! 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.
“It’s wonderful to walk to the shops, the kids are on their bikes”
Ahhhh, that’s nice!
They’d be the one’s pushing drugs, and shooting 11 year olds in our Brave Nu-Labor World?
On Radio5 lite this morning we had the bleating charities on about Burma and how terrible it was.
The BBC of course were all happy as larry that McBean was handing over het more of our hard earned money to a vile regime that only a few months ago was killing large numbers of its own people.
The one question the BBC wouldn’t answer is HOW MUCH AID IS CHINA GIVING?
The BBC its hatred of Israel and half the story
History of Israel: Key events
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7385661.stm
Has anybody seen this excuse of revised history which the BBC is passing off as news on the 60th celebration of the Birth of Israel. Click on the above link and then click on
The State of Israel is founded
You know the one which has as a picture poor Palestinians surrounding to Jews in the town of town of Ramle, in May 1948.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7381315.stm
So what impression is the BBC promoting about the Birth of Israel in May 1948.
That the hookednosedmuslimblooddrinkingjews expanded their empire at the expense of the poor muslims. Only at the very end does the BBC mention that 5 Islamic armies invaded Israel with the sole purpose of eliminating the jew. (Which they don’t mention) But the BBC does finish with this;
“By the time of an armistice in 1949, the Israelis had extended their territory, leaving Jordan with the West Bank, Egypt with Gaza and Jerusalem divided. Thousands of Palestinians had fled or had been driven out.”
You see the Jews can only be evil to the BBC. Hear is a Map of the Levant during May and June 1948. One picture that informs the reader to a much higher degree about what transpired during the birth of Israel than the thinly disguised anti semantic spiel pushed out by the BBC,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/1948_arab_israeli_war_-_May15-June10.jpg
Re Dr Who.
Actually I thought it was being more subtle than it’s been given credit for. On the surface it was anti-armed forces, with constant references by the Doctor to how much he hated guns.
But the Doctor was not prepared to press the button that would destroy the Sontarans. Had the little oik who had previously been in league with Sontarans not stepped in and pressed the button, Earth would have been invaded. The Doctor’s pacifism was shown to be counterproductive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7387082.stm
“Possession of the Agni-III will give India deep strike capability because it would have Chinese cities like Beijing and Shanghai and the US island base of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean well within its striking range.”
Do the BBC really think India is trying to deter a Chinese or American (!) nuclear attack?
Utterly laughable.
Any thoughts why the BBC should make such an absurd observation?
The point of the range is surely it reaches most of the islamic world, these are those that have threatened India by terror, by war (Pakistan), threatened war (over Kashmir) and who hate India for being muticultural and dominated by ‘idolaters’.
Isn’t Diego Garcia the BRITISH Island base, leased to the U.S.?
Or is my memory failing?
I’m also thinking the India is slightly more concerned that it is bordered and surrounded by countries with ahem — Islamo-nutjob tendencies, and access to nukes thanks to the Pakistan hero Khan.
Returning to the James Whale kerfuffle, where he was, apparently fired for expressing his view that Boris Johnson should be the next London mayor.
I just checked the relevant regulations… I see nothing in the OFCOM Code that prevents Whale from saying vote Johnson. The regulation do not mandate against “bias,” only against “due impartiality.”
Principles
To ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality. To ensure that the special impartiality requirements of the Act are complied with.
Rules
Meaning of “due impartiality”:
“Due” is an important qualification to the concept of impartiality. Impartiality itself means not favouring one side over another. “Due” means adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme. So “due impartiality” does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of every argument has to be represented.
The approach to due impartiality may vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content and approach is signalled to the audience. Context, as defined in Section Two: Harm and Offence of the Code, is important.
5.5 Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service (listed above). This may be achieved within a programme or over a series of programmes taken as a whole.
