! 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 Preiser (USA):
China Love is back in full swing on the BBC. The fancy China Tourism Bureau ads have been going on BBC America for some time now, and there have already been a couple of warm fuzzies sent China’s way by reporters.
Now Radio 3 is starting it’s two weeks of exploration of the wonders of Chinese arts. Today’s Performance on 3 will be a very boring Chinese orchestral suite. I know it’s boring because this is a re-broadcast of an April concert which I’ve already heard.)”
Being the venal opportunists they are, the Beeboids and the wider cultural Left disparage the authority & power they wish to have themselves, but will fawn shamelessly before that which is too implacable and/or foreign to appease them.
I haven’t heard any music out of China that didn’t strike me as just Oriental kitsch demonstrative of the gulf between that country’s international profile and its artistic sophistication (contrast this with Japan).
Who wants to be a BBC editor…
Two stories that broke about the same time: decide which one goes on the front page of the news website:
A) Media doctor admits to plagiarism
Psychiatrist and broadcaster Dr Raj Persaud admits charges of plagiarism…
B) Bush and Brown’s warning to Iran: Gordon Brown and President George Bush have warned Iran to accept their “offers of partnership” or face tough sanctions…
I’m afraid if you opted for B, you’re sadly mistaken. The correct place for that, of course, is tucked away on the Politics page.
See, it’s not that easy after all, is it?
George R | 16.06.08 – 2:42 pm
“William Dalrymple’s Bad Day”
Watching Jeremy Paxman kowtow to the odious Tariq Ramadan and Marr to the vile William Dalrymple, both with fake credentials that make Lee McQueen look positively cherubic, you have to ask just how superficial and tardy is the ‘intelligence’ that dredges these people up to act as spokespersons.
Someone commented recently that they use a ‘little black book’ of names, most of which are Shami Chakrabarti, which they use over and over. When certain subjects come up they always dash off to the same old same old, and frequently unrepresentative, ‘experts.’
I know this is true.
The way William Dalrymple speaks, part sneer, part snob, does it for me. His pronounciation of the English language exudes reverence for Islam with overtones of antisemitism. Unity Mitford meets AA Gill if you get my drift.
Reimer | 16.06.08 – 7:20 pm |
I haven’t heard any music out of China that didn’t strike me as just Oriental kitsch demonstrative of the gulf between that country’s international profile and its artistic sophistication (contrast this with Japan).
I can easily think of three Chinese composers who are way above that stuff, but they operate mostly in the West, and probably don’t count to the BBC.. One of them, Tan Dun, will be featured as part of a Wigmore Hall concert of otherwise Western composers.
But in general you’re right. Today’s exhibit certainly fits that category. It’s all mostly nationalistic and folk-based stuff for the next two weeks. The one possible exception might be the New Music program from the other day. I haven’t checked it out yet, but I will before it goes away.
Good point about Japan, although they do have a niche genre that’s just as bad.
Just watched “From Jail to Jihad”.
Hmmmm….
I wasn’t entirely convinced by the “radical but not too extremist” Brixton Imam myself.
The idea of the govt shoving millions towards people like him to “de-radicalise” disaffected youths fills me with disquiet somehow.
Is he part of the solution – or part of the problem?
Yes and seeing Hazel Blears is enough to turn anyone to extremism!!!!
David Preiser (USA) | 16.06.08 – 6:26 pm
David, can you provide more identifying information on that broadcast?
simon,
It was today’s World Have Your Say. Click on the Monday programme link on this page:
http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/whys-faqs/listen-again/
Oh, did I mention it starts off with a LIE?
“AS Israel has tighted it’s siege on Gaza…”
I have just watched, incredulously, Nick Robinson on the BBC’s News At Ten, present a feature which was perhaps the most nakedly biased of any I have seen this year.
While it is right and proper for us to show respect for the five British soldiers killed in Afghanistan, whose bodies were returned to the UK today, there is simply no justification for introducing a segment ostensibly about President Bush’s final official visit to the UK. with lengthy footage of the ceremony.
Nor is here any excuse for the sneering tone adopted by Robinson and certainly none for his cheap shot that Afghanistan is a war ‘started by George Bush’.
Unless my memory fails me, it was not George Bush who ordered aeroplanes to be flown into office buildings, nor Bush who provided succour to the psychopath who did, Bin Laden.
