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.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5514866.ece
anyone catch this story on the bbc yet.
“Washington diary: Inaugural fever ”
By BBC’s MATT FREI
MATT FREI: offers vague apology (to BBC licencepayers?) for his ‘sloth’ and then prepares us for the Beeboids’ evangelizing moment for their ‘messiah Obama inauguration’ extravaganza. The Beeboids are polishing up their gushing purple prose already.
First, a cryptic ‘apology’ from FREI, no doubt worn out after assisting the Democrat cause:
[Extract]:
“Apologies first of all for my prolonged absence.
“Washington DC is abuzz with preparations for the inauguration” [not half as abuzz as the BBC is].
“.I offer no excuse other than seasonal sloth and general exhaustion.”
Fair enough, Frei: you felt a bit tired after all your political exertions in the US, so you took some weeks off ‘work’. We know how the BBC operates. Still, FREI’s back in time to enjoy the many hours of Obama hype which he and his Beeboid chums will throw at us around the Beeboid inauguration junket trip.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/world_news_america/7827592.stm
As a counter to the many occasions when the BBC will hype up Obama’s ‘blackness’ and ‘slavery’, suggest see:
“Barack Obama and Slavery” by Bill Warner
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/barack-obama-and-slavery/
Harry’s Place on Bowen’s blind spot for anti-Semitism (read the comments from the author too):
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/14/why-this-conflict/
The Register reports on the BBC c&ping an insurance company press release in the name of climate change:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/12/blackman_bbc_climate_insurance/
BBC report, with video clip:
“Cashing in on Obama inauguration”
-isn’t this what the BBC is doing -for political rather than commercial motivation?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7828343.stm
The BBC is showing an ‘interview’ featuring that well known lover of democracy’N’free elections president Assad of Syria where he complains that the Israelis are fueling extremism in the region! Brass balls or what?
No Assad! the only people fueling extremism is evil regimes like yours, tosser.
The BBC crawl and grovel to evil scum on their collective bellies and report all their ‘wisdom’ as though it comes from the heavens!
dave t | 14.01.09 – 8:24 am |
Waffle about the neocons who are blamed for everything and the author writes: “Many neocons are Jews, but it is wrong to suggest that neoconservatism is an exclusively Jewish phenomenon. ” So why write that? The whole piece keeps claiming one thing then undermining its complaints by admitting that the neocons were right to have a plan after 9/11 when the doves didn’t!
Too many people whined about neocons being led by Jews, and that the war in Iraq was instigated by Jews, mostly to protect Israel. That meme has been out there from the start, the BBC is well aware of it (since they are as guilty as anyone for bringing it up now and then), they’ve got a picture of the main three Jews, with obviously Jewish names (always on the lookout for racial characteristics, your Auntie), so the editor felt compelled to mention it.
However, the BBC has never bothered to go through a little logical exercise to discredit the idea. All they’ve done here is go “Some say, but we don’t.” This, of course, skates right over a big hole into which the haters jump. But as far as the BBC editors are concerned, they’ve done their job by disassociating themselves from the idea.
I would be willing to wager that not a few Beeboids really do believe that the neocon phenomenon is a mainly Jewish one, led by Jews, mostly to protect Israel. But at least they’re not promoting the idea.
The BBC’s “The Full Story: PM’s Questions” seems to be missing something. Apparently “1212 Mr Brown defends the VAT cut, saying it gives the typical family an extra £5 a week to spend.” Oddly when I listened to PMQs I heard him say that the typical family would be £5 a week better off “that’s £370 a year”. The last time I checked, 5 x 52 was 260, but what do I know.
Are the BBC unaware that 5 x 52 does not equal 370? Do they have nobody who can multiply a two digit number by 5 working there? Or are they trying to protect the Prime Minister from ridicule?
I have written a lot more on this type of insidious bias here.
Robin Lustig’s post is bad. It may appear on the surface that he has captured the sentiment of both sides, but his use of language is extremely unhelpful.