5.9 Presenters and reporters (with the exception of news presenters and reporters in news programmes), presenters of “personal view” or “authored” programmes or items, and chairs of discussion programmes may express their own views on matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole. Additionally, presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality. Presenter phone-ins must encourage and must not exclude alternative view
5.10 A personal view or authored programme or item must be clearly signalled to the audience at the outset. This is a minimum requirement and may not be sufficient in all circumstances. (Personality phone-in hosts on radio are exempted from this provision unless their personal view status is unclear.)
Meaning of “personal view” and “authored”:
“Personal view” programmes are programmes presenting a particular view or perspective. Personal view programmes can range from the outright expression of highly partial views, for example by a person who is a member of a lobby group and is campaigning on the subject, to the considered “authored” opinion of a journalist, commentator or academic, with professional expertise or a specialism in an area which enables her or him to express opinions which are not necessarily mainstream.
Jack Bauer: James Whale was on with Alex Jones last night. According to him there were three complaints made.
Talksport didn’t even have the balls to call him in but told him over the phone he was being sacked.
Ofcom have not yet published their findings.
Can anyone ever remember a Beeboid being fired for bias?
Roland,
I’m not sure which bit you are referring to, is it near the end where the Doctor is about to sacrifice himself to stop the invasion, and the “little oik” sacrifices himself instead thus finding redemption?
If that is the case, then it is not a case of showing the Doctor’s pacifism as being counter-productive, but that his noble wish to lay down his own life to stop a war was thwarted by the little oik, who laid down his instead.
Whilst some episodes are better written and do contains elements of subtlety, this episode is not one of them. It’s all laid on nice and think.
Yuk!
Paul T
Yes, that was the bit. But “his noble wish to lay down his life” was nothing of the sort. He kept saying “I’ll press the button! I will!” but when push came to shove he wasn’t going to. Hence the need for the oik to do it.
I commented last week re the first part of this episode, pointing out it was the green lobby going on about pollution that made people fit the filters to the cars and led to the problems the Doctor had to sort out. I wonder if the writer gave the producers exactly what they wanted to hear, hence the rather loud “army is bad” to prevent them seeing the sub-text.
Anyway, I’m supposed to be working now, not analysing Dr Who, so will leave it at that!
Can anyone ever remember a Beeboid being fired for bias?
Martin | 07.05.08 – 2:31 pm | #
OFCOM doesn’t regulate the BBC. al-Beeby has that job to itself. Nice work if you can get it.
But did you agree with my reading of the Code? I can’t see anything in there that says Whale cannot express on air his opinion that people should vote for Boris.
So long as Talksport featured someone else who said vote for the Livingdead. For all we know, they did. On a phone in.
It was NOT said in the straight news break.
The whole thing is BOGUS. But look at who runs TS now. An ex-BBC creep called “Moz” Wow.
Martin:
Can anyone ever remember a Beeboid being fired for bias?
Delighted to help out: Rod Liddle, occasionally celebrated on these pages as a heroic critic of the Beeb, who was fired for writing in the Grauniad that watching the Countryside march reminded him why he voted Labour.
He was out on his ear in short order.
.
Jack B:
I can’t see anything in there that says Whale cannot express on air his opinion that people should vote for Boris.
I’d have thought this covers it well…
presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality.
It’s hard to see how anyone can claim any kind of impartiality while shouting “Vote Boris! Vote Boris!”.
Or is it just me?
.
presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality.
If you read the OFCOM description of “due” and “impartiality,” you will see you are incorrect.
That’s why, I’m guessing, the word “bias” is never mentioned. Everyone is biased, so it cannot be regulated. The purpose of the Code would seem to be to balance that by ensuring all shades of opinion are eventually represented across a period of time, and the whole station output.
It’s also an opinion show where a man is paid to host a show and give his opinions.
As I said, how many people phoned in and said they urged listeners to vote for the Livingdead. That would be “due” impartiality in action in balacing Whale’s opinions
Even the code section you re-quote favours me, bcause Whale only said it once, on one show.
