141 Responses to OPEN THREAD…

←Older Comments
  1. George R says:
    October 10, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    BBC excels itslf here with:

    1.) the blandest of headlines:

    “Protesters in city demonstration”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8300431.stm

    It takes some time to find out what the protest was about (Islam) and in which city it took place (Manchester).

    2.) the over-representation of the view of anti-protesters.

       0 likes

  2. David Preiser (USA) says:
    October 10, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    The BBC’s pro-EU bias is on display every time they talk about the Czech President’s delay in signing on to Lisbon.  The Polish President has just signed, and the Beeboids’ criticism is evident.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8300311.stm

    Note how the Polish leader is suddenly not labeled by the BBC as being anti-Semiticand anti-homosexual.  After all we’ve come to praise the EU, not to bury it.  In this case, the BBC has no problem at all encouraging people to associate with nasty Polish Catholics who are anti-Jew and anti-Gay.

    But the real bias on display is the actual criticism of Vaclav Klaus.  Mark Mardell’s successor, Gavin Hewitt, is now criticizing Klaus for delaying.  The Czech’s are now “isolated”.  The BBC dutifully mentions Klaus’s more colorful objections, because in their minds saying things like the EU reminds one of Soviet bureaucracy is just a joke, and evidence of his mendaciousness.

    Hewitt describes Klaus’s stalling as “farce”.  The message here is that the EU is good, and that anyone who opposes it is wrong.  This Narrative is very clear in nearly all BBC reporting on the EU.

       0 likes

  3. David Preiser (USA) says:
    October 10, 2009 at 3:58 pm

    The BBC helpfully promotes the idea that the niqab is not so radical or oppresive towards Mohameddan woman after all.

    “No covering up Egypt’s niqab row”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8299830.stm

    There have been demonstrations by women students in Cairo after a leading cleric backed moves to ban the wearing of full women’s veils, known as the niqab, in classrooms or dormitories. Christian Fraser has been hearing both sides of the argument.

    Except he hasn’t been.  Fraser goes to one source and one source only to get the anti-niqab point of view.  It’s a high and mighty (and presented as such, basically) scholarly source.

    It is not often I am summoned to the door of the Supreme Council of the ancient al-Azhar university.

    It is, after all, the high seat of Sunni Islam.

    So Christian Fraser is a Shiite,and wouldn’t normally expect to be invited to a Sunni Supreme Council?  That’s how this reads.  Just clumsy writing, I suppose.

    Fraser makes it very clear, in a gently mocking fashion, that he was not given any answers he liked about why the niqab should be banned.  His distaste for the “sermon” was evident.

    So for the other point of view, does he go to another scholar who can give him the religious justification for the niqab?  Well, sort of. He goes to someone at the American Univ. in Cairo, who explains that the boundaries between religion and custom and tradition are dissolving.  So that’s tacit admission that it’s a custom which has been co-opted by religious extremism.  But they won’t say it openly.  They also point to Salafism as the Saudi cause, but not Wahabbism, which is even more extreme.

    Fraser does present the verse from the Koran instructing women to cover their bodies.  But he says that’s “vague”.  It isn’t, really.  There is no mention of the veil, or any covering of the face, which is the single most important point of objection over the niqab.  So Fraser is obviously dancing around the reality that there is nothing about covering the face in the Koran, and tries to play it as an open question.

    Then he goes to people with vested interests in promoting the niqab:  people who sell them and wear them.  The message of this report is clear:  the niqab is not something out of religious extremism.  It’s mainstream now, not oppressive at all, and we need to understand that.

       0 likes

    • George R says:
      October 10, 2009 at 4:34 pm

      David Preiser (USA).

       Well said.

       And the BBC applies to same dhimmitude as it does  to the wearing of the niqab in Muslim Egypt as it does to wearing it in the  non-Muslim West.

         0 likes

  4. Guest says:
    October 11, 2009 at 6:23 am

    Morning paper review. And it’s… surprise… Kevin Maguire!

    Is he the only one up at this time? Or has he a room there?

