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.
What gets me is Al beeb went out of their way a couple years ago (and indeed still do today) after the terrorist attacks in London to paint a picture of muslims as victims.
Now, inspite of very REAL attacks on Jews one is deafened by the absolute silence from Al Been and their lack of care for the jews of this country.
Mailman
Richard Landes on his BBC interview with Dan Damon: “He cut some of my better remarks, but I guess that’s life.”
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/01/08/interview-with-bbc-radio-on-joe-the-plumbers-visit-to-israel/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1109169/Fresh-row-BBC-radio-station-makes-fun-M-S-job-cuts-spoof-advert.html
More hilarity from Auntie.
Mads Gilbert doign the rounds on ITV news.
Wonder if ITV has seen the CNN footage with this guy looking on, taking part in Hamas propoganda.
Mailman
I don’t have one | 08.01.09 – 8:56 pm |
The editor of WHYS is called Mark Sandell and he has posted a couple of times on this blog.
You should try mark.sandell@bbc.co.uk
nom de blog | 09.01.09 – 12:08 pm |
So much for your theory that the BBC wouldn’t run one that challenged its supposed corporate mindset.
Oh, really? This debate already happened on Dec. 2, and the result was – wait for it – 68% in favor of the motion. The BBC already knows the outcome doesn’t challenge their mindset, so is happy to broadcast it.
And this is from the US version of IQ2 (which is why it’s on BBC World, I guess), which is sponsored not by the Spectator, but by the Rosenkranz Foundationwhich, while not Leftoid, is run by a liberal media person. These debates are broadcast on the very Leftoid NPR.
As for the other ones, the only one I can see anything about is next week’s “Major reductions in carbon emissions are not worth the money.” This is, of course, the wrong question, and won’t really address the real issue – the AGW hoax. Yes, even though Bjorn Lomborg will be there, the motion is not whether or not AGW is real, but whether it’s worth strangling businesses over carbon emissions. This still leaves AGW as unchallenged fact, something that fits right in with the BBC mindset. Of course they’re going to broadcast this.
These people had another debate about whether or not AGW was real last March. The skeptics won that one, so you won’t see the BBC broadcasting that.
I don’t know about the other debates the BBC will be broadcasting, but you can bet there won’t be too much challenging of the BBC mindset in any of them.
David Preiser (USA) | 09.01.09 – 3:03 pm |
Don’t be a chump. Of course the BBC committed to broadcasting the Bush debate before the result was known.
Also Karl Rove was on the panel… I need say no more.
the motion is not whether or not AGW is real, but whether it’s worth strangling businesses over carbon emissions.
IMHO that’s the proper argument to have. Whether AGW is real is a technical question that can only be answered by science. Currently some scientists say yes, others say no. Truth is, they just don’t know.
What is worth having a political debate about is whether the downside of emissions reductions is worth risking on an uncertain scientific theory.
My earlier point was about itles or ‘motions’ for debate.
Neither the UN one, nor the carbon emissions one exactly embody left wing attitudes in their phrasing. Arguably, the opposite.
Here’s another biased gem from the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7820248.stm
Choice quotes:
“But, to [the Scottish Parliament’s] credit, their first big debate was on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”
“The Liberal Democrat Hugh O’Donnell summed up the predicament in the Middle East: “The Palestinian people are paying a dear price for the guilt of Europe over the holocaust of the Jews.””
Disgraceful.
Greg | 09.01.09 – 4:14 pm
That is outrageous. John Knox may as well have written: “See what this guy said, I agree with him.”
Bush is undoubtedly one of the worst ever US Presidents. He has massively overspent and taken the US from surplus to debt.
He has presided over obscene Corporate Welfare (how can Bush be opposed to social welfare and then hand out a massive welfare handout (with few conditions) to wealthy bankers?) Thus the principle of the free market is totally undermined as bribed US politicians (Rep and Dem) provide huge amounts of corporate welfare to failing and corrupt businesses.
It was Bush who appointed the crook Henry Paulson, who blatantly favoured his former employer, Goldman Sachs, and has doled out taxpayers money to his rich friends (except Goldman’s rivals Lehman Bros, of course). It seems that much of the US taxpayers money has largely gone into paying for CEOs golden parachutes.
Mind you, don’t expect much change under Obama, as he seems to be another Goldman Sachs puppet.
Prominently on the BBC News front page:
McCanns’ anger at Tory activist
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7820727.stm
Whilst accepting that the Tory concerned has been pretty stupid, is it at all likely that the headline would have mentioned “Labour” had it been someone from that party? Or indeed be so prominent?
