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.
The Beeb’s articles on Chavez and Venezuela are indeed fawning and gushing when you consider their overwhelmingly positive tone and stark reluctance to dwell on (or in many cases, even mention) the many deeply sinister aspects of his regime.
I found this passage from Chavez’s profile amusing:
In September 2006, Mr Chavez delivered a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in which referred to US President George W Bush as “the devil”.
The speech was met with applause in the UN, but was roundly condemned by US politicians and pundits.
The insinuation being: the only ones who disagreed with his portrayal of Bush as the devil were Americans. Were US politicians and pundits the only ones to criticize the speech? Of course they weren’t, yet the Beeb makes every attempt here to suggest that they were.
I also love the way the profile conveniently neglects to mention Chavez’s forced takeover of a private TV station he felt was against him…of course the nationalization of a country’s media is not something anyone at the BBC is going to see anything wrong with.
this “news” was so incredibly interesting to uk ceefax readers that it was placed at no.7.
yes , apossible minor infringement of airspace of an obscure country several thousand miles away was the seventh most important story and the no.1 world news story.
no room for mention of the venezuelan army incursion into guyana in december 2007 when they blew up 2 gold mining dredges.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/world/americas/12venez.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
bbc news: half the facts, all the time
my mistake !
al beeb did cover the story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7099476.stm
in true beeb tradition they, of course, printed the venezuelan rebuttal rather than the original allegations !
“Venezuela has demanded”…
shouldn’t that be “The Chavez administration has demanded”? 😉
Funny how Chavez gets elected in very dubious circumstances yet speaks for Venezuela but Bush doesn’t speak for the USA.
Well judging by this little stunt, the BBC have taken the moral high ground on immigration, and intend to smuggle yet more “New Labour voters” into the Country to protect their ailing government.
UTTER DISGRACE!!!!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article1183905.ece
The facts that the US ‘fessed up to the mistake, no military standoff occured and it’s being dealt with by a ceremonial ticking off for the ambassador all suggest this is a very minor incident. Must be a slow news days – only a few hundred thousand dying in Asia….
Does anyone else here ever feel that it is probable that a parallel Philby, Burgess, McLean ,Blunt, style infiltration of communist sleepers into the intelligence community, also took place at the bbc ?
Think about it, both services probably recruited from very similar backgrounds and if you were a Soviet strategist it would be a very valuable tool.
Half a dozen sympathisers, beavering away for 20 years, reaching the higher management levels and able to subtly influence recruiting and house culture – just a thought, but worth exploring.
You are almost exactly right, backwoodsman. I don’t believe it was quite as orchestrated as it sounds – and more probably came about due to BBC recruitment policies, as you suggest, but the rot started in the 1950s and has spread since.
The source of the infection was Oxbridge but it has since disseminated so widely that almost any graduate recruit to the ‘meejah classes’ will come with his mind pre-packed and ready to ‘fight the good fight’ (copyright Peter Allen in a recent, unguarded moment on R5 ‘Live’).
I know Venezuelans it is in a real mess.
It is great shame that Venezuelans who do not like Chavez can not swap their passport for UK citizens who love Chavez.
It would be good for all concerned – until the Chavez lovers tried to buy any milk (Venezuela does not have much).
hmmmmm
As ‘The Economist’ usually takes the time to point out in its articles, Venezuela was pretty abysmally governed pre-Chavez, with the right as culpable as anyone. He didn’t get elected because everyone was happy and smiling aboard the free market bus.
I agree that he skates very close to the edges of democratic acceptability and he’s basically screwed when the oil price goes down but to portray him as some oppressor of a previously free and happy people is plain wrong.
You’re doing it again David. Two or three inches of post, of which most is getting angry over the story, a little bit is wild speculation as to what you think the BBC believes, and one sentence looks at the wording of the BBC’s report:
“You can just tell how in sympathy the BBC writer of this report was in the admiring tone that Chavez “is a fierce critic of Washington.””
What would you prefer? “Chavez has been known to mildly rebuke the United States on occasion”, “Chavez is an anti-American madman with no more right to live on God’s green earth than a weasel”, or maybe “Chavez is known for his strong rhetoric on the US”? The part you quoted is a simple statement of fact, I don’t know what more you want.
