?
I happened to tune in to “You and Yours” at lunchtime and was intrigued by the main topic under discussion which was headed “Has the US lost it’s place in the world?” The thesis seemed to be that perhaps it was time for Britain to review the “special relationship” with the USA – for example there’s always China.
I agree with Janet Daly
Way too much free market stuff going on in China. Surely Al Beeb would prefer to throw in with Fidel or Hugo.
Starving people don’t create a large carbon footprint.
Anyone watch Hardtalk last night?
Stephen Sakur talked to Republican Bill Kristol.
One of the questions that came up was tihs very question of “is America weaker after 8 years of George Bush”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/7667188.stm
It does seem to be an obession with the BBC.
After all I’d argue that the EU is weaker as a result of the credit crunch both politically and militarily. But I don’t see the BBC asking that question
Martin | 14.10.08 – 9:41 pm |
The EU is always going to be weak – because its built on totalitarianism – wheras the US is a democracy – the BBC just doesn’t understand.
I just watched a BBC interview with Bill Kristol (American Conservative pundit). The interview kept pushing leftist ideas. Government intervention, socialism, isolationism, etc. Complete bollocks.
Phil: That was the link I published above. It was total bollocks from Sakur.
Sakur wasn’t seeking answers to questions, he wanted to beat Kristol in a debate – not what an interview is about. I want to hear Kristol views not Sacur’s. Bill Kristol has ten times the intellect of Sacur, Webb and Frei combined.
But the interview did help to illustrate once again the BBC agenda in which right is wrong and left is right. What I really hate about Beeboids, is that evidenced by their furrowed brows, silly smirks and sly asides, they think theirs is unquestionably the only way to think about life in what our friend Justin (‘old chap’) Webb once called “a rational world”.
Outrage as BBC fatcats defy the credit crunch
THE BBC may be blaming City bonuses for the credit crunch, but it is not just the banking top brass who are well-renumerated in these dark times. BBC Executive directors are being rewarded with some gravity defying bonuses – all paid for by the taxpayer.
http://londonersdiary.standard.co.uk/2008/10/outrage-as-bbc.html
I think what the BBC means by America’s “place in the world” is the opinion that foreigners hold of it.
But who cares what the inhabitants of countries – which have but a fraction of the freedoms that Americans have, and whom live in countries with no democracy and which treat women like shit – think about America? Surely their sense of judgment and priority is WAY off.
Additionally, what right does the BBC have to question the standing of America worldwide when its journalists work around the clock doing everything it can to erode that standing by publishing endless anti-US propaganda? What chutzpah!
What are the saddo ‘consumer experts’ on You and Yours doing discussing the USA’s place in the world? I thought they were paid for moans about the disgracefully small amount of government interference there is in everyday life and that thousands of new rules and regulations are needed.
Have they finally mined that seam to exhaustion or are they just showing their BBC colleagues that they are capable of the old BBC favourite topics not just petty whines about poeple being able to set up as fortune tellers without fifteen years of government approved study and a licence.
Way too much free market stuff going on in China. Surely Al Beeb would prefer to throw in with Fidel or Hugo.
Starving people don’t create a large carbon footprint.
Not really, starving people can cause a truly massive carbon footprint if they get angry or desperate enough. However dead people save the state a fortune in pension payments.
BTW
Our government has been taking NI from the baby boomer generation for all of their working lives. They seen to have no money to pay these pensions to the people who have contributed to them, and have no plan of finding this vast amount of cash from anywhere. Therefore it is safe to assume that the state does not plan to have many alive old people still around in the future.
I am reminded of what QE1 did to her loyal sailors, after they had beaten off the Spanish armada. She did not want to pay them their wages, so kept them all in port until they mostly died of starvation or disease. Now days we just send people to Maidstone Hospital.
Anyone see the cable guy getting soft gloved in the Mail on Sunday article?? – the malaise is spreading!
No problem is too trivial or too transient for the serial tut-tutters on You and Yours.
Last time I listened to the full show they were whining about how the latest generation of mobile phones were leaving blind people behind – they couldn’t see the screens and use the cool features.
No ideas about how to fix the problem – or even it can be fixed at all without. No they just wanted to moan. I couldn’t decide if they wanted to ban the new phones so nobody could use them.
Phil | 14.10.08 – 10:25 pm
Martin | 14.10.08 – 10:43 pm
John Bosworth | 15.10.08 – 12:18 am
Given that Hardtalk is a programme where the guest is supposed to be robustly challenged by the interviewer (that’s the implication of the title, anyhow), it’s hardly surprising that Sackur put left-wing propositions to a right-winger like Bill Kristol.
