34 Responses to OPEN THREAD

  1. George R says:
    December 2, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    Terror in Russia: BBC emphasises geography, not Islamic jihad –

    BBC web headlines are longer, but still diversionary:

    “North Caucasus group in Russia train bomb web claim”

    The text does refers to the “Causasian Mujahadeen” as responsible; of course, this is an ISLAM-inspired organisation. The headline does not reflect this Islamic jihadism.

    ‘Islamic jihadists claim Russian train bombing.”
     

       0 likes

  2. David Preiser (USA) says:
    December 2, 2009 at 7:03 pm

    Compare and contrast this biased BBC article about the goings on in Honduras with this far more honest article from the Wall Street Journal.

    The BBC has been tireless in their support for Zelaya, going so far as to hide from all of you the fact that his attempt to destroy democracy in Honduras was backed by their beloved Hugo Chavez.  I’ve shown in past comments how the BBC has continuously misrepresented Zelaya’s quite legal ouster, always pushing the “coup” angle.  The BBC has been very sympathetic to Zelaya’s point of view, and has either hidden information from you that shows what actually happen or just fudged their facts or misled you entirely.

    Read the WSJ piece for an entirely different perspective, plus more information, that you will never, ever hear from your official national broadcaster.  Don’t trust the BBC on Latin American issues.

       0 likes

  3. Umbongo says:
    December 2, 2009 at 7:30 pm

    “Don’t trust the BBC on Latin American issues.”

    Can we trust the BBC on any issue?

       0 likes

  4. Will says:
    December 2, 2009 at 8:05 pm

    In their cosy world …
    A surplus wage in the Radio 5 studio on this morning’s Wee Nicky show was complaining that her brother in Brazil had last night watched the Carling Cup match, but that, most unfairly, in this country one had to pay to see the match on TV. The fact that we pay £142pa for the BBC passed over her head. They really seem to think that their offerings are free.

       0 likes

  5. Katabasis says:
    December 2, 2009 at 8:15 pm

    Who can forget the purge of comments over at Robert Peston’s blog when lots of people started pointing out he seemed to be providing government approved ‘insider leaks’.

       0 likes

  6. Teddy Bear says:
    December 2, 2009 at 8:40 pm

    Bear in mind that the reason for the BBC betrayal of truth and failing to fulfill their mandate is to pursue their own agenda which has nothing to do with serving our interests. (Ab)using the status which the licence fee gives it, the BBC long ago realised it can increase its power by branching out into the private sector with financial interests worldwide. The problem is that any news it has to report will be twisted to support those regimes where it has those financial interests, and those where it still wants to expand.
    Despite the BBC Trust insisting that BBC Worldwide curtail its private commercial acquisitions, the managing director of BBC WW has basically thumbed his nose at this instruction. Just to show the arrogance of this prick he insults our intelligence by stating ‘…’I think we’ve been opportunistic and dynamic, rather than aggressive,’ …
    Stop the licence fee and let them manage in the real world.
    BBC Worldwide chief refuses to rein in activities… despite warnings of Trust’s report

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:
      December 2, 2009 at 9:26 pm

      Ending the license fee won’t do anything to BBC Worldwide.  It’s a commercial entity, nothing to do with the license fee.  It’s supported by its own commercial sales – magazines, DVDs, syndication, advertizing – as well as your own tax money strategically distributed by the Foreign Office.  In fact, the mother ship even earns money from the commercial arm, supplementing your license fee.

      None of that would change if the license fee was abolished tomorrow.  I’d bet that even more of your taxes will go to support the official national broadcaster, as the Government would most likely just pay for it all outright, as is done in other countries.  And I believe that would happen even under a Tory Government, judging from the current supine party leaders.  Nothing will change internally at the BBC, nor will that put a stop to their agenda-driven, biased news broadcasting.  You’ve got much bigger problems than the license fee.

         0 likes

      • Teddy Bear says:
        December 2, 2009 at 9:44 pm

        Dave – the reason the licence fee is an issue here is because it gives the BBC a status in the eyes of the world that it doesn’t deserve – a pretense that its output is impartial and unbiased. Without it, it just becomes one more self-serving media interest, where its integrity may be more readily judged objectively.

