Mark Thompson’s comments have been taken as an admission-that the growing use of new technology to watch programmes will make the licence fee obsolete.
Rubbish. It’s not new technology that invalidates the license tax- it is the very concept of forcing us to fund a biased and insidious State broadcaster. And as for the notion of transferring this cost to an income tax or council tax – NO WAY. Thoughts?
Iain Dale, Oliver Kamm and Nick Ferrari all belatedly decided to stop appearing on the Iranian-backed Press T.V.
They no longer wish to lend whatever credibility their participation bestows upon this alleged propaganda machine.
What prompted these ‘principled’ resignations? For Iain Dale it was because “I have been appalled at the way their website has portrayed what’s happened in the Iranian elections” and for Nick Ferrari it was “in protest at the regime crushing dissent after the Iranian elections,” Oliver Kamm said his was because of “the station’s promotion of the work of a Holocaust denier”
But surely the clamp-down on protesters and Press T.V.s support for the Ahmadinejad regime – not to mention Holocaust denial – were not the first or the only signs that Press T.V. was something one wouldn’t want to be associated with?
This particular dilemma must have pre-dated the Iranian election fiasco. Why did the moral objections come to a head only after these terrible events?
The publicity engendered by these resignations wouldn’t have been quite the same if they had simply declined invitations to appear in the first place as I understand others have done.
There are calls for Press T.V. to be banned altogether, but where does that leave freedom of speech?
A station that features George Galloway, Yvonne Ridley and Lauren Booth, and has the ridiculous Matthew Richardson for an MD can’t have much credibility going for it, and too many bans make Jack a very dull boy..
Anyway, the dilemma applies to BBC as well, and the argument goes like this:
Does one participate in a set-up with which one profoundly disagrees in order to put the case for the other side? Or, does one have nothing to do with it in the first place?
The BBC have acquired a sudden enthusiasm for the pronouncements of Peter Hitchens. Not all of them, naturally. Just this one.
I see that the BBC is suggesting that “at least 10 militants have died after missiles were fired by a suspected US drone aircraft at a Taliban target in Pakistan, intelligence officials say. “ Finally, a strike that doesn’t involve a “wedding party.” Go USA. Of course the thing that gets me is the use of politically correct language at play here. Those killed weren’t “militants” – they were Islamic Jihadists. Why not SAY it? Why imply that the Taliban and Al Queda are some sort of professional army when in fact they are merely opportunistic and cowardly killers driven by the mad pathology of Islam? I wish we could speak a little more truth but then again the BBC has contorted and bent so many words out of all recognition.
Ok – so another Thursday night no liveblog. My colleague and co-host Geoff is improved a little and the serious perils reduced a little. He is aware of all your good wishes and I wanted to thank you for your understanding re my slight reduction on posts here as I am now keeping three blogs going! That said, still as incensed with Al Beeb as ever. Glad Sue picked up the Shamnesty report on Israel which the BBC just lurved and regurgitated in the usual manner – haven’t had time to cover it myself.
Anyway, this is now an OPEN THREAD – the floor is yours…
Amnesty International, the so-called Independent Human Rights organisation, has released a report about war crimes committed during the Cast Lead episode. To help, the BBC web page shows injured babies.
Israel’s crimes, many, varied and wide-ranging, (as well as wanton, deliberate and unjustified,) largely amount to not being accurate enough with their retaliatory responses. So when Hamas sends rockets from densely populated areas, Israel must restrain itself until it is absolutely certain that the guilty party can be targeted precisely, (provided that he is a militant, and not a civilian or a ‘child’) Then he’s permitted to be neatly zapped like in a computer game.
Well, we knew all this already.
The BBC doesn’t say that Donatella Rovera’s report is emotive and unprofessional, or that it criticises Israel “disproportionately “ and “Indiscriminately.”
On ‘Ask Amnesty’ for example, she seems to think Israel occupies Gaza. However hard she tries, her attempts to appear even-handed fall flat.
Neither Amnesty nor the BBC sees fit to mention that Hamas provoked the war in the first place, and that there could be peace tomorrow if the Palestinians recognised Israel and renounced violence. (I meant peace with Israel, – not peace amongst themselves, a different thing altogether.)
On this occasion I don’t think the BBC is as biased as usual. There are scare quotes around ‘war crimes’ in the headline. Almost as though they weren’t unreservedly supporting Amnesty’s report. Or is that wishful thinking?
Amnesty’s method of ‘evidence gathering’ is merely to question Palestinian eyewitnesses. Even the BBC might think that a little unscrupulous and unprofessional. But then again…
I happened to catch this interview on Today with Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant on the topic of government trying to prevent forced marriages. He was quick to make it clear that this was not directed towards Islam since Islam did not approve of such brutality. Then Sarah Montague pointed out that 70% of all (known) forced marriage cases involve people of Pakistani origin – a detail which Bryant shrugged off and which Montague promptly let drop. Anyone know what the predominant religion in Pakistan is? If do, give the Today show a call and update them.
I read that the BBC is to film a historical documentary likely to rob England of King Arthur, one of the nation’s most treasured legends.
Film-makers are due to arrive in Croatia next month (july) to begin filming the programme with British historian John Matthews, who believes Arthur was really Roman general Lucius Artorius Castus
Did you catch Mark Easton’s glowing report on Portugal’s policy of not prosecuting anyone caught in possession of hard drugs? Here is the content of it. What struck me was the subtle but all too evident admiration Easton exhibits for a government that has given up on the war on illegal narcotics. As Easton concludes…..
Some question aspects of the system but what Portugal’s controversial experiment has demonstrated is that, if you take the crime out of drug use, the sky doesn’t fall in.
This is an open thread for you to discuss all things BBC!
