police in various parts of the world are not, in fact, peaceful Buddhists. I find that behavior to be highly inappropriate in support of a cause which involves returning Buddhist monks to their temples.
…I wonder what you mean by violence in this context. Most of the more aggressive acts of protest that I saw would easily pass muster with Gandhi.
So what?
They consisted of trying to block the passage of the torch, or get close enough to the torch to be visible on the TV cameras. One man tried to grab the torch, and another tried to put it out with a fire extinguisher. These acts are aggressive, to be sure, but I saw no protestor trying to cause physical harm to anyone.
You should watch more than the BBC.
I suspect that many of them have a far more sophisticated understanding of the situation that you would give them credit for. They would, for example, understand that the Dalai Lama is hardly a shining example of the modern, progressive, secular society.
Nonsense. While I’m sure there is a wide variety of knowledge of the historical and political realities of the situation, that is entirely beside the point. The fact remains that there is a contradiction between the dreams of the “Free Tibet” crowd and the facts on the ground. The BBC never, ever discusses these realities, and the only time I ever heard anyone say anything about the situation in Tibet being much worse before was from a Chinese woman living in San Francisco during a vox pops segment.
In any case, I submit that most of the protesters are not aware that the Tibetans were starving under the last Dalai Llama-led government, and that they claim land which that government did not control previously, and that they are in fact restoring a feudal lord to his throne. Just because he is popular and beloved by Richard Gere and other soft-headed celebrities doesn’t mean that’s not what’s going on.
That, however, fails to justify the Chinese authorities torturing and murdering people who feel loyalty towards him. Perhaps if you could overcome your prejudices you’d be able to see that.
I have never, ever said anything even remotely defending China’s brutality. In fact, I have made comments remarking on China’s awful treatment of the Uighers and others, and the replacement of various peoples with ethnic Han. You either misremember something, or have made up your own story there.
And finally, just what do you think my prejudices are? Would you care to spell them out for me and show me where I lost the plot due to my bias?
David Preiser
“And finally, just what do you think my prejudices are? Would you care to spell them out for me and show me where I lost the plot due to my bias?”
I didn’t suggest that you’d lost the plot, and I used the word prejudice and not bias. Specifically I identify as prejudice the following:
Nearly Oxfordian had a go at you for describing the protestors as rabid. In order to justify the use of this word you asked whether the protestors were the “peaceful Buddhists they’re supposed to be”. You answered your own question “Of course not, because these are not Tibetan Buddhists, at least most of them aren’t … the vast majority of these protesters are Western Leftoids who are not Buddhist monks or followers of the Dalai Llama (other than buying t-shirts).”
You go on to point out that a lot of the most prominent protestors were white, and were therefore most likely “champagne Buddhists”. You finish off with the assumption that the protestors you are criticising are broadly ignorant of the historical context of the Tibet / China situation. Then add “So yes, I call them rabid”.
So your argument for using the word “rabid” seems to be that the protestors are neither Tibetans nor proper Buddhists (despite the fact that “they’re supposed to be” in your view). You then make the assumption that the protestors are, for the most part, ignorant “Leftoids”. Well, either you are remarkably well-informed about the spiritual, intellectual and political make-up of the people you are impugning, or you are being prejudiced.
p, Yes I also noticed the BBC joining the rest of the media when the Spielberg news broke. My perception was that this was pretty much the first time that the BBC had come up with even the mildest exposure of China’s role in Darfur. This was based on a search I did a year or so back, finding no mention at all by the BBC of China’s role in the genocide in Darfur over many years. I wasn’t aware of the Panorama programme from 2005. That is good to see. I was impressed with Fergal Keene getting to the crux of the matter – China’s obstruction in the UN of attempts to impose sanctions and stop the genocide.
But what about the intervening years? The BBC failed in its duty to bring China’s role to the attention of the world. Jonah Fisher was based in Sudan for quite some time and only started to expose the genocidal government when he was expelled from the country. This reminds me of Jane Arraf of CNN’s Baghdad division. She admitted her complicity in covering up for Saddam and his brutal regime. I believe that CNN rewarded her (probably for the complicity, not the admission) by making her bureau chief in Baghdad.
So it would good to see the BBC coming clean about its reporting from genocidal capitals of the world and from terrorists nests like Gaza. (Alan Johnston comes to mind here.) It should warn us that the reporting is at best untrustworthy and at worst propagandist.