So he’s not even breaking the Code by using a regularity of appearance to conduct a sustained campaign over a long time that would effectively impinge on Talksport’s “due” impartiality.
So conservatives are happier than liberals:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080507/sc_livescience/conservativeshappierthanliberals
I bet since last Thursday there’s been misery in Beeboid-land. No empty champagne bottles discarded in the corridors.
Hillhunt: Liddle was given a choice to stop writing for the Guardian or leave the BBC. That is NOT the same issue as James Whale, so again I ask can you name a Beeboid fired for bias?
All that said… it’s Talksports behaviour I find really offensive.
And as a matter of principle the British Government should not in any way regulating Political speech via quangos like OFCOM.
The market should decide the types of radio stations and their content.
Now unless Whale’s listening figures are poor, why should Talksport fire him?
It’s ALL about ratings in commercial radio. And what helps ratings is controversy. So this would be perfect for Talksport to KEEP Whale on air, would it not?
So even if a government quango fines them for free speech, why would the ex-BBC man fire him anyway?
If anyone wants to hear the show that got James the boot. Here’s a link to it for download.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Y52ADW6I
Are they kidding?
Sixty years of Middle East division
Jeremy Bowen’s informative historical analysis of the Israel/Palestine problem. In celebration of the 60th anniversary of Israel’s founding as a state, naturally.
While Bowen gets many of his facts right – and full marks for the rare admission that the Arab countries started it – the result of this article is a feeling that Israel’s very existence is tainted, and that the country even has an attitude problem.
Bowen actually gives the Israeli side of the story, for a change, when he says that some Palestinians may have – shock, horror – fled of their own accord. Although, Bowen can’t lend the theory that much credibility, so qualifies it to near nothingness. The reasons are “still bitterly contested, by historians as well as by leaders and activists,” eh, Jeremy? Which ones? Ben Gurion’s gang did force quite a few Arabs out of a couple areas, it’s true. But the vast majority left because they were told to by their Arab friends and leaders. They were fed horror stories about what the Jews would do to them – fables of rape and village massacres, as if this were the Congo – and that they couldn’t live in a Jewish-led state.
What Bowen does not tell you is how all the Arab countries responsible for the whole travesty – not to mention the UN – have treated the resulting Palestinians since then. Complete silence, except to say that Israel has taken their land and refuses to allow them back.
Old Jeremy even lets the former Jordanian Foreign Minister – who is not only from an old, prominent “Palestinian” Jerusalem family, but was apparently a journalist, so he speaks only the truth – bring up those old propaganda stories of village massacres. You can bet Bowen believes every word of it, and that you are expected to as well.
Here are some reasons why you shouldn’t:
http://www.afsi.org/arablies.htm
In the very next sentence, Bowen twists the knife:
“Despite their country’s strength, some Israelis today also feel threatened – by Palestinian nationalism, by Islamist extremists who target Jews, and by Iran.”
Yes, it’s only some Israelis laboring under some misapprehension, apparently. Despite their strength. They really ought to calm down, oughtn’t they?
And in case anyone forgot:
“Many more Palestinian civilians die and lose their homes than Israelis, and they believe that what they call the catastrophe of 1948 has never ended.”
So, no matter what else you may think, the lesson is that the Palestinians are right because of this imbalance, and get in the last word.
And this is the person to whom the BBC looks for valid opinions on the region.
Martin:
Liddle was given a choice to stop writing for the Guardian or leave the BBC.
In other words, to behave impartially or demonstrate bias…
.
Regarding Whale. The commetns start from about 9 minutes in, if you download it.
I’ve heard worse from the BBC almost every day.
Hillhunt: No, the “bias” was from comments in an outside job. Liddle allowed left wing bias on the Toady show that continues to this very day.
Whale wasn’t given a choice, he was sacked by his employer.
