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.
David | 11.06.08 – 10:39 am,
Yes, on the World Service yesterday the BBC hack in Berlin was talking about Berliners feeling that Bush’s departure would be a “good riddance.” That was his own opinion. Even the BBC felt that was a bit much because it had been edited out when they repeated the piece a few hours later.
But of course they still had the quotes from Germans disillusioned with Bush, unbalanced by any pro-Bush comments.
BBC hacks must hold up a sign when they walk the streets looking for people to echo their point of view:
Bush haters get on air here
New addition to Have your Say, Comrades:
‘What will Bush’s ‘farewell tour’ achieve?
US President George W Bush arrives in Germany on the latest leg his official tour of Europe. Is Bush’s trip worthwhile? ‘
After all, what else could we be talking about on the day the Irish vote in their referendum and the Cubans decide Marxism isn’t, after all, such a good idea?
Incidentally, I like this observation from Cuba’s vice minister for Labour explaining the decision to abandon salary equality:
‘The minister pointed out that the current wage system sapped employees’ incentives to excel since everyone earned the same regardless of performance.
“It’s harmful to give a worker less than he deserves, it’s also harmful to give him what he doesn’t deserve,” the newspaper article said.’
Why didn’t I think of that?
Sorry, link to the Cuba story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7449776.stm
As has the BBC, I have just ‘learned’, that the civil servant involved in the latest data loss scandal has been suspended, but it would seem to appear (at least as presented) that this is only after Prime Minister Brown ‘intervened’.
Now I can see why he needs to know about such stuff, but worry about the sensible running of the country if no hiring or firing decision in government seems possible without his say-so. Or at least until his spinners get a crack at telling the BBC to lay it all at his door first.
What on earth are the various ministers and/or departmental actually for then, save plotting and briefing media mates off record?
The irony is that this ‘PM takes charge’ scoop actually doesn’t make me think at all well of the organisational set-up at all.
No one person can micro-manage to this level, and if they try to the exclusion of any devolved responsibility, it’s no wonder that systems are shoddy and cock-ups inevitable.
Despite all the BBC’s misleading propaganda for its ‘mass immigration to the UK’ multicultural project:
“We’re struggling to cope with scale of migration, Government admits”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025666/Police-hospitals-struggling-cope-migrant-influx-WONT-extra-Government-cash.html
Hugh:
The Cubans have probably just stumbled across the basic logic of why Marxism doesn’t work:
If ten workers each produce ten bushels of wheat and are paid a guaranteed tenth of the total crop, they each get ten bushels.
But if one of those workers decides to slack off and reduce his effort by 50%, the total produced is 95 bushels and so each worker gets 9.5 bushels. The incentive for a lazy worker to maintain a 100% output is therefore minimum as he can half his effort and still receive almost the same pay, thanks to the non-lazy workers who support him.
Better use of relevant language here (e.g. ‘jihad’ and ‘sharia law’) by BBC in this report of action of some Muslims:
“‘Scottish Islamic state plotted'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7449797.stm
Cannot the BBC report more on the plight of Chrtistians in Islamic countries? The BBC does have many reporters in such countries. Are their reporters there not aware/sympathetic to such oppressed minorities?:
1.)Egypt:
“It’s ‘Open Season’ on Egypt’s Copts”
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD195508
2.)Algeria:
“Stop ‘witchcraft trials’ for Christians in Algeria”
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD195408
Baggie,
I never said this should be a Conservative fan club. But since you were expressing your opinion on this issue, I simply expressed mine. Maybe the polls might take a hit, but I still think the Tories made the right decision.
Following on from this story, I’ve been reading the HYS. The first page of comments – i.e. the most recommended – are all negative and criticise the government. What quote do the BBC use:
“The 42 day period is too short and should be indefinite.”
So the BBC seem to be suggesting that people want the government to go further. It’s a sort of pat on the back accompanied by a ‘we must do more’ hint.
No time for a link now, but anyone interested in the BBC’s bias against America should catch Owen Bennet Jones on yesterday’s Newshour re the Pakistani soldiers’ deaths.
When a female American lieutenant colonel would not be chastised by OBJ and immediately acknowledge guilt in the incident he was practically spluttering with incredulous indignation, while earlier he had accepted the Pakistani version without question.
This morning on line BBC headline
‘Gaddafi attacks Obama on Israel’
It is a question ‘do BBC love Obama more than they hate Israel’. It seems they hate Israel more. BBC trying to influence Obama not to tie up with Israel. This inconsequential story should not even have made a murmur as all Muslim states obviously don’t want Obama to be pro Israel yet BBC make it into a headline. Pure unadulterated biased anti Israel.
“‘Scottish Islamic state plotted'”
Excellent idea – how about Gruinard?
It is typical of the BBC that in its coverage of the UK’s nuclear power stations it entrusts the reporting to its “Environmental correspondent”, Richard Black; the reporting is not presented by any engineering expert.
The word ‘plot’ in the headlines slants the BBC report:
“Ministers plot UK nuclear future”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7450479.stm
Lemar,
Indeed.
