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.
RR | 21.10.08 – 5:05 pm |
Just wondering. Can anybody tell me who was the last Republican president the BBC didn’t regard as being absolutely unqualified for the office by virtue of being irreparably stupid? Nixon maybe? Eisenhower? Herbert Hoover? Calvin Coolidge? Warren Harding (who in fact was)?
That would the first Republican President ever: Abraham Lincoln. He was one of the primary reasons the party even got off the ground. Only he would meet the high standards of the BBC.
Of course, he also shared a bed with a man. Bonus!:)
Is the BBC entirely at the diosposal of the Labour Party image manufacturing Department. I am no conspiracy theorist but isn’t it odd that the Osbourne non story appears on the day that
“No Brown Bounce – Tories still 12% ahead” (Guardian)
“Worst trade figures since 1980”
“Borrowing now exceeds predicted annual total after 6 months”
This has all the fingrt prints of the undead lord of darkness about it. Why are we being carpet-bombed with minor political gossip and tittle-tattle? Who has decided in the BBC news editorial team that this is a real story: they have done nothing wrong. Compare and contrast the Hain/Alexander donorgate treatment.
The coverage is so partisan it would be laughable but I’m not laughing. If this is the level of manipulative mendacious sleaze that passes for “quality broadcasting” and “World class reporting” far less politics itself, then I might as well move to some West African state where things appear to be less partisan and more above board.
What I REALLY want to know is the audit trail of the information for this story and that issued by Pestis (single handedly brought down three banks – a great socialist ‘useful idiot’). The Lord of Darkness will be at the end of it, feeding morsels of bitchy gossip to his minions
Today I realise that beyond simple anguish at bias, I really hate the BBC and everything it stands for. I particularly hate injustice and manipulation – hallmarks of our current administration and now core values of the BBC
Apologies if this has been covered above.
BBC website leading with this story:
Osborne denies Russian cash claim
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/
In comparison the BBC barely mentioned the corruption surrounding Mandelson and the Russian oligarch.
Biased? — It comes by the bucket load.
The Tories, if they haven’t decided yet, need to think seriously about how they are going to sort out the augean stables of the BBC in 2010.
John Bosworth | 21.10.08 – 5:18 pm |
I guess that’s a relic of Empire, a “just visiting” mentality. perfect for the eye-browing raising superior Beeboid that he is.
That’s a big reason why I object to the whole concept of BBC World News America in the first place. I’ve said before, though, that ol’ Justin actually understands United Statesians better than all the rest of his colleagues put together, but that’s not saying much.
Even though Webb has lived in the US for several years now – he thinks his youngest daughter’s accent is cute, bless – the best he can do is say that we’re not as ghastly as most of his kind think.
Simon Schama has a better grasp of what makes us tick, though, even if he’s wrong about a few things. Ol’ Justin has no clue.
BBC doing their best to smear Osborne, yet studiously ignored the recent revelations that PROVED Labour lied about Ecclestone and corruptly recieved £1million.
The worst that can be said of Osborne is that he might have nearly accepted a dodgy donation… but in the end he didn’t.
Strange priorities.
“just a theory”. Oh dear. have you been
reading conservipedia again? suggest you read your popper.
tom – between a and b. you get whiff the desperation
for barry o to win – in line with most british people.but they suppress it most of the time. I really like webb’s stuff though. sorry.
If the Tories thought the next election would be a cakewalk they didn’t reckon with the Labour government’s BBC spokesman Robert Peston.
Heseltine on PM was superb (I think). He feigned complete bafflement as to why this was deemed “news” and so Eddie Mair had to make a stilted explanation about how it “might look bad”
So that’s what this all boils down to – the BBC grasping at the one glimmer of hope for the Labour Party and not really bothering to stop and ask whether this constitutes “news” as most people understand it.
Not only that but at 5.23 PM decided to run their second story.
You couldn’t make it up.
Peter Allen on radio 5 was getting pelters about the George Osbourne non story. Yet another Caroline Spelman pack of lies.