But it is good to see an article like this one you linked to from John Simpson:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7245712.stm
I don’t believe I have ever read criticism of Sudan like the following from the BBC:
Well, of course, the Khartoum government’s case would be stronger if it had not given a ministerial job to Ahmed Haroun, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
And if it had not appointed a Janjaweed leader, Musa Hilal, to be a special adviser.
And Simpson’s article is not exactly complimentary to the Chinese, though he appears to think that only the US considers the Sudanese government to be carrying out genocide in Darfur. Anything to cast doubt on the US. It’s a reflex BBC action.
Still, these are encouraging signs from the BBC, though it’s apparent change of heart could be because it is riding the wave of popular opposition to China and the Olympics. Let’s see more of this open reporting from the BBC.
Horace Dunn | 11.04.08 – 6:30 pm |
So your argument for using the word “rabid” seems to be that the protestors are neither Tibetans nor proper Buddhists (despite the fact that “they’re supposed to be” in your view). You then make the assumption that the protestors are, for the most part, ignorant “Leftoids”. Well, either you are remarkably well-informed about the spiritual, intellectual and political make-up of the people you are impugning, or you are being prejudiced.
Or I could be speaking truth to power. Once again you slightly mischaracterize my view. It’s not that these people “are supposed to be” Tibetan Buddhists. My view is that if they’re supposed to be supporting a cause involving returning Tibetan Buddhist monks to their temples, they ought to act more like the monks they supposedly respect so much. Tibetan Buddhist monks have a history of rather peaceful protest against Chinese rule, and even the Dalai Llama himself has spoken out against violence. Yet, the Westerners are the ones who have turned it up a notch. I say this is the wrong way to go about things, and yes, the actions of a few (and an increasingly not so few) do actually soil the rest of the protests.
It doesn’t take a great leap of imagination to say that the majority of the people who organize these protests – and either engage in acts of vandalism or violence – are not mainstream moderates or conservatives. Even though many of the latter may sympathize with the cause, they do not generally engage in that kind of activity. And one doesn’t need any magical telepathic powers to say so.
I do recognize the fact that a portion of the protesters are ethnic Tibetans who are not peaceful monks, and they can act however they want against the Chinese soldiers and government agents. It’s a shame they have to get entangled with the police in various other countries, but the IOC is really to blame for all this, not them.
So, just to further clarify things, because I know what angers you about my statements:
I support the right of the Tibetan people to fight against the ethnic cleansing policies of China. I support the right of the Dalai Llama and his minions to return to their temples, and the Chinese government has no right to sell them, nor to select a Panchen Llama for them.
I do not support an independent Tibet with the Dalai Llama in charge as a feudal lord, in the manner in which things ran between 1911 and 1949. An independent Tibet with some form of democratic government would be fine. I might even shrug my shoulders if such an independent Tibet started to kick out a bunch of the ethnic Han who moved in and took over some of the better jobs and/or displaced the Tibetans from their land.
I do not support Western white people clashing with Western white police over this issue. I do not support Western white people who chant about a Free Tibet without realizing that they are returning a feudal lord to his throne (and it is obvious from many interviews, quotes, articles, blogposts, etc., that far too many of them have this mindset). I do not support Western white people who say how much they love Buddhist principles and the Dalai Llama is a voice for peace on the one hand, but then get violent with UK or US or other policemen. I do not support the fact that China was apparently able to bribe the IOC officials into getting the Olympics in the first place. I do not support Leftoids who scream for human rights in Tibet because the Dalai Llama is a celebrity magnet, yet don’t seem to care about – or quite possibly even approve of – the ramifications of putting him back on his throne.
“Still, these are encouraging signs from the BBC”
Why, how pompously gracious of you. The BBC’s been covering Sudan in detail for years and has had a specific page on its website since 2004.
That you didn’t or couldn’t research it properly rather makes the point: just because you think something so, even if you’ve actually looked into it, doesn’t mean the BBC hasn’t been covering it.
Quite apart from the various TV, web and radio channels in the UK you don’t honestly think the World Service in Africa just, like, stumbled upon Sudan sometime recently?
The BBC’s been covering Sudan in detail for years and has had a specific page on its website since 2004.
Which means what exactly in terms of the content of its coverage?
just because you think something so.
Give me a break. I’ve been following the BBC’s coverage of Sudan for years, on the website and the World Service and commenting on it here and on other sites. You have come up with two examples of valid coverage exposing the truth behind the genocide and criticising Khartoum over a period of three years. I note that you have nothing to say about Jonah Fisher’s coverage.
I complimented Panorama and John Simpson over the coverage. You can call that what the hell you like, but if you had any understanding of what we are doing here you would realise that we don’t simply criticise the BBC but also give credit where it is due, otherwise what would be the point? You act as if the BBC has no room for improvement. Talk about pompous.