Like the good leftists they are, most BBC hacks never met a commie dictator they didn’t love.
I wonder how many Ernie Guevera posters they have proudly displayed on the walls of al-Beeb Towers?
Let’s not forget the BBC’s continued attempts to assure the British Public that their hero could never be really connected to FARC for any reasons other than a pure humanitarian effort.
Not to mention other factual elisions to keep his reputation intact in the minds of the taxpayers.
Compare and contrast.
Hugo rules OK at BH!
Talking about country’s led by Communists…
Is anyone monitoring the BBC coverage of the anti-Immigrant race murders currently rampaging through South Africa?
Mmmm, seems unlike us, black South Africans have an unusual way of expressing their displeasure at others entering their country. They burn and hack them.
That must be painful for the BBC mindset which only sees racism in sees white, working class Brits, and Americans who don’t have an Obamagasm over a classic huckster who’s merely a Euro-style socialist slash quasi- Marxist.
But I’m sure, somewhere in the BBC bowels there’s a BBC producer working on ways to blame you and me..
You’re doing it again David. Two or three inches of post, of which most is getting angry over the story…
So Angry Young Victoria, er Alex, rants about someone else getting erm, angry!
“Does anyone else here ever feel that it is probable that a parallel Philby, Burgess, McLean ,Blunt, style infiltration of communist sleepers into the intelligence community, also took place at the bbc”.
Of course,the Comintern targeted the media and Academe.
Nothing wrong with David getting angry, Anonymous. I’d just be more convinced if he included more stuff to do with the BBC’s reporting in with it. This post was another case of 95% imaginary bias.
This isn’t the view from Chavez’s colon?
The BBC’s James Ingham in Caracas says it comes at a time of increased tension in the region, with both the US and Colombia accusing Venezuela of financing the left-wing Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc).
Colombia says various documents prove that Venezuela has funded the rebels. Mr Chavez insists he has never provided any support.
The US violation of Venezuelan airspace comes two days after a similar claim was made against Colombia.
The Bogota government denied that its troops had crossed into Venezuelan territory on Friday.
Our correspondent says the latest row will further increase tension between Venezuela and two countries it clearly sees as threats.
Once again, the incident is framed entirely with “It’s the fault of the US” as a frame of reference. So, it’s just “documents”, BBC? Not documents on laptops captured from FARC? And it’s only the accusations of Chavez’s involvement with FARC that are causing the tensions, not the other way round?
On second thought, I could be wrong. This incident was caused by a plane involved in counter-narcotics operations. So, perhaps a few Beeboids are just angry at the US for trying to curtail their supply of a certain white powder favored by an increasingly public number of BBC employees.
Either way, it’s just blaming the US for causing all the trouble.
I have made this point before. I am making it again in the vain hope that this time someone might read and properly understand it.
THIS IS A FASCIST COUNTRY.
It has long since been one. It is now part of a FASCIST European Super state, and there is perfectly nothing we or any of our elected governments can or will do about it.
Understand this and you understand just about all you really need to understand, about politics and many other things.
The BBC is not Marxist, Communist, Marxist Communist or even Socialist, in any way that we may think we understand the meaning of these terms. Mainly because we do not understand the meaning of these terms, but also because the BBC can not possibly be any of these things under any circumstances imaginable.
The BBC does however spout ideas and individuals honest opinions that have plenty in common with these ideologies. This because the one thing the BBC as a corporation can not take the chance on letting the people know is, quite how much the BBC is the biggest, most experienced and most incredibly well funded propaganda mouthpiece for world wide corporate FASCISM there is or has ever been.
In other words the BBC makes no obvious logical sense because its job is basically causing chaos by confusing the public to death. While doing exactly what it is told to do, by the people that allow it to carry on steeling from and generally intimidating to the point of inhuman cruelty, the great unwashed.
It was not The Germans, The Italians, The Japanese or even The Americans that invented modern day International FASCISM. It was The British Empire.
[The original concept coming from Egypt, but possibly far far earlier then that.]
Now Fascism has many of its good points for the common man, but ultimately only under certain circumstances.