What about real Labour sleaze? HOw about Tony Liar and the fat one eyed one and the 1 million pound bung they did take?
Oh and Peter Hain anyone?
It didn’t take that vile creep Mandelson long to spit his poison did it?
Having said that, what the f**K was Osbourne doing on that yacht?
Martin, Peter Allen was talking to a female BBC correspondent about these latest revelations. She said, I paraphrase, “The Tories are trying to claim they understand the concerns of people suffering in the economic downturn, but when one of them is spending time on a billionaire’s yacht many people will think they are completely out of touch with everyday people”. Not a single mention that Peter Mandelson was also on the yacht. The smears just roll of the tongues of BBC journalists – sometimes I don’t think they even realise what they are saying.
I can’t remember the last time I have heard the BBC sound so cheery about the news. At last they have a good old fashioned Tory sleaze story to run with and they are going to squeeze every last drop out of it.
PMQs tomorrow should be interesting, Gordon Brown will have his sixth “answer” prepared and ready to unleash whatever the question, maybe David Cameron should ask his first five questions and forego the sixth, that would confuse Gordon Brown…
Anyone want to bet that Newsnight have a ‘special investigation’ into this?
Probably keep it going for at least two weeks like they did with the Caroline Spelman non story.
Melanie Phillips:
“The Brazen Bias Corporation”
[Extract, on BBC ‘Today’ programme, etc.]:
“But what is disturbing is that the allegations about Mandelson’s relationship with Deripaska • and the Business Secretary denies any impropriety • were not ever given equivalent pride of place in the Today programme’s 0810 slot. Indeed, as far as I can make out the programme did not cover them at all. And now just look at what the BBC’s political editor Nick ROBINSON said in the ‘Today’ discussion this morning about the Rothschild demarche:
‘The Tory party have been encouraging Tory newspapers and others, including the BBC • AND WE HAVE RESISTED IT SO FAR • to make a lot of Peter Mandelson’s stay on a Russian billionaire’s yacht’ [my emphasis, MP].
“So the ‘Today’ programme will make a big deal about allegations of corruption involving a Russian oligarch when they involve the Conservative party, but will not make any kind of deal about similar allegations involving the same Russian oligarch when they involve the Labour government! And Robinson actually boasted about this!
No longer just biased, but brazen.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2534516/the-brazen-bias-corporation.thtml
Hi Mike…..er I mean whitewineliberal.How much of a beeb bonus this week?You get paid to broadcast not stick up for your sh****
work companions at the BBC.So do it and leave this board alone or I will out you my marxist friend!
But Jeff, WWL is nothing short of a gift for BBBC. Have you ever seen this strange lifeform ever putting together anything approaching a thoughtful rejoinder?!
I mean, if this is what BBC supporters are like, isn’t there a bit more hope on the horizon than we all thought?
Whitewineliberal is a bit like my dad – just trying to wind people up. My guess is that he/she is NOTHING to do with the BBC at all but rather revels in the association which is accorded. Amazing how some get their kicks.
Was the person that leaked the Osborne story not a friend of Mandelson?
Not something that I have seen reported on the BBC.
‘Friend Of Baron Mandelson of Foy in the …. claims Tory asked for money while he a known labour supporter was present’
Does not have the same impact.
As I did the above C4 news is starting a report on the Democrats fraudulantly registering voters. Even mentions ACORN.
I will watch BBC news at 10 and the start of newsnight to see their reports.
But according to the BBC, it’s only Republican supporters who have behaved badly during this election campaign:
Anti-McCain Vandalism Hits Maryland
Yeah, I know – *shrug* – it’s not as bad as the (imaginary) cries of “kill him”, or the fact that some old lady thought the Obamessiah was an Arab or whatever. I must try to remember that Republican thoughts are far worse than anyone else’s actions.
Nothing to see here, move along. Don’t worry about the fact that these people will be empowered under an Obamessiah Presidency. The BBC says it’ll be great.
whitewineliberal | 21.10.08 – 4:28 pm | #
“denial of basic truths are common to most religions”
And what might these “basic truths” be, O omniscient Marxist one?