The ideas/attitudes underpinning the questions would not, in theory at least, be Sackur’s; rather part of the ‘game’. The intention would be to elicit Kristol’s own opinions and put them under a certain amount of pressure. Testing ideas in this way is a good thing IMHO. Exactly what the BBC should be doing.
The question is: when there is a left-wing guest, does Sackur challenge with right-wing propositions or does he travel even further to the left to outflank them?
Or does he just toss them patsies? Or fawn over them in a sycophantic way? Does he have the intellect and imagination to frame ideas from a right wing perspective?
I’d be interested to know of any instances of how lefties have been treated by Sackur.
Only then would we know if there’s genuine bias there. As things stand, on the basis of this programme alone, there is no evidence of bias at all. Just of convincing role-playing.
As for You & Yours – I’ve always thought this was a consumer watchdog show.
Isn’t geopolitics a bit above their paygrade?
Tom – you’re right about Y&Y. But that’s the problem with the BBC – they never miss an opportunity to shove their own house opinion down our throats.
Actually, Tom, You and Yours is a thoroughly subversive and deeply political programme. Presumably, that is why the powers at R4 have never removed it, despite it being widely loathed.
Its prime purpose seems to be to promote the idea that people have a right to dip their hands into other peoples’ pockets. Thus, feature after feature, day after day, promotes collectivism and ‘redistribution’ (ie theft) unchallenged and unopposed.
A genuine consumer programme might witter about which soap powder is twice the price it should be, or which double glazing company rips-off old ladies, but Y and Y has very different purpose. It’s there to promote all the basic tenets of socialism.
It is poison dripped daily into the ears of radio audiences.
Jack 7.33am
I am sure they do. Their guiding philosophy is equality
BBC boss says Islam should be treated more sensitively than Christianity
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3198804/BBC-boss-says-Islam-should-be-treated-more-sensitively-than-Christianity.html
Lurker – you just beat me to it. But at least we now know that what we suspected to be the BBC’s approach is in fact official.
No tea and biscuits and don’t even think about parties and champagne, as BBC cracks down on £310,000-a-year bill
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1077826/No-tea-biscuits-dont-think-parties-champagne-BBC-cracks-310-000-year-bill.html
Tom
“When there is a left-wing guest, does Sakur follow with right-wing propositions, or does he travel even further to the left to out flank them?”
Fair comment. That is indeed the question. As a former participant, I understand the ritual dance of the interview/interviewee relationship, something we called the “but-surely” interview, in which the questioner plays devil’s advocate. (“But surely even though Hitler killed 6 million Jews, he did make the trains run on time”.)
However, the benefit of the doubt is no longer given to honest BBC interviewers because of the poisonous nature of the organization in which he or she toils. Behind the scenes, conservatives are thought of as simple-minded prehistoric relics of a distant and evil past.
Sakur may have been engaged in a “but-surely” interview, but I can tell you from experience, Neo-Cons like Bill Kristol are not the Beeb’s favourite kind of person.
Many programmes are beyond biased (“Question Time”, R4’s “Today”, “Newsnight”) but you are right, Tom, having not watched “Hardtalk” for a while (Tim Sebastian presented it I recall?), let’s give it a break until we’ve checked it out further, unless someone out there is a “Hardtalk” expert.
You and Yours
“Radio 4’s consumer affairs programme”
Call You and Yours – America
Next edition: Has the US lost its place in the world?
this is getting beyond parody
BBC Gets Ready to Celebrate Obama Victory
http://www.order-order.com/2008/10/bbc-gets-ready-to-celebrate-obama.html
A while back I was laid up with a broken leg and got to hear rather too much daytime radio.
Back then, You & Yours, if memory serves me right, was presented by a blind geezer, the same one who presented Does He Take Sugar? .. and, for a while, just about everything on Radio 4.
There was me, with my leg in a sling, hearing about little else but the predicament of the disabled. I began to think disabled people must form an overwhelming majority in this country.
But then, all of a sudden the blind geezer vanished without trace and, to the best of my knowledge, no-one has ever so much as alluded to disability since.
It reminds me of those stories about Rottweilers that savage little kids. It always happens three times in one week, and then nothing for about five years.
Maybe the same will happen with the BBC’s Islam fixation: one day we’ll all wake up and, without anyone actually announcing anything, they’ll just never mention Eid, Ramadan or Mo ever again.
In the same way, going by BBC coverage, you might think that a vast new country – China – had been discovered in 2008.