These being when the people are protected by a cast in granite stone constitution, that protects individual property rights, liberty, and prosperity.
We in Britain do not have one of these things, we have The British Constitution. Which over the last 11 years especially has shown itself not to be worth even the non existent paper it is NOT even written on.
Democracy can be handy, but only if the voting public are properly educated and have a free un bias media from which to form rational constructive liberal conclusions, that restrain the worst inclinations of the people who are really in control of things. Our democracy has never really done this consistently or for long in the past, but generally speaking the British people in particular could be said to have been reasonably lucky.
However now the only people we have a choice to elect, take their orders entirely from places way above the ordinary people of any individual nations, heads.
Therefore thanks in no small part to the BBC, but not forgetting AP Reuters News Corp and others. Expecting democracy to protect individual liberty, is like expecting 4 dead ducks to win an Olympic 400 meter swimming relay, while wrapped up in a pancake smothered in hou-sin.
The above is now I hope finally self apparent to even the most house bound, deaf, dumb and blind brainwashed University graduate.
It is now as simple as falling off a slippery log in a force 10 thunder storm to understand where The BBC gets ALL of its agenda’s from. Which, apart from a few minor details, and not at all coincidently, is the same place all of our electable western political parties and The EU get theirs.
If you can not guess where that is, perhaps its best you don’t bother to find out now, its far too late anyway?
What the hell have you been smoking?
Any person who throws around the word “fascist” with such gay abandon losses all credibility.
The only thing missing from your little rant is comparing bush or blair to hitler [insert rolling eyes]. But I guess you did make up for that omission by throwing in something about the British Empire being to blame for fascism!
Mailman
Atlas: Yes, and your point is? None of that is news to us here. We’re all part of the conspiracy. I thought you knew that?
“Does anyone else here ever feel that it is probable that a parallel Philby, Burgess, McLean ,Blunt, style infiltration of communist sleepers into the intelligence community, also took place at the bbc”.
Of course,the Comintern targeted the media and Academe.”
And they were completely successful.
Why are multiculturalists so irrational? Why are cartoonists, buskers, children arrested for “disturbing social peace”? Why don’t they believe that 2+2= 4 or that black is black and white is white and up is up and down is down?
(Or, that A=A in the terms of formal logic, as opposed to dialectical logic where the only constant is “change” as Obama is quick to say, and for that reason there is no “A” for the thing could be called “A” stops existing because it changes)
Here’s a video of KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov explaining all.
Do bare in mind that Cultural Marxists (enemy propagandists) declared reason and reality to be “authoritarian weapons”.
Or as Ayn Rand put it:
“Reason and morality are the only weapons that determine the course of history; the collectivists dropped them because they had no right to carry them. Pick them up; you have.”
Or as Korky Butterworth put it:
“You need to get yourself a bigger farkin’ letterbox”
Korky is my postman. His name isn’t really Korky. I just put that there to lend it some credibility.
I had a cat called “Cultural Marxist” once.
Oh no wait. He was called “Tiddywings”. And he had a gammy eye.
Atlas shrugged | 20.05.08 – 10:09 pm |,
You’re not so far off this time, I fear. Have you read about this this?
Good to see some have read it and those that have, have understood.
Please also try to understand it is not just hard, it is impossible to state the things I do without sounding like a very patronizing git. I am well aware that this blog is not run or populated by morons or fools, far from it.
IMO
Libertarianism is the only morality worth the name. Without which we are little more then farmed animals.
Ayn Rand was a complicated character, to say the least. Many have, in my opinion correctly, described her personally as a Fascist. However her personal opinions are her own business, as are our own.
She understood and expressed well the dangers of collectivism to the human condition, better then anyone living or dead. The obvious fact she could not write a novel to save her life is of little consequence.
Atlas Shrugged was FAR FAR more then a great work of ‘fictional’ social science. It was THE blueprint for the future of mankind. Full of subtle warnings of not what might happen, but what would happen without a shadow of a doubt, or more to the point what had already happened. This because the people that commissioned her works where the very people who did then, and still are now running this planet.
These people control all sides of the political debate, even I am sad to say the Libertarian one. Which is why the people must be made aware that they are being micro mind controlled and that virtually nothing they think they understand, they do understand.