    In case you missed this one, he’s back in an hour.

    Meanwhile, further spending or money wisely (not what one might think, but fun):

    Jeremy Paxman & John Humphrys: dumb and dumber


    http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6869601.ece

       0 likes

  5. Guest says:
    October 11, 2009 at 8:10 am

    Ryan Air seems to have an ‘interesting’ business model. Despite actively avoiding much by way of customer service, it nonetheless seems to have been pretty successful.

    Not my first choice unless I don’t have one, but good luck to ’em. Market forces will decide at some point.

    However, I am a little unclear as to why the national broadcaster sees it as their mission to try and destroy this indpendent business at every opportunity.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/default.stm

    Is the money-making arm of the BBC about to set up a budget airline?

    Lord help ‘other’ travel guides should this trend extend.

    ps: M&S is OK; they like Sir Stuart, and in the guise of business news seem to get him on weekly to tell us what good value they are, and, oh, they have a new great range/deal/offer on…

       0 likes

    • Martin says:
      October 11, 2009 at 10:18 pm

      Beeboids would NEVER be seen dead on low budget airlines. Only the best for beeboids, first class travel along with free champers.

         0 likes

  6. George R says:
    October 11, 2009 at 9:04 am

    Alternative to the BBC’s campaign for illegal immigrants to become UK residents.

     The BBC uses British people’s licencepayer money to pump out incessant propaganda on behalf of illegal immigrants, by e.g., BBC’s Ms Kirby (on Calais):

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8299092.stm

     In contrast, today’s ‘Mail on Sunday’ raisies the level of debate with this article by Christopher Caldwell, which, unfortunately, does not discuss  the need for an end to the  immigration to Britain from all countries, including Islamic ones:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1219460/CHRISTOPHER-CALDWELL-Immigration-America-strong–threatens-ruin-Europe.html

       0 likes

  7. George R says:
    October 11, 2009 at 12:16 pm

    ‘Sunday Express’:

    “Legal payout episode shows it is time to tame the BBC”

    http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/133366/Legal-payout-episode-shows-it-is-time-to-tame-the-BBC

       0 likes

  8. George R says:
    October 11, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    BBC, and its non-Islamic PAKISTAN.

    BBC’s report on Pakistan fails to mention ISLAM; all we get is ‘militants’:

    “Clinton warns on Pakistan threat”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8301249.stm

    For an alternative analysis:

     ‘Jihadwatch’ – Hugh Fitzgerald on Pakistan:-

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/10/fitzgerald-pakistan-a-brief-and-true-relation.html

       0 likes

  9. George R says:
    October 11, 2009 at 4:11 pm

    Labour allows Islamic broadcaster ‘Al Jazeera’ on frontline with British troops in Afghanistan!  BBC: no comment.

     I know that the BBC has a ‘technical agreement’ with the Emir of Qatar’s ‘Al Jazeera’ which has London studios employing many ex-Beeboids, who find it easy to make the small ideological step from the pro-Hamas BBC to the pro-Hamas ‘Al Jazeera’ TV,

    BUT you would think that the BBC would have some sense of newsworthiness left in the corporation to follow up this important report in the ‘Mail’:

    <div id=”digg-button” class=”float-r hidden”>
    <script src=”http://scripts.dailymail.co.uk/js/diggthis.js” type=”text/javascript”></script>
    </div>

    “MoD ‘putting troops at risk’ by letting Al Jazeera report from Afghanistan front line”

     

     
    “Reporters from the controversial Arab TV channel Al Jazeera – infamous for broadcasting video messages from Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden – are to be allowed to report for the first time alongside UK troops from the frontline in Afghanistan.
    Until now, so-called ’embeds’ in Helmand Province, where most UK troops are fighting, have been restricted to British media outlets such as the BBC, ITV and Sky, plus US TV stations.
    But the Ministry of Defence confirmed last night that Al Jazeera – dubbed ‘terror television’ for broadcasting hostage executions and the deaths of British and US soldiers – is to be given permission to report from the Afghan war zone.”