Marr was bad, but Robinson and his fellow travellers at the BBC have just raised the bar for biased reporting even higher.
Or do I mean lower?
Nick Robinson is why brothers and sisters should never marry.
This is especially for Andrew Marr, and his outstanding dhimmi performance with William Dalrymple on BBC Radio 4 ‘Start the Week’ today:
” Islamophobia ”
(by Hugh Fitzgerald):
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/11102/sec_id/11102
Thanks David.
GCooper | 16.06.08 – 10:23 pm |
Nor is here any excuse for the sneering tone adopted by Robinson and certainly none for his cheap shot that Afghanistan is a war ‘started by George Bush’.
Unless my memory fails me, it was not George Bush who ordered aeroplanes to be flown into office buildings, nor Bush who provided succour to the psychopath who did, Bin Laden.
Ha! This is exactly what I said they were doing, and “ColinChase” took issue with my claim, even going so far as to tell me that the fact that we were in Afghanistan in the first place in response to 9/11 was neither relevant nor interesting.
And now here we have the BBC’s own Nick Robinson telling us that Afghanistan is just a “Bush war”. Put that in your contrarian pipe and smoke it, CC. Or is it HH?
Just watched Michael Prick on Newsnight.
Apparently the only big political story worth covering this week is still whether Caroline Spelman paid her nanny a few quid ten years ago – before New Labour put politics on the shining pinnacle of incorruptibility it’s occupied ever since.
Interesting sidelight I’ve discovered on “Mr Incorruptibility” Crick:-
Since he attracted criticism over political bias last week, his Wikipedia entry has been stealth edited to remove the fact that he was so close to Labour that they offered him the safe seat of Bootle after he left Oxford.
He eventually declined it in favour of a career in journalism – ending up with all his other Labour mukkers at the beeb.
I’d like to take my hat off to JRSIHG for his excellent nailing of these BBC/ZaNuLabour connections.
He is doing what, once, we might have expected a free press to do on our behalf.
Muslim hairdresser awarded 4000 quid for “hurt feelings”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7457794.stm
My feelings were hurt by Muslims on Sept 11 2001, July 7 2005, when Muslims protested cartoons and held placards that read “Europe you will pay” and “Freedom go to hell”. Oh yes, and countless other times over the past few years. Where’s my 4000 quid?
When does the BBC use quotation marks and what are they supposed to mean? I am sure this is a point that has been much discussed and the answer is generally that it is a way of maintaining neutrality by suggesting that we the BBC are not saying this but it is said by somebody; hence ‘terrorist’ or ‘unprovoked attack’ and such. Lately I have noticed this usage taking on absurd proportions. See for example today’s headline: Taleban ‘capture Afghan villages’. Is the BBC reporting that the Taleban saying that they actually captured the villages, in which case why the quotarion marks. Is the BBC saying that these are unsubstantiated claims in which case why not use the headline, “Taleban claim to have captured villages.” But if this is the case why does the body of the article assume that the villages have in fact being captured.
The BBC also reports on research on differences in the brains of homosexual people. The headline again uses the quotation marks: Scans see ‘gay brain differences’. Is the BBC intending to suggest that the research is not to be taken seriously as having discovered something which can be considered a fact. Is all scientific research to be reported in this way: “Galileo research shows ‘earth goes round sun’?
mjg | 17.06.08 – 8:18 am |
In a word, yes.
The BBC defenders will tell you:
1. The website isn’t meant to be taken as the be-all and end-all of news reports. They consider it a sidekick to the TV and radio broadcasts, and play games with it that they wouldn’t dare do on air.
The next line of defense is:
2. The website is severely understaffed, and really, one can’t possibly expect them to realistically cover everything and get it all right all the time. Never mind the fact that you could run the New York Metropolitan Opera for almost two full seasons just on the amount the BBC went overbudget on the website.
After that comes the trump card:
3. Oops, it was an honest mistake by a very, very young junior sub-editor trainee, who is paid very, very low wages, and hasn’t been through all the courses yet. Helen Boaden will scowl, and all will be well.
Other than that, you’re pretty much correct in your assumptions. The Afghan village headline was not made by the same person who wrote the article, hence the disconnect. See Nos. 2 and 3 for why they didn’t, you know, check first. This is usually their best defense for most major errors. Otherwise, see No. 1.
As for the report on homosexual brains, though, I think that falls under No. 4:
Nothing to see here, move along.