Lurker in a burqua:
The BBC aren’t the only ones getting ready for the Obama Presidency:
“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is mulling recommendations from several economists that Congress act on an economic-recovery package that would cost taxpayers $300 billion”.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_o_jesse_knows_133450.htm?page=0
“He (Rev Jesse Jackson) promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy – saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.” The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122402768546534409.html?mod=article-outset-box
“Maybe the same will happen with the BBC’s Islam fixation: one day we’ll all wake up and, without anyone actually announcing anything, they’ll just never mention Eid, Ramadan or Mo ever again.”
Tom | 15.10.08 – 2:46 pm |
Hardly likely is it when we have a Muslim population that is rapidly growing, a native population that is dwindling, and a political class that is at best, indifferent to their own civilisation.
The coming years will see ever more blatant Islamic propaganda pumped out by the BBC in a desperate attempt to sanitise the full consequences of allowing mass Muslim migration into Europe.
“Maybe the same will happen with the BBC’s Islam fixation: one day we’ll all wake up and, without anyone actually announcing anything, they’ll just never mention Eid, Ramadan or Mo ever again.”
We can but hope Tom. The beeb does go through phases with its most favoured minority group. Perhaps 15 or 20 years ago during the height of the AIDS epidemic they had a huge crush on all things gay. It was hard to get through a news report without being told what the gay reaction to this or that. If someone famous was gay we had to be told about it even though it had nothing to do with the story and we were endlessly reminded of the contributions gays had made to society.
Like a teenager in love though that crush died and now they have a new one. Oddly they seem not to notice that the Muslims who are the object of their their latest crush are none to fond of homosexuals.
Tom – you’re absolutely right. Moreover, from what i can tell, the DT is misreporting. Thompson didn’t mention islam, just other minority religions. The DT have conflated various points he made and the sub-editors have spun a headline to suit their agenda I didn’t hear the speech or Q&A, so can’t tell for sure. But I think this has been spun out of context to get the mad uncles that read the DT in a lather. Expect a mad mel missive to follow.
Follow the sources, see what you think.
Personally, I’m more bothered that the man who heads what should be a secular organisation, at the heart of british culutre, wears his religion so openly on his sleeve. More terrifying: he hasn’t seen the life of brian; in my view the funniest British film ever made and a landmark in British culture. LoB is of course as much a satire on left wing politics as it is on Christianity.
It’s a bloomin disgrace.
whitewineliberal | 15.10.08 – 4:38 pm
I’m more bothered that the man who heads what should be a secular organisation, at the heart of british culture, wears his religion so openly on his sleeve.
Why would you prefer him to be more secretive about his faith?
I doubt you’d be saying that if he were a Muslim or a Jew!
As for ‘British culture’, I’m far from sure such a thing exists per se.
If it does, it is surely an expression of the Christian civilization that has flourished in these islands for the past 1500 years.
So I see no reason for the BBC to be ‘a secular organisation’ in the sense you intend.
Lord Reith certainly didn’t think so when he founded it.
Like Thompson, I am a papist and have no desire to go back to hiding in holes in the wall, thank you.
tom, and i thought we were going to be friends.
his faith is a private matter and should remain so – whatever his theistic bag. it should certainly have no bearing on his position as dg.
the bbc should be secular, although it isn’t. by this i mean it should be neutral on the relative merits of different theisms, and indeed atheism. but as things stand, it programmes content which proselytises about religion; christianity for the large part. i think this is a bad thing.
whitewineliberal | 15.10.08 – 5:37 pm
and i thought we were going to be friends.
I hope we shall be friends.
his faith is a private matter and should remain so – whatever his theistic bag. it should certainly have no bearing on his position as dg.
Oh dear. You’ve clearly never been to an Opus Dei meeting then……… 🙂
Seriously, if one of the tenets of someone’s religion is that it should be something that pervades and inflects every aspect of their life, then you cannot expect them to abide by arbitrary rules like the ones you are trying to set.
As for the BBC – look, there is an Established Church in England, bishops in Parliament, the whole ballyhoo…… so why should the BBC, another national institution, set a relativist default position rather than a Christian one?
YouTube pulls campaign ads! Is there any link between google and Obama?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/puffbox/hyperpuff/audiovideo/technology/wide_av_hyper/7671983.stm
I guess we differ on whether what you say in your last paragraph is right or wrong, but i suppose the logic is right.
He’s not Opus Dei is he? His shirt looks quite comfortable on the picture.
John 6:09
Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the google founders, are Democrat supporters. I understand that the political position of YouTube is quite controversial in the US. Maybe one of our US readers could enlighten us.