    Unbelievable irresponsibility, unreported online by BBC so far.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1219549/MoD-putting-troops-risk-letting-Al-Jazeera-report-Afghanistan-line.html#ixzz0Tdz8fUSc

       0 likes

  10. David Preiser (USA) says:
    October 11, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    A new word has entered the BBC PC lexicon:  nomadic herders are now “pastoralists”.  Isn’t that sweet?

    Drought:  Kenya’s own banking crisis

    The drought which has hit East Africa is wreaking havoc among the region’s pastoralists. Their herds of livestock have been decimated. Even the hardy camels are dying.

    For a moment, I thought this was going to be about the difficulties faced by a bunch of “The Goode Life” types….

    “Pastoralists”, while barely technically accurate, is hardly a realistic description of these people.  It also softens the reality of their, shall we say, less-than-civilized lifestyle.  I guess “nomadic herdsmen” no longer has that romantic appeal, while “pastoralist” lends a certain amount of green caché which registers well with a certain crowd.  And, I suppose, “nomadic herdsmen” is now considered racist or insulting in some way.

       0 likes

  11. David Preiser (USA) says:
    October 11, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    I shouldn’t have even checked this, but the BBC’s form with leaving the door open for 9/11 truthers compelled me to.  One of the links next to the latest report about fighting the Taliban in Pakistan was to this:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1549285.stm

    Who are the Taliban?

    And what do I find half way down the page?

    The Taliban in Afghanistan were accused of providing a sanctuary to Osama Bin Laden and the al-Qaeda movement who were blamed for the attacks.

    “Who were blamed,” BBC?  They admitted it!  They left videos and letters about it!  Why can’t you ever get this right?  What does this say about the hiring practices and editorial standards of BBC News Online?  They never learn.

       0 likes

  12. martin sykes says:
    October 11, 2009 at 11:31 pm

    The BBC Trust under fire – from the Granuiad of all places

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2009/oct/12/steve-hewlett-bbc-trust

       0 likes

  13. Ian says:
    October 12, 2009 at 12:26 am

    Monday 01:00 am nearly all the major news vendors are leading with the quite outrageous story that MP’s are going to fight the return of monies dishonestly obtained via the expenses scam.

    Except the BBC which although it has an £800 budget currently has not a word on its website.

    Very interesting.

    They have been informative on other questionable activities however, because if you look we can see that the protestors on the top of parliament are ‘mainly peaceful’.

    That helps the narrative along. We wouldnt want to get the wrong idea about those greenies.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8301204.stm

       0 likes

    • Guest says:
      October 12, 2009 at 5:52 am

      ‘mainly peaceful’ – that is, until the point that blissful state of karmic ease ceases to apply? But, on average…

      A good cousin to ‘Mostly Harmless’.

      Douglas Adams would be proud.

      Mind you, their ‘fair reflection’ selections do tend to follow one of his finer satirical constructs:

      http://www.planetclaire.org/quotes/hitchhikers/

         0 likes

  14. Martin says:
    October 12, 2009 at 7:42 am

    I noticed that Nicki Campbell is in full defence mode for Labour and Gorgon Brown this morning. Talking about MP expenses Campbell said to Fraser Nelson that “he didn’t really think that Gordon Brown had done anything wrong in paying his brother 6K for a cleaner did he?”. Of course not Nicki, unlike Tories of course who as the BBC keep pointing out are guilty.

    Expect to see a lot of Labour MPs’ in the crap today but I’m sure the BBC will find the nasty Tory moats. Expect 5 bellies Smiff to be one who as we know got an easy ride off the BBC when the likes of the Telegraph and Mail were pounding her over living in her sisters broom cupboard.

       0 likes

  15. Roger C says:
    October 12, 2009 at 7:57 am

    I see that the BBC have removed their “Pole Tracker” from their website after not updating it at all this month. Going the wrong way BBC? Tories up 19%.

       0 likes

  16. Anonymous says:
    October 12, 2009 at 8:35 am

    Just testing out this new comments board. But just for the info;
    “How many people, out there. Actually use the bBC for the news?”

