The liberal assumptions that govern the BBC’s output can be seen in the following two articles here and here.
In the first Robert Piggot begins his article on Anglicans and their splits:
“Word has got about that traditionalist Anglicans have something against gay people – and that is what is driving the Communion towards disintegration.
Of course some of them might not like homosexual people, but, as they never tire of pointing out, that is not what this historic rift is about.”
So, in an ironic sort of way, he concedes that there may be more to the Anglican conservatve position than pure bigotry- as they “never tire of saying”.
Matt Frei meanwhile is one of those whose inability to overcome his innate prejudices is almost comically obvious. America, he says while reporting the mourning for Tim Russert “likes a good yarn and here they still appreciate good journalists as master story tellers.”
This fondness for a good yarn (as opposed to the more adult and rigorous reality that Frei deals in) sets them apart from the rest of the world who are more firmly “weary of “the media””. All well and good, but did Frei ever ask himself just how it is that the only major media networks that have a modicum of independence are all Western? People in China, in Africa, in South America haven’t really had the time to become weary of the media. Having some to speak of might be a novelty in some cases.
“…..Of course some of them might not like homosexual people”
for a religious affairs correspondent he has a tenuous grasp of the concept of Christianity. A Christian will hate the sin but love the sinner, simple for a Christian to understand, less so for a BBC type.
Strange how an article on the rift within Anglicanism winds up being a compare/contrast piece on Christianity versus Islam. Stranger still how the latter winds up being portrayed as the voice of gentle reason while the more belicose sentiments are attributed to Christians.
Ed Thomas
The liberal assumptions that govern the BBC’s output can be seen in the following two articles
Having read both articles carefully…. and then read them again, I’m at a loss to see any bias here or any beeboid agenda.
The Piggott article, far from trotting out the liberal Anglican line, seems to me to be offering a platform to more conservative voices in the church to spell out their position and to challenge the stereotype of the traditionalist view that’s put about by liberals and progressives.
The second article is a report on the mourning for Tim Russert – a fine man and journalist. I can spot no ideological subtext here – not even the customary Frei sneer.
I don’t think it’s fair to chide Frei for not talking about South American or Chinese media – he is the Washington correspondent and he’s writing about a US domestic issue.
I can’t speak for China, but I do spend a fair bit of time in South America each year and I can assure you that many there are just as weary (or cynical) about local media as we are.
I just can’t see what you’re objecting to here.
I can’t get enough of ZBC (Zimbabwe Broadcasting Commission)! Superb!
When the late President Gerald Ford died in 2006, he was celebrated as the embodiment of homespun, honest, salt of the earth Heartland America.
It was almost rude to mention that he lost re-election because he was perceived to be both ineffectual and grossly misguided for pardoning his predecessor and former boss Richard Nixon over the Watergate scandal.
This passage exemplifies the effortless braindeadery and snideness of Frei.
Does he know ANYTHING about America? What a dumbass.
You’d think it was impossible to both suck and blow at the same time. But Frei could represent England at the World Suck Championships.
I think Pigott is out of order to suggest that Christianity should not evangelize to other religions, just for the sake of “getting along”. It’s a clear bow to the sensitivities of Muslims, who will get no such criticism from him. When he takes us through the Damascus Gate, he is making it clear that the priority should be to maintain that “delicate balance”.
In other words, everything the “traditionalist” (Boo!) Rod Thomas says is thus set up as harmful, and the local Bishop of Jerusalem is the bastion of common sense and peace. As if Anglican proselytizing is only going to cause trouble, and the Church just needs to sort out its own house. Muslim proselytizing is just a fact of life, nothing to see here, move along. It’s hard to interpret this as anything other than that Christianity must show deference to Islam.
Pigott’s agenda is most in evidence when he trots out – to no one’s surprise – “the descendant of a long line of Muslim scholars” (Huzzah!) to lecture us on the humility of evangelism. And he even prints the Muslim scholar’s portrayal of Christian evangelism as spreading anti-Muslim sentiment. What an utter crock.
Matt Frei, on the other hand, is just exhibiting a bit of jealousy of the respect people paid to the late Tim Russert. Frei boy gives himself away with this line:
America is as weary of “the media” as the rest of the planet but this country likes a good yarn and here they still appreciate good journalists as master story tellers.
No, Matt, we appreciate good journalists as people who have the integrity to show a little respect for all their guests, not just some, and make an actual effort to be fair (which even Russert failed to do sometimes). Equally important is to show a little respect to their audience. We don’t appreciate those who care more about telling a story, and display contempt for their audience. Getting it right occasionally helps, too. No wonder Frei misses the point about 60 Minutes.
Gosh, he sure wishes people would love him and his kind like that. I wonder why they don’t?
But surely journalists aren’t supposed to ‘tell a story’: they are to report the news without omission! Can any ‘journalists’ on the BBC really claim to do so?
