Monthly Archives: February 2009

BBC Climate Blog

By | | , ,
50 Comments

The extent of the BBC’s faith in the global warming mantra was in evidence today as they worked up an articleto claim that- contrary to all the actual trendlines of temperatures in existence- we are facing a greater threat from climate change than so far believed.

It really feels like a flame-war between blogs- the more the BBC find their tendentious theory challenged by reality and by the people who inconvenientlly notice it, the more they ramp-up the rhetoric.

Well, this is perhaps not totally fair to them- but earlier this week there was a report released by the Met Office and covered by the Guardianwhich criticised global warming exaggeration. I didn’t hear anything about it on the BBC, and couldn’t find reference to it on the BBC website- showing perhaps that the BBC are not afraid to diverge from their climate mentors when a sacred cow is threatened. Yet when one scientist squeals that global warming is underestimated, it adorns the Sunday morning frontpage of the BBC website.

As the excellent Wattsupwiththat? website says, the BBC misreported the issue raised and misrepresented the qualifications of the scientist featured. Ignorance and bias going hand in hand, unsurprisingly.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

WORD ASSOCIATION

By | |
52 Comments

.

I was intrigued to read this BBC report on changes taking place in our..ahem…”ally” in the war on terror, Saudi Arabia. The sentence that caught my eye was the one that reads….”Sheikh Ibrahim al-Ghaith has lost his job as head of the commission, which enforces Saudi Arabia’s conservative brand of Islam, Wahhabism.” Now then, Wahhabism is many things – evil, toxic, violent, savage, retarded, malignant….but not, in any way, conservative. However the BBC loves to play word association, doesn’t it?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Balen Out?

By | | ,
35 Comments

We may well be one step closer to seeing what’s inside the notorious Balen report, but the appeal process may succeed in dragging it out forever and a day. Whatever happens, the fact that they’ve gone to such lengths to keep it quiet speaks volumes, probably far more than actually revealing what’s in there. It’s been concealed for long enough to have gathered mythical status.

Some say it’s not all that damning of the BBC in any case, and even if it is, people will discredit it as they always do. There are already several outfits monitoring anti-Israel bias such as Honest Reporting, Just Journalism and so on, and they are routinely dismissed as biased by those who don’t like their findings.

Everyone is bound to wonder what’s in a report that has been kept so secret. Protestations that it contains inner workings of BBC procedure and is none of our business just make one think ever more suspicious thoughts. What is going on in this mysterious BBC? It’s not the flipping Magic Circle, is it? Are there secrets that, if let out into the open, will destroy some vital mystique forever and ever? And then, abracadabra, the BBC will wither and die. That’s ridiculous, surely.

Too much water has gone under the bridge now since the Balen report was first prepared. There has been another onslaught of bias since then, so we need another Balen report.

Anyone who has ever been personally involved in an event that gets into the newspapers will know that as soon as it goes into print it appears distorted and acquires handfuls of errors.
Anyone who reads a wonderful book and then sees the film is usually hugely disappointed. Or they may find it okay, but not in the same way as the original. Someone else’s interpretation can’t be anything but someone else’s interpretation.


Jeremy Bowen can make as many Panoramas as he likes. He is a man with a partisan view, and that’s his business. But the BBC must provide balance. It must counteract the damage done by biased reporting by people with a grievance. Because the ‘wrong-is-right’ acceptance of Islamist alien cultural norms together with ever increasing waves of antisemitism are a tinderbox, and like a bush fire, we mustn’t say we didn’t see it coming.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

General BBC-related comment thread

By | |
31 Comments

. 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.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

READING BETWEEN THE LINES.

By | |
46 Comments

Quite interesting to read this BBC report which attributes the brutal stabbing of “Harry Potter” actor Robert Knox as the act of “a madman.” As Jon reports over on the excellent House of Dumb, it’s lucky that BBC interest in the story ends at the point. After all, you never know what the motivation of the killer really was….