       0 likes

  17. Pounce says:
    October 12, 2009 at 8:43 am

    OK the bBC are running with the story over how the taliban are claiming to be behind the attack on the Pakistani army’s HQ the other day which killed 19 people. (of which 8 were terrorists) and with a story about how a bomb attack has killed a number of pakistani soldiers.

    However they don’t make any mention on how the Pak armed forces have bombed the shite out of the Taliban since Sat taking out at least 31 militants.

    Funny how the bBC only promotes the news it wants you to hear.

       0 likes

  18. Philip says:
    October 12, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    It seems ‘a man’, ‘possibly of North African origin’ has just tried to blow up an army barracks in Milan. 

    Censoring the Jihad. It’s what we do.

       0 likes

    • Opinionated More Than Educated says:
      October 12, 2009 at 4:11 pm

      Waiting for authoritative information. That’s what good journalists do.

         0 likes

      • George R says:
        October 12, 2009 at 6:07 pm

        For BBC, and its supporter, OMTE:

        “Italy: Libyan bomber ‘prayed with us’ says Muslim leader.”
         

        http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=3.0.3868638642

           0 likes

      • Philip says:
        October 12, 2009 at 8:13 pm

        it was already known to other news agencies earlier this afternoon that the ‘man’ was Libyan – but the ‘authoritative’ Al-Beeb didn’t change their story until 18:57 this evening.

        So don’t try to be a smartarse.

           0 likes

        • Opinionated More Than Educated says:
          October 12, 2009 at 8:36 pm

          I try all the time not to be a smartarse. Feel free to point out when I fail, but….

          Your original complaint was that the BBC was

          Censoring the Jihad.

          You now point out that 

          It was already known to other news agencies earlier this afternoon that the ‘man’ was Libyan

          Are you saying that Libyan now automatically means Jihadi?

          Or are you reducing the level of your complaint from Censoring the Jihad to the slightly less emotive Not yet identifying the bomber as a Libyan?

          I notice that the agencies are still not identifying the man as a Jihadi – indeed the Mayor of Milan is suggesting that he might be a disturbed individual. Plus the stories all seem to indicate that it was a poorly-made weapon, and therefore unlikely to be a major terrorist attack. 

          If The BBC was not, in fact, Censoring the Jihad, perhaps Biased BBC was just a little keen to Jump For Jihad?

             0 likes

          • George R says:
            October 12, 2009 at 9:32 pm

            Isn’t the BBC jumping to the conclusion that the Libyan Muslim bomber who attacked an Italian army barracks is not a jihadist, but insane?

             The BBC , as usual, is a little to keen to play the dhimmi.

            Anyway, the BBC has given up on the report and the ‘J’ word is left unmentioned.

               0 likes

          • Philip says:
            October 12, 2009 at 11:01 pm

            I try all the time not to be a smartarse

            You fail miserably most of the time, too – you are patronising, arrogant and intensely disliked by most here.

            The BBC consistently dilutes the ‘Islamic’ component of Islamic terrorism by the use of euphemisms such as ‘militants’ ‘man’, etc. – and by ‘de-Islamising’ news articles that clearly have an Islamic/Jihad component – and which could cast Muslims in a negative light.

            This article was a case in point.

            In doing so, it acts as a self-censor and – in my opinion and that of many others – underplays and thereby dilutes important news of the Jihad against the West; and panders to Muslims.

            Are you saying that Libyan now automatically means Jihadi? 

            A straw man – but I’ll humour you. In the generality of life? Clearly, not at all. In the case of homicide bomb attacks on Italian military bases? Absolutely yes – 100% of the time.

            Or are you reducing the level of your complaint from ‘Censoring the Jihad’ to the slightly less emotive Not yet identifying the bomber as a Libyan?  

            My use of the jibe ‘Censoring the Jihad’ clearly refers to my opinion as to the cumulative, general nature of BBC reporting in this area. Today’s story was merely grist to the mill.