Funny thing is Liddle is starting to realise his leftie views on Moozlums for example are causing us great problems. Shame the other wankers at the BBC can’t see that.
Jack B:
It’s also an opinion show where a man is paid to host a show and give his opinions.
As I said, how many people phoned in and said they urged listeners to vote for the Livingdead. That would be “due” impartiality in action in balacing Whale’s opiniion.
It would be due impartiality if voters of all shades were encouraged to ring in and make their recommendations. You don’t have to guarantee that there will be perfectly-balanced numbers.
On the other hand, the host instructing listeners to vote in one way only is an active intervention in an election, and cannot possibly count as impartiality.
One other thought: Imagine if Naughtie or Paxman or Allen had started shouting “Vote Paddick!” or “Vote Ken!”.
How many furious B-BBCers would be on these threads demanding their heads on a stick?
.
Interesting comment on Radio 5 lite. Peter Allen read out an email that basically said “we know where Summer has arrived when we see fat men walking around in ill fitting England shirts”
Allen then wondered if what he’d said was acceptable, asking the audience if it had been another nationality, much to the laughs of that Tory hater Anita Anand.
I wonder if I’d have written in saying “you can tell it’s summer as all the Moozlum women are still totally covered up, hah ha ha”
I don’t think they’d have read that out do you?
One other thought: Imagine if Naughtie or Paxman or Allen had started shouting “Vote Paddick!” or “Vote Ken!”.
They are supposed to be impartial moderators on a daily news analysis show.
James Whale was employed as a partisan, opinionated host of a show designed for him to give his opinions. Then Talksport sack him, but not for profanity, or urging murder, but because he gave a political opinion? Interesting.
I don’t think you know much about these shows, because they actively also want callers with an opposite opinion. That’s what makes the show listenable, and gets ratings. And it has nothing to do with OFCOM regs.
Hillhunt: Do you take drugs all the time? The BBC is funded by the TV tax. Therefore it should be impartial as we’re all forced to pay for it.
If the BBC were funded by adverts or subscription, I couldn’t care less what it says, it wouldn’t get my money and that’s all I’m bothered about.
I suggest you listen to the recording before shooting your fat gob off.
Whale says why is it OK for Gordon Brown to recommend Livingstone as Mayor (which Bean did). Whale then says that Livingstone has been bad for Mayor and Boris would be better.
Whale knows what he’s saying is wrong as “Ash” his producer keeps reminding him (they’ve worked together for years)
In my view what Whale said did not warrant instant dismissal. Whale should have used the “Nicky Campbell” trick. Know what that is?
Listen to the vile Campbell. When he wants to give HIS personal opinion (anti Tory or anti English usually) he spouts his bile then adds the following statement “…or some people might say…”
Take a listen, he does it all the time. Adding that phrase makes people think it’s not his opinion when it clearly is.
He does that every day on 5 lite.
John Reith, Nick Reynolds and Alex–
An abominable falsehood and possibly deliberate mis-characterization appears on the BBC online site which ought to be corrected immediately. In an article purporting to give “background” on Israel’s history entitled “2000: Second Intifada” he BBC claims that “dozens” of Israelis were killed by suicide bombings after Oslo and during the 2nd intifada! Dozens? It is well-documented that 1600 Israelis were killed since Oslo, the majority of them civilians, including 1000 during the 2nd intifida, of which more than 700 were civilians. Hamas killed more than 480 in suicide bombings and Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade killed nearly 300 in suicide bombings. Dozens? That could easily mean 36, off by double an order of magnitude. What kind of reprehensible revisionist history is the BBC pushing on its site? This is a disgusting lie designed to minimize the repugnant actions of Palestinian militants, and serves as yet another outrageous example of BBC bias against Israel. The article says that the “phenomenon of the suicide bomber emerged, in which dozens of Israeli civilians were killed.” ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7381378.stm ) There is simply no excuse for this. This is not journalism–it is pure propaganda.