Now do you actually have anything to say about the content of my comment. If not, don’t waste my time. This is a site about BBC bias, not your petty little personal objections to contributors to this site.
Compare and contrast this BBC report on the Olympic Torch trip through San Francisco:
‘Houdini torch’ relay disappoints.
to this blog report with many interesting photos and comments from Zombie Pajamas Media:
Zombie Chronicles the Olympic Torch Relay in SF
The BBC report is only slight more detailed and no more insightful than Matt Frei’s “Hide and Seek” report on same on his low-budget US broadcast. I’m still not sure why the BBC feels the need to promote the virtues of the Olympics so passionately (although I can think of a couple of reasons if I put my cynical thinking cap on). Even here Maggie Shields feels the need to refer to the torch as a “symbol of harmony”. Gag me with a Tibetan spoon.
The Pajamas Media account, on the other hand, lets us know just how complex and broad in scope China’s human rights problems actually are. We also get a very interesting glimpse at the demographics of the various protester factions. I’m as guilty of focusing almost exclusively on Tibet as the BBC in my recent arguments, but then again I’m not obligated by a Charter to keep the public properly informed.
Now, why has the BBC failed to show the wide variety of groups who have been oppressed by or are under threat from China?
A Lesson of the TRUTH
This website, http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ attracts visitors because there are ones who have intention to learn and know how the BBC may report in an unbiased way.
I therefore find that the missing topic here is the concept of the TRUTH:
What is truth?
How many truths are there?
Do truths have purposes?
Which truth is most significant in a particular programme at a particular time?
In the recent years, our understanding of the TRUTH has advanced significantly. The TRUTH is a major topic in philosophy and considered to be fundamental to all scientists. However, I realise that it is even more essential and practically useful to politicians and media workers.
I am not qualified to give a lesson to most professionals visiting this website. Therefore, the good lesson that I believe to be simple but in-depth is the following programme, a Radio, produced by Philosophy Talk at Stanford University:
If Truth is so valuable, why is there so much BS (Bullshit)?
http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/BS.html
(What is it? Everywhere we look — in the media, in our political campaigns, in the hallowed halls of the academy — we are confronted with an endless stream of BS, spin, propaganda, half-truths, and even outright lies. Yet for centuries, philosophers have argued that the pursuit of truth is both intrinsically good and instrumentally useful. But if truth is really both good and useful, then why is there so much BS around? John and Ken welcome Harry Frankfurt, author of On Bullshit and On Truth, to discuss the relative value and utility of Truth and its alternatives.)
Once we have a better understanding of the TRUTH, we realise that whether the BBC is impartial or neutral is a meaningless question. Instead, the meaningful questions are these: what truths mostly attract the BBC, and, by choosing particular truths, what political position and purpose that the BBC stands and pursues.
In this particular event, the BBC has reported many truths: it is a visible truth that “a protester tries to grab torch from Konnie Huq” in London, and it also seems to be true that “the Former Olympic champion Lord Coe, who is now the head of the organising committee for the 2012 London Games”, called the Chinese “blue tracksuited” guards “thugs.” However, by reporting these truths while ignoring other truths, the BBC takes a very clear anti-China position and discloses a very obvious purpose to get attention from the Chinese government.
Therefore, there are two significant points to conclude:
(1) If the BBC states clearly that they have a political stand • do not pretended to be neural or unbiased, we may have nothing to say • including the volunteers of the http://www.anti-cnn.com/
(2) In term of the purpose, the BBC’s way of reporting indeed attracted sufficient attentions from the Chinese government. However, what are the prices the BBC had paid for? By recognising the number and strength of the responses at the opposite side, I would at least say that the BBC and the Western political activists had been scientifically discredited in this event.
As stated above (Henry | 10.04.08 – 1:12 pm), I am a Chinese living in London. However, the point is why I, neither a media worker nor a politician, am being involved with the issues of the Western media so much?
Henry
“You have come up with two examples of valid coverage exposing the truth behind the genocide and criticising Khartoum over a period of three years”
It was more than 2, and why should I spend time digging up several more examples to disprove your opinion.
You have come up with precisely no examples or evidence to back up your comments that “the BBC has virtually ignored its [China’s] complicity in the genocide.”
Where’s the evidence for that, other than your opinion of some mysterious bias by omission, contrary to the available and several examples to the contrary?
The BBC is anything but pro-China!
“An independent Tibet with some form of democratic government would be fine” –
Oh, how very magnanimous of you to allow this to the Tibetans. What a pompous prat you are.