I have just read the comprehensive statement from Osborne on the Times site. If this is accurate I hope the Tories issue writs tomorrow and sue the arses off all of the BBC slime who have been dancing to the tune of Mandy, and Baron Mandy himself.
Why is this story not being reported as a blatant attempt at Labour media manipulation?
BBC, and your Trolls, FFS this is not a game: There are facts or have you literally no honour left. This sort of smear potentially impacts the lives of millions of people: you are to perverting reality by uncritically feeding the population with hand picked labour lies. What next “the Tories will close all the hospitals and sell your organs to millionaire”. “Three days to save the NHS”, “I don’t want to grow old in a Tory Britain”
vermin
Interesting that the BBC Information line has been engaged all evening. Flooded with complaints or have they just taken the phone off the hook?
JeffD – I’m Mike, and so is my wife.
Ross – I can confirm that David Vance pays me to be a Washington Generals to you Harlem Globetrotter.
And Andy – Science and stuff; test tubes, gravity, natural selection and sh1t. Basic truths. You’re not a relativist are you?
whitewineliberal | 21.10.08 – 10:28 pm | #
Christianity denies the existence of test tubes! Whatever next?
So science is “test tubes, gravity, natural selection and sh1t.”
You’re not a pig-ignorant beeboid are you?
WWL
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding when it comes to science. Evolution is only a theory. It hasn’t ever been proven. Sure, there is a (hell of a) lot of evidence which supports the theory, but a theory is all it is. And besides, evolution and god are not necessarily mutually exclusive. God might have designed evolution into his creation. How do you know that God didn’t design humans in his own form, but caused that form to arrive many years after his creation through the course of evolution?
‘Blaney’s Blarney’:
“HAPPY TRAFALGAR DAY!”
http://donalblaney.blogspot.com/2008/10/happy-trafalgar-day.html
-Can’t see the BBC celebrating it this year; it’s one which ‘b-bbc’ can celebrate though.
http://www.nelsonsnavy.co.uk/battle-of-trafalgar.html
WhiteWineGobshite
C’mon on then my smart alec.
Where in the Koran or the Bible or the Bhaghavad Gita do these “denial of basic truths” occur?
Anon – wow, that’s an awesome thought.
And Andy, they all do in their propagation of irrational creation myths.
And Anon and Andy – I beg and implore you to read some Popper. He’s so right-wing, Samizdata use one of his books in their logo. So you won’t be tainted.
But he nails the nature of scientific truth. And read what he has to say about Darwin too.
@ anon 10:38
Interesting theory.
Did human evolution stop 2000 years ago?
or is God joining us for the ride?
ITV’s Tonight v BBC’s Panorama
Tonight on ITV was about the EU, the Lisbon Treaty and Britain’s membership of the EU. Unlike what you would expect from the BBC, it gave both sides of the argument equal coverage and didn’t take sides. The presenter didn’t express any opinions, it was up to the viewers to form their own opinions, there was no signs of any obvious bias, it was the kind of programme the BBC should be making.
In contrast, the BBC’s Panorama screened a broadcast on behalf of Russia called “Should We Be Scared of Russia?“, in which the reporter (campaigner) expressed his opinion that we shouldn’t be scared of Russia and that we need to “change our attitudes” to Russia and be more understanding of it.
Last weeks Panorama was titled “Obama v the Pitbull”. Does the BBC think that calling politicians they don’t like animal names is a sign of professional journalism?
The BBC, we don’t do journalism, we do “changing attitudes” campaigning.
(Changing right wing attitudes to left wing ones, of course.)
I saw a piece on BBC World this morning about cooperation between American troops and Sunni tribal leaders. The report featured two young Iraqis (of about eighteen years of age) who had been caught trying to lay roadside bombs. One of the young Iraqis explained on camera in Arabic why they had tried to kill Americans. His words were translated as: “I thought it was my duty as a Muslim to kill the Americans”. The only problem is you can clearly hear him say the word “Kuffar”. A Kuffar is a non-Muslim, not necessarily an American. So, basically he was saying that he thought it was his duty as a Muslim to kill non-Muslims. Now where could this young man have learned such sentiments? But the BBC, being the BBC, distorted the truth. Once again, the BBC is complicit in trying to hide from its viewers any inkling that there may be a nasty undercurrent of intolerance in parts of the Islamic world towards non-Muslims.