“Liddle was given a choice to stop writing for the Guardian or leave the BBC.
In other words, to behave impartially or demonstrate bias…”
No,to stop moonlighting ans stick with his day job.
simon,
Alex will no doubt argue that not all those civilians were really “standard civilians”, they could be security guards or even bus conductors, because they wear uniforms too. Or perhaps he’ll take the line favored by Ken Livingstone’s favourite jihadi, Qadarwi, that because all Israelis do military service even women and children (who will grow up to be soldiers) they are all legitimate targets and not really civilians.
“Civilians with guns and uniforms. Not quite soldiers… but more like soldiers than your average civilian.”
David Preiser (USA) | 07.05.08 – 4:59 pm
David P,
Bowen’s film, ‘The birth of Israel’ was the basis of the piece you refer to. My comment
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/8501771973239251253/#397155
describes some of the many ways the film conveyed Bowen’s disapproving messages about Israel, while superficially appearing to be impartial. I added:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/8546732765609701921/#397361
I think the general impression of impartiality was a deliberate hoodwink and is far more damaging than out and out bias. The editing of the interview with Shimon Peres and the way they allowed the last word to the hideous Hazem Musseibeh was cruel and misleading, and deliberately presented to the viewer in such a way as to discredit the former and give pathos to the words, many of which were ‘massacre’ – of the latter.
I note the picture of the headband wearing mini-refugees Demanding To Return!!
Vital for impartiality.
Israel at 60: History in maps is also misleading. Quite apart from the biased commentary accompanying each map they deliberately bare little comparison with these maps:
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm#01
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm#02
That wonderful BBC, showing us how vile the Americans are and their disgusting Guantanamo Bay holding innocent plumbers and tourists without any justification.
The campaigning BBC wanting to see all of these peaceniks being held to be released.
So come on give peace a chance…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7388762.stm
Roland Deschains:
I don’t agree with your interpretation, deconstruction really, of Doctor Who. I think that the fact you can give it the interpretation you do is the result of sloppy writing rather than any intention to give this kids’ programme any serious subtext.
I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this episode!
apologies if this has been covered already but I can’t search the (copious) comments –
anyone seen the new-to-me BBC2 ident where a group of 3 or 4 men are spied distantly (and blurredly) through a 2-shaped hole in a piece of wood? It looks hauntingly like 3 would-be-Jihadists in prayer during a break from training somewhere in the British countryside.
R
BBC 2’s ‘Newsnight’ has just screened an excellent report about the unbelievably lax UK airport practice of employing foreign workers, ‘planeside’, who have not been investigated for criminal activity.
Jeremy Paxman’s interview with Labour spokesperson on this was searing, but not biased.
(For UK viewers who missed it, it’s on BBC iPlayer ‘imminently’; for non-UK viwers, apparently, the ‘Daily Telegraph’ leads with this story in its Thursday edition.)
The BBC, its defence of Hezb-allah and half the story.
Explosions and gunfire rang out across the Lebanese capital Beirut as opposition supporters held a one-day general strike calling for higher pay. Strikers set up barricades of burning tyres on key routes to the port, airport and Beirut’s commercial centre. The cause of the explosions was not clear, but reports say armed opposition and pro-government groups may have fired rocket-propelled grenades. The country is witnessing its deepest political crisis since the civil war. Lebanon has been without a head of state for five months because of a power struggle between the Western and Saudi-backed government and the Hezbollah-led opposition which is supported by Syria and Iran.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7387273.stm
So the BBC paints a cosy picture of how the Western Backed Government of Lebanon is suffering from protests from the people.