           0 likes

        • David Preiser (USA) says:
          December 2, 2009 at 10:36 pm

          The license fee itself does not give the BBC its status.  It gives the BBC a nominal appearance of being independent of the government.  The impartiality thing is secondary.  In fact, the Charter and Agreement – which provides for the license fee – is what gives the BBC its status, domestically and internationally, as the official national broadcaster of the UK.  John Reith worked for the BBC to be created with that status from the start.  The Charter was an excuse for the government to still tax the public to pay for it.  The license fee is clearly more offensive to many people as it is now than a chunk of tax money budgeted out of the national coffers would be.  But it’s not what gives the BBC its status, just a runaround to pay for it.

          However, if the license fee is abolished, I don’t think that status will go away. I think it will remain the same because the BBC will not be privatized but rather wholly subsidized by the government out of the budget just like in European countries and most of the rest of the world.  I would also bet that there will still be some vestigial impartiality clause even then, just to maintain the facade.

          It’s that status as the official national broadcaster which is the danger.  If that ever ended, then they can be as biased as they want to be.  That will never happen, of course.  There will always be a BBC.

             0 likes

          • Teddy Bear says:
            December 2, 2009 at 10:54 pm

            ‘..It’s the status as the official national broadcaster which is the danger.’
            It is only the licence fee which gives it that status – it makes them ‘independant’, at least the semblance. Without the licence fee  and assuming the government continued to maintain them, it would simply become the mouthpiece of the government, and everybody would see them that way. We here know the independance the BBC really has is self-serving while under the guise of public service. 

            Somebody made a good quip once that the BBC thought ‘independant’ meant imitating the newspaper. 

               0 likes

            • David Preiser (USA) says:
              December 2, 2009 at 11:26 pm

              Mark my words:  even if the license fee is abolished, the BBC will still have that status because the government will find another way to pay for it.

                 0 likes

              • Teddy Bear says:
                December 3, 2009 at 8:54 pm

                The license fee itself does not give the BBC its status.  It gives the BBC a nominal appearance of being independent of the government.  The impartiality thing is secondary.  In fact, the Charter and Agreement – which provides for the license fee – is what gives the BBC its status, domestically and internationally, as the official national broadcaster of the UK.  
                You’re making my point for me. The licence fee – and all that goes with it, implies to the rest of the world that it is supported by the whole of the British public, and represents them.  
                If instead it was paid for by a particular government, be it labour, conservative, or whatever else, it would imply that it was only serving that segment of society that voted for that government.  
                Now which do you think gives it greater status?

                   0 likes

                • David Preiser (USA) says:
                  December 3, 2009 at 9:42 pm

                  The license fee is a gimmick tax.  It’s not the source of the status.  Take that away and they’ll just pay for the BBC straight out of the regular budget.  But that wouldn’t mean it was paid for by a particular Government (as in Labour or Conservative).  The military is paid for by the government, but nobody thinks it’s paid for by the party in power.  Same with all public services.  It’s the Charter and Agreement which makes that separation between the government and the BBC, and allows them to force a separate tax to pay for it.  The license fee is just the way its paid for, and doesn’t give the status granted by the Charter.

                     0 likes

                  • Teddy Bear says:
                    December 3, 2009 at 10:51 pm

                    There’s a reason that Pravda would never have achieved the status worldwide that the BBC has, and the ‘Ministry of Truth’ knows it.
                    Right now the BBC can pursue its own agenda, and when the government criticises a particular slant the BBC can claim it’s in the interest of balance and impartiality. The very fact that whenever the government rebukes it increases credence in and further serves the BBC.

                       0 likes

  7. George R says:
    December 2, 2009 at 9:24 pm

    Not a question Labour and the BBC will even discuss, in case it offends Islamic interests:

    “Does Islamic banking law prohibit a bailout of Dubai World?”

    http://www.businessinsider.com/does-islamic-banking-law-prohibit-a-bailout-of-dubai-world-2009-11

       0 likes

  8. George R says:
    December 2, 2009 at 9:40 pm

    Off the BBC political agenda:

    “Londoners support call for ban on minarets in capital”

    http://www.thelondondailynews.com/londoners-support-calls-minarets-capital-p-3609.html

       0 likes

  9. wally says:
    December 3, 2009 at 12:05 am

    The BBC news frontpage on their website has a pic of a typical taliban. The romanticised photo of a young mujahid – face covered in a scarf, that streams behind him in the wind, so that only his eyes can be seen, fixed dramatically on the horizon, as he totes a machine gun- has proved a little too much for Harry’s Place.

    Their entry dealing with it is headed:
    “Tali-hunk,
    I can’t imagine why young men might want to leave their drab Northern British towns to go fight with the Taliban.”