            It was known that man was Libyan and therefore, even in the Beeb’s morally inverted bubble, more than likely to have a Jihad/terrorism component – but they did not update their story to include this fact for several hours after other media (including Italian media). Authoritative? Hardly.

            I notice that the agencies are still not identifying the man as a Jihadi – indeed the Mayor of Milan is suggesting that he might be a disturbed individual. Plus the stories all seem to indicate that it was a poorly-made weapon, and therefore unlikely to be a major terrorist attack.    

            Poorly made enough to seriously injure the perp (he lost a hand) and to endanger the lives of many others. Also it is being reported that as he attempted to detonate the bomb, he was shouting something about Italian troops in Afghanistan.

            You clearly fail to understand Jihad here. It doesn’t have to be a large-scale plot, or be meticulously planned to be an act of Jihad. Look at the Glasgow airport attacks. They may have been shambolic and badly executed – but what were they if not Jihad attacks? Interfaith dialogue?

             ‘Disturbed individual’? 

            Al Qaeda, the Taliban and others have a strong track record of using the disabled or mentally ill to deliver their payloads. What difference would that make to the outcome, other than to further underline the depravity of Islamic terorrism?

               0 likes

  19. George R says:
    October 12, 2009 at 7:25 pm

     BBC- 2′ Newsnight’ tonight:

    “Under the skin of the English Defence League”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8303786.stm

    Will there be an equally inquisitorial BBC examination of the ‘Unite Against Fascism’ groups, including factions such as the SWP, and other pro-Hamas, and pro-Islamic jihad groups?

       0 likes

  20. mark williams says:
    October 13, 2009 at 1:16 am

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8298528.stm

    So biased

       0 likes

  21. Opinionated More Than Educated says:
    October 13, 2009 at 9:22 am

    Philip

    you are patronising, arrogant and intensely disliked by most here

    I’m sure you’re wrong. But please don’t tell my mother.

    The BBC consistently dilutes the ‘Islamic’ component of Islamic terrorism by the use of euphemisms such as ‘militants’ ‘man’, etc. –

    The BBC <a href=”http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/war/mandatoryreferr.shtml”>is quite clear about its linguistic rules.</a> They make sense. In the end, does it strengthen or lessen the impact of pictures of an attack to have reporters labelling everything terror and terrorist…or to let the facts speak for themselves?

    In the generality of life? Clearly, not at all. In the case of homicide bomb attacks on Italian military bases? Absolutely yes – 100% of the time.

    Motive (or sanity) doesn’t interest you, then?

    even in the Beeb’s morally inverted bubble, more than likely to have a Jihad/terrorism component – but they did not update their story

    I’m not sure the more than likely bit is best practice for a responsible news organisation. Are you?

       0 likes

    • Philip says:
      October 13, 2009 at 10:44 am

      I’m sure you’re wrong. But please don’t tell my mother.  

      OK, I promise.

      …is quite clear about its linguistic rules.<link> They make sense. In the end, does it strengthen or lessen the impact of pictures of an attack to have reporters labelling everything terror and terrorist…or to let the facts speak for themselves?  

      They make sense in your opinion. Whilst the existence of guidelines is obviously not a bad thing, in the BBCs case, they are so worried about offending certain groups/entrenched in their bias, that they end up sucking the context from stories and leaving the reader to fill in the gaps.

      It is important, for example to know whether the circumstances surrounding a man killing his wife in Bolton indicate an Islamic ‘honour’ killing; or just a plain vanilla violent nutter. Fear of causing offence to oversensitive groups subverts news – and consequently emboldens those groups as they know they will be treated with kid gloves by the media.

      Their job should be to inform us of everything it knows about what has taken place, not leave us to make our ‘own assessments’.

      We should have an opinion on the story, sure, but we should not have to speculate about what happened and why, because the BBC has additional, material information, but is witholding it.

      Motive (or sanity) doesn’t interest you, then?  

      Yes.I covered that in my earlier reply. Maybe you didn’t read it?

         0 likes

←Older Comments