And in the spirit of balance, Mr Gaddaffi’s remarks (MR Gaddafi!) are balanced against those of the anonymous US authorities.
“In addition, Mr Gaddafi suggested Mr Obama’s comments may have been informed by a fear of assassination by Israeli agents, “the same fate as [former US President John F] Kennedy when he promised to look into Israel’s nuclear programme”.
Conspiracy theories abound about Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, which the US authorities say was carried out by a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald.”
One of the most biased articles I’ve read in years. Written as a disaster for the Conservatives. I’ve never read such a ‘truth are lies’ piece in my life…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450983.stm
Grimer
The article you refer to contains this gem:
Then, out he came, and made what can only be described as a most bizarre statement justifying his decision.
But doesn’t say what, in the writer’s opinion, is bizarre about the statement.
Interestingly, Nick Robinson also spins it as “a very dangerous time for David Cameron indeed”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2008/06/unpredictable_politics.html#commentsanchor
but most commenters shoot him down over that.
Regarding Davis, the BBC are lining up all manner of people to say it’s a stupid decision, including that lover of the Tories Michael Crick.
Sky went to his constituency, where the consensus was a clear “good on him”.
I lodged a complaint about the “From Our Own Correspondent” discussed here:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2008/06/bbc-is-not-biased.html
Here’s the BBC response:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/190244521193263191/?a=49378#403942
“Then, out he came, and made what can only be described as a most bizarre statement justifying his decision.”
I ve jus been watching News24, and waiting breathlessly for the ‘bizarre’ bit, when I realised the statement had ended. It seemed fairly sensible to me.
Mind you, at 5.11 pm, we had (I think) James Langdale commenting on the whole thing. ‘Marvellous news for Labour’ apparently. David Cameron is going to be caught on the hop and ‘Having to support Davis’ during the by-election. Can’t see why that’s a problem.
And, according to James, other parties will be staying away, including, rather oddly, the SNP.
He claims to have seen Labour Ministers shaking their fists in triumph at the whole thing, because the whole affair is such a triumph for them. But he furrowed his brow when explaining that 99% of the ‘BBC audience’ seem to be firmly behind Davis. ‘It seems Westminster are slightly out of tune with the rest of the country.’ Understatement of the year?
Re Davis
At last some people in England will have the opportunity to express their opinion on having Habeas Corpus, an essential component of English identity, comprehensively trashed by a Scottish prime minister with the help of Scottish MPs.
Oh, and the folks in the constituency will welcome the extra business from the visiting hack pack. Though there are some pubs in Howden I’d warn any visiting Beeboid about. Or perhaps not. It’s not a part of the world noted for its vibrant multiculturalism. Just the opposite….
Yes. The BBC are having a right go at Davis. He’s “flounced off like a spoilt kid” or “he’s lost the plot” are just two beeboid quotes.
“He used to be in the SAS” quoted one being interviewed by dopey Maitlis. “Who Dares Wins”. “Oh yes, replied Maitlis, I remember Michael Portillo saying that as well (snigger) it didn’t sound very good then”
The BBC NEWS 24 lot keep saying that most emails are supporting Daivs, but as usual they are not reading them out!!!!!!!!!
Lots of comment about David Davis and as Grimer has linked:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450983.stm
I see that this is written by Jo Coburn, Political correspondent, BBC News.
That would be the Jo Coburn of deep voice, short haircut, very sensible shoes and mannish build would it?
No lover of the Tories there then.
I also noticed the BBC had a story about Cameron being heckled in Cornwall? Why are the BBC bigging this up?
Cameron is not the PM.
Could you imagine the BBC even mentioning the fact someone might heckle McBean, not that he ever gets close enough to the great unwashed British public!
Cameron being interviewed live re Davis gets interupted by a man wanting to talk about his healthcare experiences of treatment for a hiatus hernia. This gets a rather strange headline by the BBC
David Cameron heckled in Cornwall
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7451178.stm
PS unfortunate that Davis’s departure results in promotion for terrorist sympathiser Grieve.
The only thing that surprises me about this is that it’s taken the BBC so long:
The BBC has commissioned Oxford Scientific Films to produce Science And Islam, a three-part documentary set to air on UK digital channel BBC4 in 2009.
http://www.c21media.net/resources/detail.asp?area=100&article=42363
BBC promotes the latest bit of Blood Libel charges against Israelis.
This time, the BBC has posted amateur video footage of four Israeli settlers allegedly beating up Palestinian oldies.
Four masked men, the camera flies all over the place and you can’t see anything, but the BBC is happy to put it up on their website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7451691.stm
Any questions?
David Preiser: Spot on. If this had been a video of someone claiming they had been beaten up by 4 Muslims, do you think it would have been reported that way?
The report is a disgrace. It could be anyone behind those masks.
The BBC is just full of crap.
Lets hope the planned BBC doc [see above] ‘Science And Islam’ is not just another propaganda exercise like the govt funded ‘www.1001inventions.com’ [promoted in a school near you] which is full of… well, lies.