    Pic at:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/

    It’s third hand, I know, but a poster on Guido’s once claimed to know a doctor who had told him that he had never met one of these ‘much vaunted FCO Arabists who was not a sodomite.’ Michiner’s novel, ‘The Source’ has one Israeli character claiming that (public school educated) British officers favoured Arabs over Jews, in the early days of the Mandate, because they found the thought of galloping through the desert night sitting on the back of a white stallion shared with a bedouin gave them a bigger thrill than that of dealing with people they knew mainly as tailors, shopkeepers and businessmen.
    A poster on Harry’s Place wrote rhapsodically about how he had been one of an all boys together group in a Morocan hamman – they had all wanted to take theirswimming trunks off but knew it would be wrong. He went on to say how it was a pity such a wonderful culture was spoiled by its treatment of women (apparently not realising that this was two sides of a pathological coin).  I wonder if something of the same drive lies behind much of the Islamophilia disolayed by the BBC. Since, by all accounts, Talibs stand out in northern Pakistan towns because of their filthy, unkempt appearance, I’m sure they could have found a more realistic photo.

       0 likes

  10. David Preiser (USA) says:
    December 3, 2009 at 2:42 am

    The BBC is now simply stating matter-of-factly that Islam forbids the kind of extremism that was exhibited by those Mohammedans who hassled Baroness Warsi.  
     
    Pakistan madrassa mixes drug rehab and fighter training  
     
    The twisted logic of this piece is fascinating.  The overall impression you’re supposed to get is that a drug-dealing thug has found peace and rehabilitation through Islam.  The secondary message here is the traditional BBC agenda reminding you all that extremists are the minority who do not represent Islam in any way.  
     
    It’s funny, though, how the subject of the story, Urfan Azad, claims he was both shocked, shocked to discover that there was terrorist military training going on at this innocent drug rehabilitaiton center in a remote corner of Pakistan.  Yet, the piece opens with him being shocked, shocked that the Pakistani government blew the place up.  
     
    There’s even a whiff of victimization here when the locals describe helicopters and whatnot, and how they gathered to bravely save the mosque from destruction.  This sympathetic diversion nearly washes away any impression left that the place was a terrorist training camp and deserved to be taken out.  
     
    Amusingly, Azad says the total immersion in religious rote activities really helped him, but all that terrorist training filled him with hate by the time he returned home to the UK.  
     
    Can more religious study set him straight?  Of course it can.  Beeboid Julia Rooke writes that:  
     
    But with further study and guidance, he came to understand that the Prophet Mohammed forbids extremism.  
     
    Does it really, Julia?  No attribution quotes or anything?  Just matter-of-fact.  That is the BBC’s opinion.  It’s not presented as anyone else’s.  That’s the BBC;s tireless message, across the spectrum of programming.  They’ll say it even when reporting on events which seem to prove otherwise.

       0 likes

  11. Philip says:
    December 3, 2009 at 7:42 am

    They’re up early at al-BBCeera and shilling for Islam already this morning – it’s a man’s life in the ‘Ban for a scumbag ex-drug dealer from Reading.. muuucch rispec’, innit…

       0 likes

  12. George R says:
    December 3, 2009 at 8:56 am

    This sounds like the BBC:

                                    “The Dhimmi Code”

        http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/the-dhimmi-code.html#more

    And:

     “Why the Nativity is a dirty word for the BBC”  (Laura Kane)

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1232804/Why-Nativity-dirty-word-BBC.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0Yc8keC2Z

       0 likes

  13. 1327 says:
    December 3, 2009 at 10:52 am

    I had to laugh at this comment from our Lord & Master Mandleson in the Lords yesterday ..

    http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2009-12-02a.743.7

    the relevant part being

    >they also want to erode the commitment to impartiality-in other
    >words, to fill British airwaves with more Fox-style news. They believe
    >that profit alone should drive the gathering and circulation of news
    >rather than allowing a role for what they call “state-sponsored
    >journalism”. The Government and this Bill reject this world view, and
    >I hope that the whole House, including the Conservatives, will make
    >it clear today that they think likewise, and that notably they will
    >support Ofcom’s efforts to ensure that consumers are getting a fair
    >deal in the pay-tv market.

    He really does see the BBC as being impartial doesn’t he ! The trouble is I fear “call me Dave” would agree with him. 

       0 likes

    • MarkE says:
      December 3, 2009 at 2:43 pm

      It is easy, if intellectualy lazy, to believe that “I occupy the centre, therefore everyone who agrees with me is impartial and everyone else an extremist”.