“I do not support Western white people clashing with Western white police over this issue” –
Dumb racist crap. The colour of the people clashing with the police is not only irrelevant, it’s none of your effing business. You’ll tell us next that non-Jews had no right to protest about the concentration camps.
Sheesh, you are one pompous prat.
“I do not support Western white people who say how much they love Buddhist principles and the Dalai Llama is a voice for peace on the one hand, but then get violent with UK or US or other policemen” –
The colour of the people clashing with the police is none of your effing business; and since you are not in the UK, you have no say about our freedoms to clash with the police violently if we wish to do so.
“I do not support Leftoids who scream for human rights in Tibet because the Dalai Llama is a celebrity magnet” –
another idiot who thinks that people are ‘leftoids’ when they disagree with his pompous and racist views.
How insensitive and irresponsible the British media are!
There are enormous responses against the Western media over the recent news coverage of the Olympic torch relay in Paris, London and San Francisco. Those responses have now been developing to protests by the Chinese people in the UK, France, Germany, the US, and mainland China • see the news by clicking these web address:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-04/20/content_6630183.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/ra/news/stories/200804/s2222503.htm?tab=asia
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAPEK27822720080420
Can the British media, particularly the BBC, delimitate the importance of those responses?
The BBC said in a statement: “Despite restrictions placed on journalists, our coverage of Tibet has been extensive, fair and balanced. The same is true of our reporting of the Olympic torch relay and the protests that have accompanied it.” Is this message sent by the BBC to mean that the Chinese people are wrong and the BBC had done nothing wrong?
The Times says, “China has been enraged by signs of Western sympathy for the Tibetans who rioted in the streets of Lhasa…”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol … /article3784932.ece
Does this message mean what happened are only “Western sympathy” but no humiliation towards Chinese at all? At this point, we find that the French president Sarkozy did better, as he wrote, “It is understandable that the Chinese people feel hurt.”
The British media seems to try to blame the angry response because the Chinese are too patriotic or being organised by the Chinese government. Why cannot the Chinese show their love to their county, when some the Western media tried so hard to humiliate China? Why cannot they distinguish state-organised shows from those natural responses by the Chinese people? I realise how insensitive and irresponsible some of the reporters and editors of the British media are: will they face the reality until the Chinese start boycotting British firms or products, or when the world become really chaotic? Maybe, it will be their favour to see the world to be chaotic, as they can write more eye-catching articles at that time.
If this is the case, I believe that the British media will take a lesson only when those responsible reporters, editors, and human right activities are being investigated and stopped from producing further biased news or comments: the damage they caused is a serious crime against the international community as a whole!
Does anyone know what this gibberish above is supposed to mean? Far as I can make out, Henry is ranting and raving because the British media have dared to hurt the feelings of the wondeful Chinese, whose state is not at all a vile fascist dictatorship crushing another country. We should just all shut up, just as we should never have hurt the delicate feelings of Nazi Germany.
Szarkosy apologised to the Chinese, the mayor of Paris is giving the Dalai Lama honorary keys to the city (if we are to believe Al Beeb) – how would the BBC’s house policy deal with this? Anyone interested in a sweepstake?
If you think that you are the person having the Truth and China is the Nazi Germany, then your thought is too simply to argue with any Chinese. You should go to a war against Chinese now – I advised before, please mind your words if you want to feel to be intellegent.
I –am– intelligent. And I can spell.
For those who cannot understand why so many ordinery Chinese people are being hurt, I copied a post below from http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/thread-508-1-1.html
Post at 16-4-2008 15:02
fromUSA I totally agree with your point. Also I want to point out one thing. Many Western media said anti-CNN website is built by Chinese government to againest the West, I would say anti-CNN is just a website for the people who get hurt to get together lick their wounds.
Can you imagine, a Chinese, oversee, facing all the time fake news from the Western media about their country, they can talk, but nobody listen. They are sad and angry, but you can not just go to a psychologist to say ‘I am sad and angry because your media are so unfair and wrong.’ What the psychologist can do with it, if the Western media do not stop bias reporting? Tell you the truth we are angry and very sad, but we do not want to burn down people’s house, killing other people as the Tibet separatists did in Tibet.
anti-CNN is the only shelter we got. Chinese are human, they have feelings. This website is fighting for the turth, it would not stop if the bias Western media do not stop. And you also can see many people wrote articales in a very calm manners, and in this website are not just Chinese, there are many foreigners, they are fight not only for China, but also for their own justic. The victum of bias media are always normal peoples.