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Geert

By | |
109 Comments

Despite the fact that it dominated the airwaves all day yesterday, the subject of freedom of speech vis-à-vis Geert Wilders is by no means exhausted. Of all the coverage in the mainstream media, the BBC didn’t come out too badly. The best of a bad lot. Sky made a great fuss about airports, planes landing and Wilders on an escalator, but it amounted to little. What I saw of Channel 4 was pathetic. The BBC had the most memorable moment. It had to be Miliband, after condemning this vile hateful deliberately provocative film, with exquisite Comedy Timing, admitting that he hadn’t seen it.

Several things struck me about the whole media coverage fiasco.

1. Hardly anyone brought up Lord Ahmed’s disgraceful threat to mobilise ten thousand Muslims if Wilders was allowed in, and no-one at all alluded to him crowing about this ‘victory for Muslims’ to the Pakistani press.

2. All the people who were speaking in support of Wilders, Baroness Cox, Lord Pearson, and co., did so in the name of free speech; they were all
oh-so-careful to insist that they ‘did not agree with him’, giving the impression that they disagreed entirely with his views on Islam, rather than the more nuanced disagreement I assume they meant. (that the Koran should be banned altogether)

3. All this potential violence that is waiting to be unleashed. – Who by?” Is it to be “Islamophobic” violence against Muslims stirred up by the film, perpetrated by those violent Jews and gays? Or is it violence by members of the religion of peace, enraged at criticism of the very Jihadi extremists they are supposed to disapprove of?

The content of Fitna was repeatedly described as ‘shots of horrific acts of violence juxtaposed with selected Koranic verses’. “Revolting!” “Repulsive!”


In the light of the loudly proclaimed assurance by Lord Ahmed that every single word of the Koran has equal importance and is of vital significance, I can’t see many grounds for the oft heard claims that that the majority of Muslims are moderate, and that Islam is the religion of peace. Furthermore, footage of ranting mullahs and suicide bombers which furnished the most undeniable examples of incitement to hatred and violence in the film were largely overlooked.

4. As for Salma Yaqoob, the only member of last night’s QT panel who actually spoke up for Geert’s visit, (in the name of free speech, naturally,) and the member of the Quilliam Foundation, I think it was Maajid Nawaz, who spoke in a similar vein in another programme, I can’t help feeling that they were not being entirely honest. I suspect that if they hadn’t known that Geert Wilders had already been safely and securely sent packing, they would have been singing a different tune. But taking advantage of the moral high ground from a position of safety by pretending to be magnanimous wasn’t very convincing.

5. Have they banned Hizb-ut Tahrir yet?

Thank you

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

F****** BORIS.

By | |
Comments Off on F****** BORIS.

You just knew the BBC would be all over the story apparently leaked by the oleaginous Keith Vaz that Boris Johnson swore 10 times in a private conversation. My God – what next? Pope is Catholic? Bears defecate in woods? BBC is biased? I caught an exchange between Andrew Gimson and BBC luvvie John O’Farrell on Today earlier. I find the latter individual a most unpleasant person, always ready with a sneer and so his faux outrage that Boris used the F word was as predictable as it was insubstantial. The reality of a Conservative as Mayor must drive the BBC mad and so any chance to try and undermine him is taken with relish.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

IN THE COUR

By | |
Comments Off on IN THE COUR

T OF KING OBAMA.

If this was a Republican Presidency, the BBC would be ALL over any mistakes but of course we live in era of The One and so critical faculties are ameliorated. Yet ANOTHER Obama nominee withdraws – this time Judd Gregg. I noticed the BBC chose to present this more in terms of the GOP Senator not being prepared to embrace Obama “reach out.” i.e Blame Judd, Not Obama.

In actual fact, what this really demonstrates is very poor judgement by Obama as he sets a new Presidential record for failed nominees. However the BBC always tries to help their man in the White House and as B-BBC reader Jason picks up, it finishes this report with another unsubstantiated claim from Obama that his magic “stimulus” (transgenerational theft) will save thousands of Caterpillar jobs. Turns out this is pure rubbish, but the BBC leave that out. As we go through the early days of the Obama Presidency, BBC attempts to spin in favour of The One look more and more desperate.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.