He fails to mention the Hamas Charter, and restricts his hypothetical Palestinian’s support for Hamas to “fighting for” them. His apologia for being non-religious is supposed to further sweeten his support for Hamas in the mind of the reader. He elides over the fact that what his hypothetical Palestinian is talking about is removing Jews from Israel entirely so that he can live in his grandfather’s home and plant lemon trees. He further buries that truth at the end of the statement by narrowing the focus to the “settlements”, which generally refers only to the West Bank, not Israel proper, 1948 borders.
Lustig’s language use in the hypothetical Israeli statement is just as bad. All the reader is left with is the bad taste of “Strong” versus “Weak”. To me, this is low-grade propaganda terminology. When he has the hypothetical Israeli state that the Arabs want to push them into the sea, it comes across as an Israeli opinion, not as the fact that it actually is. This is wrong.
He may be a Jew, but he doesn’t get it. No wonder the BBC looks to him to educate the license fee payers.
Hello,
I am a dutch citizen who receives the BBC as part of the normal package of TV stations received in the Netherlands.
I am glad to find your site, I wanted to express my utter shock at how anti-Israeli the BBC reporting has been.
When I compare and contrast the ‘version’ of events that the BBC seems to be pushing, and then I view the Dutch and German broadcasters, it is clear that either the BBC is correct and that Israel is a terrorist state, or that the BBC reports are biased, and in support of HAMAS.
As I said at the start of my comment, I am truly shocked at how poor the BBC reporting has been, and just like the UK public, I too am forced to pay a tax to receive such pathetic news from the BBC.
Keep up the good work with this site, and does the blogger called Atlas Shrugged post from one of our famous coffee shops?.
He may be a Jew, but he doesn’t get it. No wonder the BBC looks to him to educate the license fee payers.
David Preiser (USA) | 14.01.09 – 6:19 pm
A good example of the discussion I’ve had with Sarah Jane starting here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5283337510865622625/#442200
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/7829182.stm
Council leader convicted of stealing from charity. What’s missing ?
HSLD: My thoughts exactly…
Just watched Vince Cable get interviewed on BBC News 24. The only thing the beeboid didn’t do for him was bring him his pipe and slippers.
It was more like a cosy chat. The beeboid even politely asked St Vince about his article in one of the papers the other day about bailing out Landrover. Beeboid grovels “I wasn’t sure quite what you meant Vince…”
How so different from the verbal spitting a Tory like George Osborne gets off the BBC.
Interesting corrective to BBC group-think by Andrew Roberts at the Telegraph:
“History will show that George Bush was right”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4241865/History-will-show-that-George-W-Bush-was-right.html
Obviously, this view will never find an airing on the State Broadcaster, but no doubt it will stir up the commenters on the generally rabid DT ‘Have your say’ tomorrow!
Biodegradable | 14.01.09 – 1:45 pm,
Thanks for that.
The bBC, its love for those on the left and a certain missing word starting in ‘P’
Polanski ‘has no US return plan’
Roman Polanski has “no plans ever to return” to America despite his campaign to dismiss a 1977 US charge of unlawful sex with a minor, his lawyer has said.
His motivation was to ensure that legal system “misconduct” did not go unpunished, Chad Hummel said in papers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7828212.stm
So the bBC promtoes a story about how Roman Polanski who had sexual intercourse with a child of 13 when he was 44 is actually a victim by quoting;
“”judicial and prosecutorial misconduct… so distorted the legal process that the interests of justice can only be served with complete dismissal of the case”.
Yup great how the left have no problem defending crimes which if committed by a catholic priest would have the bBC crying out human rights crime.
http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?tab=all&q=priest+sex
and here they are defending the same kind of person.
The bBC, its love for those on the left and a certain missing word starting in ‘P’
Hey, rat face on Newsnight has just mentioned they are doing a report from Chicago. Apparently something stinks there about some dodgy dealings and Obama.
NO SHIT BBC!!!! Where have you been for the last 12 months? Oh hang on you’ve been up his arse.
The bBC, it love for El Presidenti for life and a very quiet story.