How convenient for Labour that the Osbourne story comes along just in time to bury terrible polling data,terrible trade,debt/borrowing and employment data!
It aint sleaze untill the BBC can finger a class enemy and bad news aint news unless the Tories can be somehow involved and smeared!
The ‘report’ about the windfarm off the coast of Great Yarmouth was crammed with lies as per usual, phrases like ‘reasonable cost electricity’ and ‘able to power 130.000 homes’ were just two examples, we even saw the nonjob climate minister fyling over the windmills grinning like a hyena(well wouldnt you with a fake job and fantastic perks)spouting the usual crap!
How about a few facts that the BBC missed out?
The windmills have been hugely expensive to maintain,their average net power contribution to the national grid so far has been in SINGLE figures in percentage terms, they have yet to repay their instalation costs let alone construction/maintenance/repair/
subsidies!
Because of the huge variability in power output and the spiking problems even when the wind is blowing hard the windmills are not producing power to the national grid in anything but tiny ammounts, certainly not the 130.000 homes the BBC are lying through their teeth about!
In their opperating life so far they have actually produed enough useable energy to power less than 13000 homes!
Worse still, the conventional power stations have not decreased their grid contributions by one watt so far, so we have a very expensive white elephant that will never pay back its construction/running costs and never contribute much useable power to the grid and will never enable one less lump of coal to be burned, the taxpayer who funded this waste of time would have been better off just piling up a mountain of £50 notes and setting fire to them!
The BBC obviously didnt invite a critical expert to contribute but then again they would have destroyed the whole BBC argument in two or three sentances!
Northern Ireland Culture and Arts Minister Gregory Campbell attacks BBC chief’s pay
Culture and Arts Minister Gregory Campbell today maintained his one man watch on the BBC — attacking top-level salaries and bonuses indirectly paid by taxpayers.
The DUP MP has tabled a Parliamentary Motion focusing on salaries, bonuses and other expenses paid out to senior BBC staff including Director General Mark Thompson.
Worth a read.
Peter | Homepage | 21.10.08 – 1:41 pm:
Both sides of the pond have ‘left’ and ‘right’ print and broadcast media, so why the discrepancy, he asked, rhetorically?
There are so many differences between the U.S. and U.K. they would take too long to document, but here are few:
U.S. conservatives know that the liberal media is out to get them and are given to openly attack it (like Sarah Palin did upon being appointed John McCain’s running mate); whereas in the U.K. conservatives are completely subservient to the media and seek to curry favour from it.
The U.S. media, despite its liberal bias, at least has a semblance of genuine pluralism. In Britain the conservative press is more homogeneous and susceptible to being led by a liberal (Guardian-BBC) agenda. This malleability of the U.K. media is compounded by its unspoken dependency on a single dominant news agency, the Press Association, whose reports UK newspapers re-jig and reproduce uncritically without attribution as their own work; whereas in the States newspapers reproduce reports from their own dominant news agency the Associated Press with full accreditation (thus encouraging accountability).
In the States, it’s frowned upon for newspapers to invent stories. When they do they’ve been known to expose such malpractice themselves leading to the national disgrace of unethical journalists. In the U.K. it’s accepted that that’s what happens and newspapers keep such daily regular malpractice buried. (U.K. journalists generally agree that journalism in America is of a much higher standard.)
In the States, there exists an openly conservative news broadcaster which provides for an outlet of stories that favour the conservative perspective which otherwise would remain unaired. In Britain there isn’t.
In the States there’s hugely popular conservative talk radio, which is subscribed generally by people like us who contribute to this blog. In the UK there’s no such outlet or forum in broadcast media for the mainstream voice of ordinary (i.e. conservative) people with ordinary (i.e. conservative) viewpoints.