Here is what the BBC isn’t telling you;
Hezbollah: We are going to open the gates of hell to this government
Beirut – Even though the event was supposed to be a labor protest for higher wages, Hezbollah used the event for violence and riots to bring down the government, according to eyewitnesses at the scene of the protests.One witness said: “It appears that Hezbollah was prepared right from the beginning to steal the show from the unions and inflict maximum damage to the government.” Hezbollah later confirmed what the witness said. In an interview with an Iranian news agency a Hezbollah spokesman said we are going to open the gates of hell to this government
At 6:35 am Hezbollah-led Demonstrators started their protest by burning tires in the Hezbollah predominantly controlled areas of Ouzai, Qassqass, airport road.At about the same time other protesters closed Salim Salam bridge, Shatilla area with stolen cars and Hezbollah protesters in of the tents city in downtown Beirut closed the ring overpass.
The Hezbollah protesters on the airport road closed the airport road with burning tires
The closure of the Beirut airport led to cancellation of 32 incoming and outgoing flights.As this was taking place tension developed in the Sunni areas of Abu Haidar, Bashoura and Salim Salam between the Hezbollah-led protesters and the pro government supporters
While all this was going on the situation was normal in Ashrafiyeh, Baabda, Jbeil, Kesrouan, Metn, Aley, the Chouf mountains and Zahle which did not participate in the strike or demonstrations .The same in Batroun and Zghorta provinces where roads and schools remained open.
Between 7:00 am and 8:00am Hezbollah-led protesters including masked men:
– Closed Corniche Mazraa thoroughfare with garbage containers
– Closed Sultan Ibrahim and Marriott Hotel roads
– Closed Tiro-Shweifat road with burning tires
– Closed Zahrani road in south Lebanon
– Closed Salim Salam Bridge and the Kuwaiti embassy roundabout
– Closed Khalde road
– Closed Douris road in Baalbek
– Closed Shtoura road in Beqaa region
At around 8:40 am protesters tossed a hand grenade on Corniche Mazraa road, wounding three people and two army soldiers.About 100 demonstrators then came out of the Barbir area and headed towards the entrances to Mar Elias street and started burning tires.Other protesters closed the Beirut International Airport road.
At this point a meeting of the General Federation of Labor Unions (GFLU) headed by Ghassan Ghosn was held discuss the fate of the demonstration that was due to take place at 10 am.At 10:30 am The GFLU union called off the demonstration that was due to take place at 10 am.
Read the rest here;
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2008/05/hezbollah_used.php
The BBC, its defence of Hezb-allah and half the story.
George R,
Overseas viewers can always see the latest Newsnight here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm
or here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_4670000/newsid_4679900?redirect=4679986.stm&news=1&nbwm=1&nbram=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1&asb=1
Just for the info did the BBC inform the plebs out in the real world that the only people protesting in Lebanon today were (other than Hezb-allah) the pro Syrian Labour movement’General federation of Labor Unions.’ Everybodyelse treated it as a normal working day having accepted the pay rise by the Government;
“However, the anti-Syrian Labor Salvation Authority, that opposes Ghoson’s leadership, boycotted the strike and declared Wednesday a day of normal work.
Lebanon’s bank employees union also boycotted the strike and said Wednesday is a normal working day, noting that a pay raise adopted by the government before dawn Tuesday meets labor demands.Farmers unions, industrialists and residents of districts that the demonstration would go through also expressed opposition to the move.”
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2008/05/anti_syrian_lab.php
But hey why should the BBC tell the truth when Abu Bowen sucks up to Hezb-allah every chance he gets.
The BBC, Neuwater and half the story. (Part 1)
Singapore water makes global waves
Water shortages are making waves all over the world, with supplies increasingly seen as an issue of national security. In Singapore, they have boiled it down to economics. Singapore’s water shortages have always posed a major challenge.
“Although we’re on the equator and we’ve got lots of rain, we have nowhere to naturally store water,” explains Khoo Teng Chye, chief executive of the city-state’s Public Utilities Board, or PUB. “We have no groundwater.” For years, water has been imported through three pipelines from neighbouring Malaysia – an expensive and geopolitically troublesome solution that has long irked the Singaporean government.