Oh, you missed the real corker, Roland.
This story was originally entitled:
McCann’s anger over ‘Tory Stunt’
Do a quick Google search for Tory Stunt and you might still catch the link.
Needless to say, despite the quotes there was no one quoted saying that. It was entirely an invention of BBC bias.
Sadly I didn’t get a screen shot of the BBC page with that headline but I have got one of the Google search.
‘BBC fixer paid gang member, 17, to brandish guns on Panorama programme’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1110804/BBC-fixer-paid-gang-member-17-brandish-guns-Panorama-programme.html
US blogger John Zeigler interviewed twelve Obama voters on election day [http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8].
The most clueless got her information the BBC.
As wind farms are in the news- the destruction of one in Lincolnshire by ?
I wonder if the global warming enthusiasts so enamoured of them are going to remain silent about our cold weather which is ,as usual, accompanied by little or no wind.
Will they tell us how we generate electricity in these weather conditions other than by conventional or nuclear means. I expect a complete silence and as usual nothing from the climate change enthusiasts at the BBC
Roland Deschain: It’s just been on the BBC 6PM news as well. The guy sounds like a right tosser.
However, I will be expecting the BBC to do the same when some Labour party tosspot does a stupid stunt.
I won’t be holding my breath.
Bush is undoubtedly one of the worst ever US Presidents
Nonsense. It was Clinton who started the current economical disaster with mortgages in the USA. And Carter was far worse than either.
Did Bush cause the financial crisis?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7814704.stm
…….in the piece we get this;
The image of Mr Bush as the arch deregulator and the Democrats as the champions of stricter rules for business does not quite tally with the evidence
and the final line is this:
It is impossible to blame it all on one man.
……..so surley the correct headline would be:
Bush Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis
The BBC never went into the Ken Livingstone/Lee Jasper corruption scandal because to them it wasn’t “Newsworthy”.
When I heard that this was doing the rounds of the tabloids I just knew that the BBC would be wanking themselves silly over this “Newsworthy” story:
McCanns’ anger at Tory activist.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7820727.stm
The BBC will do their utmost to make sure this story runs and runs.
Forget Brown’s incompetence over the economy, this is far more important stuff.
Roland Deschain | 09.01.09 – 5:37 pm |
Should have scrolled up shouldn’t I?
Still no news on this on the BBC website:
“Blow for PM as Cameron leads poll by 7 points”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23615753-details/Blow+for+PM+as+Cameron+leads+poll+by+seven+points/article.do
Why would that be – any ideas?
Libertarian,
That article is interesting in what it left out…namely the role the Light Worker ™ had in actively working against regulating Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac after taking their money.
Mailman
FFS – the year 2100 and “could” are the key words here. WTF does this merit BBC attention, and still no mention of Manhattan Convention…….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7817684.stm
Well you have to give it to Al Beeb for their tenacity at sticking with the global warming swindle in spite of the nil temperature increase in the last 10 years 🙂
Mailman
‘Harry’s Place’
“A Tale of Two Stories” (by Brett)
[- A comment on BBC reporting of killing of Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, etc.]
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/09/a-tale-of-two-stories/
Observation by Mary Jackson of ‘New English Review’ on ‘Harry’s Place’ piece by Brett above:
“Nor does the BBC see that Al Qaeda and Hamas are one and the same: both are part of the global jihad.”
‘BBC’s double standards’
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/18904
Even if Bush is not responsible for the economic disaster (Greenspan is probably most to blame), he has presided over the theft of $700 billion dollars of US taxpayers money by that shit Hank Paulson, who has given much of it to his wealthy Wall Street friends, clearly favouring the company he was CEO of two years ago.
But Obama is no better, as it seems he will appoint another Goldman Sachs crook who will no doubt claim more welfare benefits for his banker friends.
Notwitstanding the bias, the longer Al beeb scumbags cover whats going on in the Gaza Strip the better.
Its keeping that prick Robert Peston off the airwaves. The financial markets should recover now
Anyone else seen the BBC sucking up yet come Nu Liebour spin as if it’s fact?
The latest story about the Government planning 3 month paid work for students. Read this part of the BBC’s spin.
“…Four top firms, including Barclays and Microsoft, will take on some of this year’s 300,000 graduates….”
Wow. Like what thousands of them? Er no, just a few hundred between them.
So why doesn’t the BBC story point this out?
“Some of the 300,000” makes it sound like a significant amount, but as usual it’s just Labour spin re spun by the BBC.
“…Four top firms, including Barclays and Microsoft, will take on some of this year’s 300,000 graduates….”