In summary: thanks in large part to all of the above, the UK’s democratic function is in thrall to the Left and will remain so until its failings are addressed.
And the absolute copper-bottomed proof that the U.K. democratic function totally fucked up and in the grip of the Left, is the failure of the conservative media, Conservative Party, and conservative blogosphere to discuss and bring to the fore the information discussed on my website and in my book about the (invented) political controversy which facilitated the Labour landslide of May 1st 1997.
Gerald Brown | Homepage | 21.10.08 – 1:49 pm:
Good luck with your complaint. I won’t be holding out much hope for you though…
Radio 5 are discussing Osbourne this morning and they have some “conservative” (yeah right) voters on the line.
Mikewineliberal | 21.10.08 – 11:15 pm | #
“And Andy, they all do in their propagation of irrational creation myths.”
Yeeeeees, but WHERE???
Imagary and myths and symbolism are all deeply used but where specifically in the sacred texts might you find anything that is “denial of basic truths”.
Where might you find a “thou shalt not burn fossil fuels” or “thou shalt have no other gods before Darwinism”???
Adolf Hitler ‘planned propaganda cable TV’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/3239289/Adolf-Hitler-planned-propaganda-cable-TV.html
Imagine….
The [uniquely funded] screens would have been set up in public places and would show “people’s television”, depicting how [all ‘right thinking’ folk] should live,
The very idea.
La lutta continua
It’s interesting to compare the BBC’s report of the Argentine government’s nationalisation of private pension funds, with that of the Associated Press, hardly a right wing source :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7682877.stm
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/4171e02cfaf32d8e6caded9ce342683f.htm
The AP gives much more space to the critics saying that this is just a naked grab to prop up the government’s collapsing financial position, than does the BBC. On the AP we hear from five named critics, plus “critics” and “her political opponents.” On the BBC we hear from no named critics, just a snippet or two from “critics” and “the pension administrators”. On the pro-nationalisation side we hear from, President Cristina Fernandez, Amando Boudo, executive director of the national social security administration, and “union leaders”.
The most significant difference though is that the AP scrupulously (wow • I never thought I’d use those in the same sentence !) ensures that the Argentine government’s story is always presented from the Argentine government’s mouth, not as an AP “fact.”This is clearly the right thing to do, especially where the government’s story is self evident nonsense. It would not be right to report the government’s story either as fact, or as fiction, unless it could be proved one way or the other. The BBC notably fails this test, stating that :
The move will put the government in control of almost $30bn (£18bn) of investments and is aimed at protecting them from the global market turmoil
Of course if it were a right wing government obviously lying about why it was doing something, the BBC report would be thick with “the government claims that….”
Moreover, the BBC throws up a bit of chaff to help the Argentine government :
The commissions on the pensions and the lack of a guaranteed minimum pension has made the private system unpopular with many Argentines
Unfortunately, the AP shows that this is garbage • the private system is (or was until now) entirely voluntary.
When Argentines were allowed to switch between private and public pension funds last year, only 20 percent opted for the government’s plan.
some interesting reading here
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1022/immigration.html
looks like we’ve completely lost control of our borders.
which makes you wonder what the point of Westminister is?
Lee
That seems to me a combination of the BBC’s left-leaning bias and their Janet & John grasp of economics.
“The move will put the government in control of almost $30bn (£18bn) of investments and is aimed at protecting them from the global market turmoil”
Unless the hapless Argentine government, in their wisdom, wants to sink the lot into cash, which would be a lousy long-term asset and certain to erode in value, especially in these inflationary times.
If they hang on until stock markets recover or until they feel comfortable, then it’s too late to make any juicy gains and would only exacerbate the Argentines concerns over stock market volatility.