The issue is becoming increasingly acute ahead of the expiry of two long-term supply deals that guarantee deliveries of Malaysian water for less than one cent per 1,000 gallons – some until 2011, some until 2061. “The main Malaysian demand has been for a much higher price of water, which has varied from 15 to 20 times the current price,” observes Cecilia Tortajada in her report Water Management in Singapore*.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7371463.stm
The above story from the BBC paints this picture of en how Singapore gets lots of rain but is unable to sustain itself with water naturally. Anybody notice how the BBC kind of leaves out the salient fact about just how small Singapore is and how densely packed it is. (4th highest in the world) Maybe that explains why it can’t harvest the rain that falls on it.
What I find disturbing in this so called new story (I first read this story in the Economist in 2003 I’ll post it on the next post.) is the fact the BBC makes no mention of the real reason for neuwater. The Malaysians have threatened to cut off supplies unless Singapore pays more. Yup the greedy neighbours want to kill the golden goose. But seeing as it belongs to the faithful the BBC naturally won’t mention the facts. Better to use GW or CC as the angle.
The BBC, Neuwater and half the story.
The BBC, Neuwater and half the story. (Part 2)
Singapore and Malaysia
Introducing newater
Jan 9th 2003 | SINGAPORE
From The Economist print edition
The city state’s bid for self-sufficiency
SINCE the start of this month, Singaporeans with a keen sense of taste may have noticed that their tap water has a subtle new flavour. The rain and river water in the city state’s reservoirs is being mixed with recycled waste-water from air-conditioners, sinks and toilets. The government cheerily dubs the brew newater, and despite a tide of scatological humour, insists that it is cleaner than the stuff that used to come out of the tap. It has built a demonstration plant, where earnest technicians counter jibes about “loowater” with graphic explanations of their many state-of-the-art purification procedures. The prime minister has shown the way by swigging from a bottle of newater after a game of tennis.
Singapore relies on neighbouring Malaysia for about half of its water supply. But from time to time Singapore’s newspapers raise the spectre of a hostile regime in Malaysia turning off the tap. That seems unlikely, given the close ties between the two countries. Rather, Singapore’s move towards self-sufficiency for water seems to be prompted by pride. The two countries formed an unhappy and short-lived union in the 1960s, and have been bickering about the terms, causes and consequences of its dissolution ever since. Singaporean leaders, it seems, would rather drink their own purified effluent than rely on Malaysia for anything, while their Malaysian counterparts cannot resist the temptation to pick a populist fight with their former compatriots.
Two treaties, dating from 1961 and 1962, govern Malaysia’s sale of water to Singapore. They both fix the price at three Malaysian sen (less than one American cent) for every 1,000 gallons, although they provide for a review of that figure after 25 years. In the meantime, Singapore sells treated water back to the Malaysian state of Johor for 50 sen per 1,000 gallons. Johor does not have a treatment plant of its own. The arrangement benefits everyone: Malaysia is able to sell water that would otherwise simply flow into the sea; Singapore gets a cheap and reliable supply.
Too cheap, according the Malaysians, who want to invoke the price-review clause. They point out that water from the Chinese mainland is sold to Hong Kong for almost 100 times as much. Singapore, however, argues that the review could only have taken place in the 25th year of the contracts (that is, in 1986 and 1987), and not at any point thereafter. Anyway, it says, the subsidised rate at which it sells the treated water back to Johor more than makes up for the low purchase price. It is now threatening not to co-operate with Malaysia on other bilateral issues.
But the row is more than rhetorical. Singapore is going to vast expense to find an alternate water supply. In addition to the newater scheme, it has commissioned a desalination plant, and is building an elaborate drainage system to capture almost all the rain that falls on the island. The Malaysians are equally stubborn: Johor Bahru is building itself a pricey treatment plant, to put an end to its humiliating reliance on subsidised Singaporean water.