Allan@Oslo- good point. Indeed, the defining quality of Russert- and the reason so many people tuned into watch meet the press- was that he did not spin his own stories, rather, he conducted himself in an objective manner and sought the truth behind the stories others were spinning.
Here is a brief extract from a Lawrence Auster article on Liberalism, which seems relevant to BBC case:
“Liberalism attacks all the larger wholes–natural, social, and spiritual–that structure man’s existence, because those larger wholes create differences and distinctions which violate the rule of equality and non-discrimination. Liberalism attacks God, truth, religion, objective morality, social traditions, the family, parental authority, sex differences, nation, ethnicity, and race. It aims at a world of liberated, equal human selves, with no God above them and no country or culture around them, free to interact on a basis of total freedom and equality with all other human selves on earth. To achieve this universal freedom and equality, the ability of actual peoples to define and govern themselves must be eliminated. Democratic and constitutional self-government must be replaced by the regime of the global elite, a regime that is beyond criticism and democratic accountability because it represents and embodies the very principle of liberal goodness: the equality of all.
“That’s the liberal vision. Political correctness is one of the weapons by which this vision is imposed, it is not the vision itself. To complain about political correctness, when the problem is really liberalism, is like complaining about “enemies of freedom,” when the problem is really Islam. If we are to have any hope of defeating political correctness, we must understand the liberalism that begets it. Once we understand the positive vision that drives liberals, once we understand what liberalism has taken away and why it must take it away in order to realize the liberal vision, then we are in a position to start opposing liberalism.
“Opposing liberalism means rediscovering, re-articulating, and restoring those elements of true human order that liberalism has delegitimized and suppressed.”
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009677.html
I see the abolition of the BBC and leaving the EU as achieving the same objective. We would be removing a couple of millstones at the same time.
http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/50229/VOTE-Should-Britain-leave-the-EU-
Allan@Oslo:
But surely journalists aren’t supposed to ‘tell a story’:
Obviously not. We’d call them news stories. And that would be wrong.
they are to report the news without omission! Can any ‘journalists’ on the BBC really claim to do so?
Definitively, no.
Which is a shame, because I share your yearning for every cough of every interviewee and every repetitive, windbaggy answer and every fluff by the sound man, and the self-serving detail of every speech at every meeting, and all the procedural nonsense in Parliament.
Oh bold new dawn of Oslo! Let us cast relevance and importance aside in the desire to Avoid Omission.
What a wonderful world it would be
.
Hillhunt has another new name.
Shame about his spout problem,” Emission Impossible”
Journalists as storytellers…hm…
not the egregious justin whatsisname, that’s for sure.
His idea of how to tell a story:
The [link] [link] [link] the [link]
(Translation: The cat sat on the mat}
Or:
[link] [link] a [link]/…
(Translation: Once upon a time…)
America is as weary of “the media” as the rest of the planet but this country likes a good yarn and here they still appreciate good journalists as master story tellers.
I was hoping this quote might make it onto Biased BBC. It’s clear from just this sentence that Frei has never actually “Meet the Press” and doesn’t understand what it is. Russert was not a reporter or a yarn spinner. He was an interviewer.
On second thought, maybe Frei did watch “Meet the Press” and maybe he chose to present Russert as a folksy yarn spinner rather than a tough interviewer so as not to betray that cherised myth of the leftwing British media–that the American media can’t or won’t ask hard questions.
A new name on the troll register – an Omission Impossible. When I wrote that I wanted no omissions, it would surely have been clear to those of IQ above 80 that I meant no omissions of facts which would distort the completeness of an item and thus allow us to frame our opinions from a proper perspective. This is what the BBC deliberately does not do. And the BBC has its trolls, right OI?
This seems to apply to the predominant ethos at the BBC:-
“To the naive white liberal, multiculturalism means a happy-clappy utopian world without borders, where all races and all religions live together in peace and tranquillity. That this runs counter to historical precedent, current reality and the law of nature is of little interest to its proponents, thereby exposing them as either astonishingly uneducated or wilfully ignorant.
“To the incoming third-worlder the white abasement ideology of multiculturalism is viewed as a weakness prevalent in the governments of the native countries. Not only are they welcomed and subsidised, they are encouraged to keep their own identities and cultures and are the recipients of state legislated privileges not available to the native whites. It is thus an ideology that can be used to advance their ethnic group self-interest over and above that of the native group. I can only assume that their private discussions must revolve around disbelief and astonishment that any race or culture could prostrate themselves before an aggressor in such a grotesque and effeminate manner.
“To the white native who wishes to preserve his historical homeland, tradition and culture, multiculturalism takes on a more disturbing aspect. Demographers predict that we will become a minority in our own countries at various points this century, some even before 2050. This means we are being territorially dispossessed, that each and every year we cede a little more physical ground to the incomers.” (by Paul Weston).
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/british_renaissance/blog/2007/05/28/multiculturalism__merits__debits