Sully nails it –
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/waterboard-him.html#more
Tom and WWL
Can’t wait to see which one of you will be the first to use the word antidisestablishmentarianism.
whitewineliberal
“Sully” should condemn Obama for advocating “finding Osama Bin Laden and KILLING HIM”. No capture. No Gitmo. No torture. Not even Bush’s “dead or alive”. Obama wants to “kill him.” Obama advocates political assassination. Bravo! Good for Barak. I’m beginning to warm to him.
ditto
whitewineliberal:LoB is of course as much a satire on left wing politics as it is on Christianity.
It’s a bloomin disgrace.
whitewineliberal | 15.10.08 – 4:38 pm | —————————————————
And rampant Arab factionalism too, of course…
I wonder if the BBC has organized a republican victory party? for the sake of impartiality of course!
Somehow I am struggling to imagine the beeboid comrades dancing and singing and chugging the champers if codger pulls it out of the hat!
I remeber the BBC crew at the Italian socialist victory party all ready to film and take part in the celebrations, remember tha the BBC were calling a socialist victory right upto the point of utter defeat(ha ha) of course the BBC had its HQ with the socialists and only one or two(punishment victims) at the Berlesconi bash, the deflated and miserable faces of the BBC crowd was quickly cut but for just a minute we all saw the true nature of the BBC shine through and shortly after we heard no more about the Berlesconi victory and the dejected faces of the beeboids at the failed socialist victory party was hidden away!
Cassandra: The BBC’s struck-dumb-with-horror reaction to yesterday’s victory by the Canadian Conservative Party speaks volumes.
I can think of no better reason to wish for a McCain/Palin triumph than the wave of terror it will send through White City.
YouTube’s crushing of dissent has been going on for some time:
A Slippery Slope of Censorship
And it’s not just about US politics:
Doing my bit against YouTube censorship
I’m sure a few people here will be familiar with Pat Condell. Apparently, after enough people made noise, YouTube reinstated the video. But they should never have censored it in the first place.
They’re so powerful they can play the BBC’s game of doing whatever they like because they know they will almost never be held accountable. There have been a few instances of this in the last year.
It’s funny. YouTube will fight like hell to keep Brazil from blocking their own country’s access to some supermodel sex video, but will happily block the entire world from seeing speech they don’t like. Why does that equation sound familiar?
And we can add Wikipedia to the list of pseudo-kewl organisations who fly under the false flag of Leftist cant about ‘liberty’, while doing their best to make sure it’s only their version of events we get to see.
I sure hope they don’t start censoring the banned beer commercials.
G Cooper,
The BBC did ‘move on’ extremely quickly when it became clear that the conservatives not only won but increased their share of the vote!
The shock and disapointment was plain to see and few facts and figures were availible, its almost as if the BBC just suddenly lost interest in the Canadians when they refused to vote the way the BBC/CBS thought they should, it should be noted that the Canadian state broadcaster was grief stricken at the socialists utter defeat, they even played the BBC game of predicting a socialist victory right upto the point of defeat!
The EUSSR elections next year will be very revealing and enjoyable as the leftists/federalists are destroyed and the right make massive gains, we can look forward to a dejected BBC looking more dejected than ever!
I like Pat Condell. But he does go on a bit though.
The thing that annoys me is the way people like WWL resort to calling people like Melanie P things like ‘mad mel.’
Well, not things like. He actually can’t bring himself to use her name.
Are they (people like that) just a bit insecure and threatened by the eloquence with which she expresses her views because they disagree with them? So much so that they are forced to denounce her altogether?
She is religious, which I am not. She has views on science-based subjects of which I have little knowledge. I disagree with some of her views on discipline and education. But I can understand her arguments.
I find she has a greater grasp on the conflict in the Middle East and the case for Israel than anyone else I have come across, and her analysis of the situation is clear and enlightening. So I think that people who always say ‘Mad Mel’ are liberals who have somersalted into totalitarianism and have resorted to going “lalalalala I can’t hear you.”
OK, I will stop using the term before the jackboots begin to feel too comfortable. I think she speaks some sense on the middle east, but she falls off the end of her arguments a lot and betrays her extremist tendencies.
And on matters scientific she is a disgrace to her profession.
She was a trot once i think and, as with Peter Hitchens, she feels comfortable on the extremes.
But she works for the bbc too, so she can’t be all bad.
I think the US has lost it’s place in the world and will continue to do if the lefty illuminati politicians don’t change how things are being ran right now. The job market, unemployment, the housing crisis, the financial turmoil of our banks–pick one! It all makes us look lost!