A BBC report from Barbara ‘tears for Arafat’ Plett on PAKISTAN:
“West ‘should stand by Pakistan'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7684107.stm
An opposite point of view on Pakistan, by Hugh Fitzgerald:
“Pakistan, we want our money back”
[Extract]:
“If the government of Pakistan today dares to criticize the Americans for taking the most minimal measures to stop the Taliban (and Al Qaeda) from wreaking havoc in Afghanistan, the same Pakistani government that continues to protect, continues to make unavailable to American interrogators the sinister I.S.I. man, A. Q. Khan, and if the Pakistanis continue to stand in the way, then let’s simply cut the whole country off. We should not only cut off all aid, but also cut off Pakistan’s ability to export goods to America and the rest of the West. And in tandem with Great Britain, we should end all ties to Pakistan, and end all immigration — including that phony “family reunion” business — from Pakistan.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/022558.php
Diogenes | 21.10.08 – 11:47 pm
Did human evolution stop 2000 years ago?
or is God joining us for the ride?
Care to list all the evolutionary changes in homo sapiens you’ve noticed during the past 2000 years?
From yesterday’s Londoner’s Diary, ‘Evening Standard’,
on BBC’s gravy train:
“Gravy trains’ collision course”
“MPs have long resented having their expenses raked through by reporters from the BBC when they often can’t return fire themselves. Now Gregory Campbell MP has voiced his outrage at the latest BBC Annual Report and Accounts in an Early Day Motion. He says: ‘This House notes the latest BBC Annual Report and Accounts regarding salaries, bonuses and other expenses paid from the public purse by the BBC to a number of its senior executives, including a salary for the Director-General comprising £647,000 plus £160,000 pension contributions, a £459,000 salary for the Deputy General plus an annual bonus of £41,000… and expresses the hope if not the expectation that other employees of the BBC, some of whom have clauses in their contracts precluding any publicity surrounding their salaries and bonuses from the same public purse, will at least have the decency to blush with embarrassment when questioning Hon Members regarding their payments and allowances…’
“So far nine MPs have signed up. Perhaps the BBC might now take an even closer look at his own allowances…”
http://londonersdiary.standard.co.uk/2008/10/gravy-trains-co.html
Careful, Mark EASTON: you make SONY sound like the BBC, in its dhimmi attitude towards Islam:
“A hard headed decision”
[Extract: question – Is Easton decribing Sony or the BBC here?]:
“In a global market it makes sense not to alienate great chunks of your market by offending their religious beliefs. This is particularly true if the offence might trigger an angry global response.
“Are there double standards here? Offending a religious group is fine so long as you can be confident they won’t burn your corporate flag?”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/
Isn’t it wonderful, a BBC reporter accusing OTHERS of ‘DOUBLE STANDARDS’?!
Like in Mandelson and Osborne. Like in Islam and Christianity.
In April 2003 Newt Gingrich had a real pop at the Beeb in an interview by Bill O’Reilly on Fox News, so I guess what he said is now old hat. But the Huffington Post has just resussitated it as an example of Gingrich’s feeble mind, or something like that, so it’s worth another look:
NEWT GINGRICH:
Now, look, the BBC has been for years totally owned by left-wingers who are viscerally anti-American. The BBC American channel may be the most anti-American channel, at least as anti-American as Al Jazeera.
It’s an ideological bias of the British left. They hated Margaret Thatcher. They hated Ronald Reagan. They cheerfully hate George W. Bush. I’m talking now about the BBC’s left-wing board of directors and the BBC’s left-wing reporters. That’s just reality.
Sounds pretty spot on to me…
The Northumbrian | 22.10.08 – 3:11 am |
One of the young Iraqis explained on camera in Arabic why they had tried to kill Americans. His words were translated as: “I thought it was my duty as a Muslim to kill the Americans”. The only problem is you can clearly hear him say the word “Kuffar”. A Kuffar is a non-Muslim, not necessarily an American. So, basically he was saying that he thought it was his duty as a Muslim to kill non-Muslims.
Is this the report you saw?
On patrol with US troops in Iraq
If so, the “alleged” insurgent (who admitted to being one, so I’m not sure why the reporter used the qualifier) you’re talking about starts speaking at 2:00 into the video. I didn’t hear the word “kuffar”, but his statement is clearly edited, cutting off the last word or two.
I wonder if the BBC figured it out after the fact and did a quick stealth edit before posting it online?