Venezuela’s Chavez takes stock
Venezuela’s socialist economy is not in danger from the low oil price and global economic crisis, Venezuela President Hugo Chavez has said. He was speaking during his annual address to the national assembly.
Traditionally the address is used to highlight the government’s achievements of the previous year.
But Mr Chavez also used his speech to make the case for changing the constitution to remove limits on how many times a president can serve.
Correspondents say that a vote on the issue, which is expected in mid-February, is set to be very close.
During Tuesday’s address, which lasted several hours, President Chavez said it would be dangerous to remove a captain from his ship half-way through the voyage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7828112.stm
Can you imagine the outcry from the bBC if say Bush had said. “Sorry i need to stay in power for a few more terms.”
You know the same bBC which has no problem airing the opinions of its reporters say like Abu (I drool for Islamic despots such as Asad) Bowen in its news reports. But when it comes to Hugo Chavez well nothing.
The bBC, it love for El Presidenti for life and a very quiet story.
pounce | 14.01.09 – 10:42 pm |
Nice one. That’s a pathetic excuse for a report. “The opposition would dispute that claim…” Yes, they would, BBC. To bad you can’t be bothered to report a little truth along with the noise from Hurricane Hugo.
Growth in 2008 was half that of last year. When growth shrinks by half in the US, it’s a crisis, the US losing its way, etc. But the BBC can’t even bring themselves to mention that inflation is now at 30.9%, the highest in Latin America. Surely that’s newsworthy? Only that other BBC special case, Zimbabwe, has higher inflation.
And while we’re at it, BBC, what about finding someone who is honest enough to say that Chavez isn’t trying to change the constitution to end limits on how many terms “a president” can serve, but that this will make him ruler for life?
One more inconvenient truth the BBC doesn’t want you to know about Venezuela: A couple of years ago, citizens traveling abroad had their credit card limits restricted to $5000 so they couldn’t spend too much outside the country. Now Chavez has cut that in half to $2500 per year.
Crisis, what crisis? The BBC doesn’t want you to know.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7254926.stm
“This has already led to accusations that migrants, who are net contributors to the economy, will become “cash cows” who are being denied reasonable rights.”
I thought it had been established that immigration produced no significant benefit (4p?) to the economy. The real benefit brought by a few rich American immigrants being wiped out by the vast numbers of poor from the third world. Unless you count the necessarily increased employment in the security industries as a benefit, that is.
Paul C | 15.01.09 – 10:34 am |
This seems more like a trial balloon than an actual policy. Or something that’s the result of a student discussion group.
This bit seems like a real joke:
Active citizenship is more nebulous. Assessors will be looking for proof that someone is more than just a taxpayer – and the more “active” they are in the local community the quicker their journey to citizenship will become.
Acceptable activities could include voluntary work, involvement in local groups or the school parent-teacher association. Migrants will need to find referees to vouch for these good deeds.
This policy would put every radical Imam on the fast track, no? If all the immigrant has to do is “get involved with the local community”, then they can stay in their local ethnic group. How in the world is this supposed to help or prove integration? Never in a million years would a Labour Government make a rule that immigrants had to get involved with the indigenous white, Christian community. I don’t see a government which is lowering national test standards for students all of a sudden start making immigrants take harder tests to show they’re improving their English, either.
I think this is just a half-assed government policy announcement, which the BBC happily reports, no questions asked. Is this a press release or a news report?
DP,
Well lets just hope that the morons that put this policy together actually gave a thought to the kinds of community projects people would be involving themselves in.
Because when I think about community involvement Im thinking about things like playing in your local cricket club not being actively involved in something like a Kohanga (Maori language nest in New Zealand) in Suffolk.
Then again, Im not going to hold my breath that these morons did think of this!
Mailman
Mailman,
They can’t possibly make a rule forcing an immigrant to get involved outside of their own immigrant community. Even the slightest hint of that would mean immigrants who lived outside of immigrant neighborhoods would by default have a better chance at citizenship.
I’m not saying that’s a bad idea, of course. I’m just saying it’s never gonna happen.