Are they among the same firms that are currently laying off tens of thousands of workers due to the economic “downturn”?
The £3bn a year BBC spreading unchecked, factually wrong information? Say it ain’t so…
http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/musicradar-vs-the-bbc-on-the-demise-of-led-zeppelin-191074
“This is not just a joke, it’s a BBC joke”
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/This-is-not-just-any.4862064.jp
Ok, it’s time we collaborated on a glossary of BBC terms I think, perhaps in a wiki or something.
Here are few from this afternoon’s New 24 coverage of the Anti-War anti-israeli protests in London.
“largely peaceful protest” = breaking shop windows, ransanking Starbucks and looting the store, hurling missiles, knocking a police officer unconscious, breaking police lines distrupting traffic and rendering businesses with the misfortune to be located near Kensington Gardens out of an afternoons trade.
“tens of thousands of protesters” = hyperbole, 10-15,000 (police estimate)
What the surprise! Beeboids evangelize for OBAMA:
“BBC bullish on Barack Obama”
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117998296.html?categoryid=1019&cs=1&nid=2562
I bet many corporations are licking their lips at the opportunities to sponge off the taxpayer which a recession brings.
Brown won’t create many jobs, but the likes of Microsoft will get big welfare handouts from the taxpayer, they’ll take your money while Brown spins that he’s doing something.
Get ready for Brown’s corporate welfare bonanza.
Meanwhile Goldman Sachs and Robert Peston will continue to profit from the economic vicissitudes.
A poll for Labour and the BBC to ignore:
‘Telegraph’-
‘Loosen Britain’s ties with European Union, say two-thirds of voters’
[Extract]:
“Almost two-thirds of voters want a significant loosening of Britain’s ties with the European Union including an end to the supremacy of the European Court of Justice, a new opinion poll reveals.
“The YouGov survey for the TaxPayersAlliance and Global Vision, the Eurosceptic pressure group, shows that voters remain antagonistic towards the EU in the wake of the Lisbon Treaty, which increased the powers of Brussels at the expense of national governments, as well as towards the euro, despite recent falls in the value of the pound.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4214369/Loosen-Britains-ties-with-European-Union-say-two-thirds-of-voters..html
BBC continues its agenda of Obama-promotion, this time by parroting his claim that his “public works projects” will “create 4 million jobs” without offering one opposing word whatsoever from the wealth of economic, political and even journalistic opinion in America currently screaming “public works projects do not help the economy.”
Of course we all know fine well that if the reverse were happening and a conservative president were proposing to boost the economy by slashing taxes and reducing spending, the BBC would line up a plethora of various trade union spokesmen and anticapitalist blowhards to tell us that more compassion, in the form of a larger government, was needed.
BBC bias – it’s out of control. Something really needs to be done. The BBC is going to spend Obama’s entire presidency without challenging him in any shape or form.
This is the sort of documentary reporting which the BBC should be doing now:
‘Mail’
“The great white backlash: working class turns on Labour over Immigration and Housing”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1111151/The-great-white-backlash-Working-class-turns-Labour-immigration-housing.html
The most important task facing the next President is getting Wall Street off its welfare addiction. These Welfare Kings need to stop sponging and start working. I fear that there will be perpetual bailouts now as corporations now know they can screw the US taxpayer over and over again.
Benefit spongers like Goldman Sachs should be given an ultimatum to give back the taxpayers money they have stolen within 6 months or face severe consequences.
But I doubt Obama will do that, as like Bush he is a puppet of the banksters.
Tom,
Thank you for that information. I appreciate it very much! 🙂
Andrew Marr show. After Brown last week he has Cameron on. Unlike last week we had to sit through an interview with a pop singer then two play-actors first. I put the sound off so I did not have to listen to them.
BBC surpassed themselves in sabotaging Cameron’s interview. They inexplicably went off air at least three times apparently due to ‘technical’ difficulties. They cut back to the studio every time the interview went off air, to get reactions from known Labour supporter David Aaroniovich. When they did return to the interview voices could be heard in the background and people in the room could be seen reflected in Cameron’s lamp. The BBC in effect destroyed this interview and it was impossible to concentrate on what Cameron was saying. There was no apology at all at the end of the programme. I’ve put in a complaint and hope others will too.
Oscar | 11.01.09 – 10:36 am |
I’ve noticed this before. It’s odd how few Labour Ministers get their interviews cut short by ‘technical difficulties’. It always seems to be the Tories and always when they are making points against Labour.
Perhaps we could keep a score board on the main page?