The only thing we have they don’t yet entirely dominate is the individuals free human spirit. Expressed well by the terms common sense and natural human emotions.
If it seems like a bad idea it is generally a bad idea. If you have to listen to a member of a political party or a representative of the BBC for example, to help you form an opinion on any matters, its most likely too late for you already.
My advice for what it is worth. Is to trust your own self in every action and thought. Put yourself and that of those you love before the perceived interests of anonymous others. Never let your interests be sacrificed for those that would lie and murder just because they can, without the loss of so much as a seconds sleep.
Depressed? You all should be. The only good news is it will all be over sooner then you all might have hoped.
If there is any hope left. It is only be getting this message over to more and more people. You never know the bastards might just lose their nerve at the last moment, and spare us.
Atlas:
How can anyone describe Ayn Rand personally as a “fascist”? I understand that there were perhaps unsavory (and inconsistent) aspects of the way she conducted herself personally, but is “fascist” really an appropriate term? It just seems like too many people misuse the word to describe anyone they see as too opinionated or intolerant of other’s views.
The root of the word “fascism”, from Italian, means “union” and expresses a collectivist ideal. Its political manifestation holds the collective as primary, whether nationalist or racial.
In light of this, I cannot see that the word applies in any way to Rand, who believed that racism and nationalism were primitive forms of tribalism.
Whatever she was in her private life, “fascist” is not an appropriate word. It’s now become a word that leftists typically use to describe anyone they wish to smear as mean or evil.
The BBC is not Marxist, Communist, Marxist Communist or even Socialist, in any way that we may think we understand the meaning of these terms. Mainly because we do not understand the meaning of these terms
Speak for yourself “we.” I understand these terms perfectly, and you are incorrect.
Fascism or as I prefer to call it, National Socialism, is merely one of the assorted collectivist, totalitarian ideologies. Whether these movements call themselves communist, fascist, socialist — is irrelevant.
All these bastard children of socialism are evil twins separated at birth. They all lead to the same end: crushing the individual in the name of the so-called “collective.”
Call England and Europe fascist if it rocks your boat, but it’s the same old socialism.
You are making a distinction without a difference, and it’s pretty redundant.
Your constant reference to
The root of the word “fascism”, from Italian, means “union” and expresses a collectivist ideal.
The root is actually fascio, which means a bundle of sticks, interestingly first used by the left:
Fascio (plural: fasci) is an Italian word that was used in the late 19th century to refer to extremist political groups of many different (and sometimes opposing) orientations. A number of nationalist fasci later evolved into the 20th century movement known as fascism.
During the 19th century, the bundle of rods, in Latin called fasces and in Italian fascio, came to symbolize strength through unity, the point being that whilst each independent rod was fragile, as a bundle they were strong. By extension, the word fascio came in modern Italian political usage to mean group, union, band or league. It was first used in this sense in the 1870s by groups of revolutionary democrats and socialists in Sicily, to describe themselves. The most famous of these groups was the Fasci Siciliani during 1895•96.[1] Thereafter, the word retained revolutionary connotations. It was these connotations which made it attractive, for example, to young nationalists of leftist background who demanded Italian intervention in World War I. The fasci they formed were scattered over Italy, and it was to one of these spontaneously created groups, devoid of party affiliations, that Benito Mussolini belonged.
The fascio symbol is still used as part of the Spanish Guardia Civil’s emblem:
http://www.insigniaspoliciales.com/index.php?main_page=popup_image&pID=234
“I wonder how many Ernie Guevera posters they have proudly displayed on the walls of al-Beeb Towers?”
It is said that the appalling Yentob has a bust of Lenin in his office. In fact, I am pretty sure I saw a photograph of it behind the lunatic grin of Yentob himself.
I see that the reprehensible NR still exists, still visits, and still runs away like the coward he is from answering my questions.
“It is now part of a FASCIST European Super state, and there is perfectly nothing we or any of our elected governments can or will do about it”
Our elected government can very easily tell the EU to bugger off. Brussels will not send over squadrons of bombers to flatten our cities any time soon.