Such nationalist bluster goes down well in both countries. Malaysian youths have taken to protesting outside the Singaporean embassy in Kuala Lumpur, and are threatening to occupy an islet claimed by both countries. And the dispute at least provides local comedians with an endless supply of jokes.
The BBC, Neuwater and half the story.
Why has Beeb started referring to BURMA again? Could it be that when the PC pinkos at the beeb actually want people to care about the place, they know they have to use the name that people know, and not the absurd name the Generals have imposed?
George R: Fine. But did Paxo bother to ask why these people are in the UK in the first place?
Here’s an intersting little snippet, that I found linked from Iain Dale’s blog:
http://jamescleverly.blogspot.com/2008/05/and-what-is-your-concern-about-boris.html
Though I don’t think it will come as any form of surprise.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7389546.stm
Perhaps put another way, cuts in Fry’s huge BBC pay would be tragic.
No declared interest there then.
Well worth a whole self congratulatory article on the BBC website – not.
Utterly pathetic.
PKB:
Perhaps put another way, cuts in Fry’s huge BBC pay would be tragic.
Or not. Truth is that a performer of Fry’s versatility and public recognition can find work almost anywhere else in UK broadcasting – and further afield – and almost certainly at a higher income. People of Fry’s stature work, often for less than their maximum rate, at the BBC because it offers considerable creative advantages…
.
Unlike Fry & Bragg, old rocker Brian May appears to be putting budding BBC national treasure status in jeopardy
Will Brian May, the Queen guitarist and rock legend, save Planet Rock? The station is set for closure by GCap if a buyer is not found this month. In a statement on his website May said: “I am part of a small group of people who have great hopes that we will succeed in taking over the station and putting it on a firm footing for the benefit of its growing audience. I regard Planet Rock as rather more than just a radio station – it is a symbol of free radio.”
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article3889365.ec
Very newsworthy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7390235.stm
It even has a photo of Gordon doing his creepy smile.
“Truth is that a performer of Fry’s versatility and public recognition can find work almost anywhere else in UK broadcasting – and further afield – and almost certainly at a higher income.”
Splendid,off he goes then.
hillhunt,
Its true what they all say you are a troll that argues the BBC ‘case’ when even their own employees would blush don’t you.
Fry could earn an enormous salary elsewhere? then I suggest he does, soon as.
And takes Ross, Wogan and the rest of the massively overpaid lot with him.
What possible argument is there for taxpayer money that goes for public broadcasting going on megabucks salaries for ‘stars’ doing shows that could just as well be provided by commercial broadcasting.
And this when ordinary BBC workers face job cuts and pruning of their salaries and conditions.
Utterly pathetic.
I see Wee Jacqui has been given a prime spot to issue another platitudinous attempt to “re-connect” with the public by the BBC
“Harass young thugs, police urged”*
Whilst this report isn’t biased in itself (reporting a ministerial announcement) can’t any one of the highly paid BBC staff “who give you the analysis that you need” balance their editorialising of Conservative statements with a critique of this announcement. It is transparently a grab for the Daily Mail reader, post election melt down, and is entirely without substance. Nothing whatsoever will come of it: it will never be implemented in anything more than a single limited media-friendly ‘pilot’ scheme. Whats more the Government, if they actually cared could have done something like this years ago. A couple of days of ‘initiative’ will not cure the undelying problem (61% of ASBOs are broken according to the report) which has been generated by years of BBC endorsed social engineering
Personally, I am all for simple reporting – I can do the analysis myself: I do not need to understand things in the context of the BBC narrative. However, if Beeboids insist on serving me up a regular dose of healthy left-of-centre ‘analysis’- perhaps they could apply this policy in an even handed manner and unpick some of the laughable, inept, mendacious and deliberately misleading stuff I have seen over the last decade
*I assume that they have to fill out a 15 page form and accept liability for stress and anxiety claims for each “harassment episode” conducted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7389280.stm