Did you know that glass and arches are products of Islam? Forget about the Romans eh?
Yes. Lots of lies about Islam. They defeated the Spanish Armada you know!
Another day in the UK, another Islamic jihad conviction:
1.)BBC report:
“21/7 plotter’s wife gets 15 years”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7451354.stm
2.)’Jihadwatch report and comment:
“London jihadist’s wife gets 15 years for not reporting bomb plots”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021376.php
Does Shirley Williams have a season pass to the QT panel by any chance?
BBC Questiontime: Yet again Nu Labour Minister gets a patsy off Dimbleby and gets to spout what he likes whilst other panelists get told to shut up.
Hopeless.
“Does Shirley Williams have a season pass to the QT panel by any chance?”
It was in her pension arrangements.
Just a point. Everytime Obama does a live speech and I catch it I will report if the BBC carried it live. Same for McCain.
Obama had a live speech carried on News 24 earlier on this week. MCcain has one right now (on Fox News). BBC News 24. Nothing.
Marcus Brigstock giving the case for the Lisbon Treaty on “This Week” mentions ‘Murdoch press’, ‘wars’ and “America”. Why is it that BBC comedians are continually given a voice by the BBC’s political arm?
Bridgstock is an idiot. His argument was pathetic. Why does the BBC think that an “idiot” has a point of view we are interested in?
Also when the lefties spout on about how the EU has prevented war in europe, they are lying. It’s NATO that has done that, an organisation the left hate.
It’s NATO in Afghanistan and it was NATO in Kosovo.
Last month BBC environment correspondent David Shukman did one of his trademark alarmist reports about climate change, this one on drought in Spain. I commented at the time: “What’s the betting Spain will have record rainfall this year?”
This is from last Saturday’s Guardian (emphasis added):
After the recent heavy rains, the authorities in Catalonia have lifted emergency measures, including a hose-pipe ban, cutting supplies to beach showers and fines for filling swimming pools.
The restrictions still exist in 49 smaller towns in the region. Angel Rivera, of the Spanish national meteorological institute, said the drought was caused by exceptionally low rainfall between November and April, “but May has been the wettest since 1971“.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/07/spain.water
I’m led to believe that under such circumstances it is customary to issue the following statement: “Heh!”
Here’s a classic regarding the Irish vote on the EU treaty:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7452171.stm
Our correspondent says that many voters seem to have voted No for the simple reason that they did not understand the treaty, despite a high-profile Yes campaign led by Prime Minister Brian Cowen which had the support of most of the country’s main parties..
So, not because they didn’t like it but because they’re thick!
And I’ve just spotted this in the sidebar:
Voting No because you don’t know… is an idea that seems a long way from the dispassionate debates in Brussels
Jonny Dymond
BBC correspondent, Dublin
The editor of Newsnight has posted a not terribly convincing defence of the Spelman story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/06/on_the_line_and_on_the_level.html
In truth, I feel a little sorry for him because the worst thing about the incident was not the report itself, but rather the prominence it got across the BBC. Having said that, I’ve got no time for Crick.
Jane Hill on BBC News 24 covering the vote in Ireland. Looks like it might be a NO vote (Yippee!) she seemed totally gutted at the thought.
How DARE ireland do this to the great european project, one that the BBC is so in love with (and gets money from)
Any chance of a new one of these somewhere near the top?
Roland Deschain: I like this bit from the report as well:
“Fourteen countries have completed ratification so far… Just over three million Irish voters are registered – in a European Union of 490 million people.”
Gosh, what could he be getting at?
Seems a tiny minority has had the gall to veto the whole thing. Only problem with that interpretation is that there are large numbers in far bigger countries that would also oppose it. Why did Sarkozy say they wouldn’t be having a referendum again? Oh yes, because they’d lose.
Also, if you are setting out to write a balanced report, it’s possibly not the best approach to get comments from four groups supporting the treaty and only from one that’s against it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7452171.stm
Yes. The BBC doesn’t seem to understand democracy does it?
Funny that it looks like a big no vote, yet the BBC had a problem (so they tell us) finding people that were against it. Did they actually get out of the BBC office in Dublin?
The BBC igones the fact that millions of people across europe oppose the EU.
Jonny Dymond will need to skin up an extra big joint to ease the pain.
Seems a tiny minority has had the gall to veto the whole thing.
Let’s not count chickens yet.
Oh, hang on. I hadn’t seen this:
Irish minister says EU vote lost
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7452171.stm
Roland Deschain | 13.06.08 – 10:24 am |
So, not because they didn’t like it but because they’re thick!
That’s funny because just the other day some us heard a BBC report about this, and the reporter told us that both sides were keeping the public in the dark. Yet, the vox pops, while saying they didn’t know enough about it, seemed to indicate it was only the “Yes” side which they were unsure of. The Beeboid sure seemed convinced that the only way people could vote “No” is if they just didn’t understand the issue properly.
The BBC smelled a “No” vote, and did their homework to prepare the defense.