Jack Bauer,
I think there is something to Atlas Shrugged’s accusations of the BBC et al. being fascist. I would say more that they were showing fascist tendencies, but there is a grain of truth there.
You’re right that they are now grounded in something not so far from National Socialism, and I agree with your point about the collectivism connection. However, I have noticed myself that the new generation of Leftoids – at the BBC, in media in general, and in the general public – are beginning to display certain fascist traits without batting an eyelash.
There are far too many examples lately of Leftoids demanding that one must not only agree with them on the topic at hand, but with all topics, full stop (funny how individualism gets tossed aside so quickly by “progressives” and other “free thinkers”). Total assent (submission?) to the entire ideology is required, otherwise one gets the standard “you evil, right-wing…”
I think it may have something to do with the fact that those who adhere so slavishly to the type of socialism we’re talking about do so because of emotion, rather than rational thought. Believing in certain ideologies makes one “feel good”, whether they are really correct or not. I’m sure you know what I mean.
With this concept in mind, it’s a pretty short step to jingoism and foaming at the mouth (often repeated verbatim by so many of them, which is a bit of a giveaway) any time someone challenges the emotional status quo. Hence my contention that AS has something of a point re: fascism at the BBC. Or, at least, fascist tendencies.
A reasonable in-depth discussion can be found in Jonah Goldberg’s recent book Liberal Fascism. I must point out, though, that I’ve been thinking along these lines long before this book came out, and am most certainly not just regurgitating something new I learned in school today. I’ve probably made comments here along these lines long before this book came out.
Hey David…
I think AS keeps saying the UK and the EU is “fascist,” not just the BBC. The leftist bogeyman term. It’s no more fascist than communist, IMHO.
I think they’re both utterly devalued, empty terms — unfortunately we are still stuck with the political wings established by the French Assembly seating arrangements circa 1792.
I prefer to ascribe totalitarian, socialist, collectivist mindsets versus libertarian, conservative, capitalist, individualistic folks.
al-Beeb is certainly the willing propaganda arm of the left-wing State. That state is currently a variant of bureaucratic socialism on a line that has the USSR at one end. They are all moving in the same direction.
Some call that fascist — but shit by another name is still shit.
“I must point out, though, that I’ve been thinking along these lines long before this book came out”
Well, yes, mate; I have been saying for a great many years that the collectiv(e)(ist) ideology of the so-called ‘liberal’ (LOL) left ‘intelligentsia’ (ROFL) exhibits a very strong fascist pong, for the reasons you so ably expoind on above.
Jack Bauer | Homepage | 23.05.08 – 6:50 pm |
Some call that fascist — but shit by another name is still shit.
I tend to think of fascism more as methodology than as a philosophy unto itself. But I sure can’t argue with you here.
What really annoys me in the US is that today’s American “liberals” are nothing of the sort. Classic liberals were more like the libertarians of today and believed strongly in the inalienable rights of the individual, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, and the economic freedom which is encapsulated in capitalism.
Sometime around the late 60’s the Marxists began to call themselves liberals, hiding as they were from a name which is forever associated with more deaths than any ideology has ever created. Now “liberal” means anything BUT freedom of speech and freedom of choice.
Todays liberals denounce economic freedom, they denounce the right of the individual to dispose of his or her wealth how they choose, they support enforced socialized medicine, they support speech codes, thought codes (see hate crime legislation) and actively do everything they can to deprive the individual of their “right to choose”.
The only instances in which todays leftist liberals respect and fight for the right of the individual to choose are within the subjects of sexual freedom and abortion. Then, all of a sudden, the right of the individual to choose is “sacred”.
The distinction is clear to me. Leftists will fight tooth and nail for the freedom to follow their own savage instincts and primeval gratification, but will fight tooth and nail to deny the freedom of the thinking person to pursue a life of reason. Drug-crazed anal sex is an inalienable right, but making a rational decision about how to dispose of your own money in the best interests of you and your family is not.
The root of all human conflict is a battle between reason and emotion – always has been and always will be. The left, who now call themselves “liberals”, are on the side of emotion and plan to fight to the death (of reason).
jason | 24.05.08 – 7:14 am |
Yes, well said.