I think it’s entirely reasonable that the BBC covers the latest Royal faux pas; it’s not like the rest of the media mob didn’t and are not having a lovely ratings-driving bathe in it all.
However, have abseiled down into gutter trawling tabloid territory it seems they are trying to see them and lower them one better.
Because, having heard that the actual person/victim referred to didn’t/doesn’t seem much bothered about some rough-house badinage (no excuse here – the silly royal sod recorded it and I cannot believe that he is not yet wise to his being held to more scrutiny and a higher standard, so ‘D’uh), I am intrigued as to what lead to our national broadcaster to be moved to locating an ‘uncle’ somewhere to get the requisite ‘I’m offended’ racial outrage.
On a related topic, I do believe Andrew Lloyd Webber is teaming up with some mid-level fundamentalist religious ‘community leaders’ we’ve never heard of, across several ‘faiths’, to run ‘Martyr Idol’. Basically you go out to get offended by whatever you can, and then see how much damage your supporters can do getting upset on your behalf by the power of your heartfelt affront, and then number of media luvvies you can get to enlist.
It was to have been hosted by Graham Norton, but for some reason he was dropped as some judges voiced concerns… er, that.. he may not confer on it the gravitas required.
However, most other BBC employees in the public eye would doubtless be viewed as just fine at whipping up the audiences in a manner satisfactory to most agendas.
The Cattle Prod of Destiny | 11.01.09 – 11:11 am | #
I watched it.
I wonder whose idea it was to have this tricky out of studio experience all of a few hundred metres away from bubble central.
It looked like Mr. Cameron has man flu so maybe he asked them over for a fireside cosy.
It certainly did break the flow, but I wonder who it served less.
My enduring thought afterwards was BBC, breweries… and the inability to organise a small shared tipple with just £3.5B of my funds to waste on O/T on Sunday.
Maybe they need to get some Gazan-based ’employees’ to set up the video links in future? They seem to have the numbers of the right guys to hand.
There’s no doubt the Cameron interview was a total horlix – probably more embarrassing for the BBC than Cameron – but the anti-Tory intent was clear. Squeezing him in between Richard (yawn) Dreyfus and black bereted singer bizarrely offering us ‘woops I did it again’; allowing Aaronovich to interject with Labour editorial mid-interview; and all the other unprofessional staging of the interview – it all amounted to an attempt to make Cameron seem as un-statesmanlike as they possibly could. There was also a strange lack of mention of Cameron’s obvious flu symptoms. This was tawdry even by BBC standards. How very very different to their treatment of the dear great leader last week.
Not much from BBC’s Harrabin, blowing on about the wonders of wind-power recently. I wonder why:
“A small complaint”
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/01/small-complaint.html
Any chance we can have a new comments thread
Don’t be a chump. Of course the BBC committed to broadcasting the Bush debate before the result was known.
Also Karl Rove was on the panel… I need say no more.
What does Karl Rove’s presence have to do with whether or not the BBC would broadcast it? He’s a horrible debater, and is useless in public speaking. He’s an idea man, good behind the scenes. Rove’s very presence is a guaranteed loss for his side. If anything, Bill Kristol is much better, but he’s a lukewarm Bush supporter at best, and not much use for winning an audience over against the other two panelists.
So of course the BBC wanted in on it, as the result was obvious. Their previous commitment doesn’t mean they’d actually broadcast it if the result came out against the motion, or at least bury it deep in the schedule so nobody hears about it. They’ve decided against showing things before.
the motion is not whether or not AGW is real, but whether it’s worth strangling businesses over carbon emissions.
IMHO that’s the proper argument to have. Whether AGW is real is a technical question that can only be answered by science. Currently some scientists say yes, others say no. Truth is, they just don’t know.
What is worth having a political debate about is whether the downside of emissions reductions is worth risking on an uncertain scientific theory.
But it’s not presented as an uncertain theory on the BBC, is it? The BBC presents AGW as cold, undeniable fact, and has publicly stated that they will no longer find time for “opponents of the consensus”. So your own opinion on AGW isn’t relevant, even though you’re obviously closer to their position than I am.
This motion already assumes that AGW is real – not nebulous “Climate Change”, but awful things caused by man – and wants to get into whether or not to react to it in a specific way. By definition the opposing side will look bad.
My earlier point was about titles or ‘motions’ for debate.
Neither the UN one, nor the carbon emissions one exactly embody left wing attitudes in their phrasing. Arguably, the opposite.
I don’t see it at all. You’re coming at these ideas too reasonably, and are not looking at them in the larger context of the BBC’s overall reporting on them, outside of these debates.