      We have drifted in a position where all three established political parties are clustered into a very small space on the left, frantically trying to highlight the differences between them and disguise how few there are.  meanwhile 40% of the electorate don’t vote because no established party speaks for them and they are persuaded (not least by the BBC) that no one else can ever be elected.

         0 likes

  14. George R says:
    December 3, 2009 at 1:01 pm

    For BBC: headline change needed; from:

    “Somalia ministers killed by hotel suicide bomb”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8392468.stm

    to:

    ‘Somalia: Burqa-clad Jihadist kills 19.’

       0 likes

    • poochie says:
      December 4, 2009 at 2:20 am

      Was it the description that wasn’t good enough for you – pretty much the fact that four Somali government ministers are dead – or was it the fact that the dressed as a woman part wasn’t revealed until the standfirst?

      I know it’s usual practise for you that you read the headline and get all your information without having to deal with the pesky “facts” in the article, but most people read at least a paragraph.

      I know you don’t feel like the BBC do things the way you’d like them to, but in this situation I really do think that the sartorial aspects are best left for post-analysis rather than “ARAB TRANNIES BOMB GOVERNMENT”.

         0 likes

  15. deegee says:
    December 3, 2009 at 2:36 pm

    Bad, Bad, Israel    
    Surge in East Jerusalem Palestinians losing residency    
     
    But, according to the Israeli rights organisation Hamoked, if these Palestinians live abroad for seven years, or gain citizenship or residency elsewhere, they lose their Israeli residency.    
       
    Just out of curiosity I checked the British regulations in Workpermit.com    
    You should note that to keep your permanent residence you should not spend longer than two years outside the UK. You should maintain ties to the UK and should consider the UK as your home. If you continue to only spend short periods of time in the UK over many years it is likely that there will come a time when you will lose your indefinite leave to remain in the UK.    
       
    Just for the record (because the BBC doesn’t think it important enough to tell you.    
    HaMoked’s aims, as registered with Israel’s Registrar of Non-profit Organizations, are to: “Provide assistance to persons who have fallen victim to acts of violence, abuse or deprivation of basic rights by governmental authorities (including local government), especially those needing assistance in conveying their complaints to these authorities, and also to protect basic rights …” In contrast, Hamoked’s website declares that its aim, is to “assist Palestinians whose rights are violated by the Israeli authorities or as a result of Israeli policy.” About as neutral as the BBC.

       0 likes

  16. deegee says:
    December 3, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    Can 80 cyclists power a house for a day?

    Yes? No? Who cares? Multiple stationary bike riders are in no way a practical alternative to the grid or even wind turbines.

       0 likes

  17. George R says:
    December 3, 2009 at 7:01 pm

    The BBC is usually keen to garner votes for Labour’s Gordon Brown; but perhaps not in this election:

    “Vote for dhimmi internationale 2009”

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/vote-for-dhimmi-internationale-2009.html#comments

       0 likes

  18. George R says:
    December 4, 2009 at 9:13 am

    BBC ‘Today’ touched on the issue of illicit immigrant students this morning.

    John Humphrys interviewed the writer of the report, but no mention was made of the potential vested interest problem that any academic involved with such a report may have.  Such an acadermic’s university will want to get maximum numbers of foreign students/’students’ to boost fee revenue, regardless of the impact on broader British society, outlined in the following article:

    “Migrants exploiting loophole that allows them stay in Britain with a joke degree”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233077/Government-immigration-adviser-stunned-ways-migrants-exploit-degrees-circus-skills-stay-Britain.html#ixzz0Yi0apd1a

       0 likes

  19. George R says:
    December 4, 2009 at 10:56 am

    A long BBC propaganda piece (with few caveats) by J. Dymond for Islamic Turkey’s application to join E.U.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8393516.stm

       0 likes

  20. rachel.miller says:
    December 4, 2009 at 2:55 pm

    This is a relatively small story, but I think it illustrates BBC bias quite well.

    Yesterday on the Radio 4 6 pm news was the story of how the Swinford Toll Bridge in Oxfordshire had been bought. The reporter gushed about the huge amount of revenue it would bring to the lucky purchaser, and how the income from the tolls was tax-free (by edict of George III).

    They then had a brief rant from an inhabitant of the village of Eynsham (1/2 mile from the bridge) about how disgusting it was that the toll collection was allowed to continue, because it caused traffic jams while the wealthy buyer would be raking in the loot (slightly rephrased!).

    The piece finished with the reporter noting that the buyer wished to remain anonymous, but no doubt he would be enjoying his new ‘tax haven’.

    This was all just so much codswallop. I live in Eynsham and have been told by informed sources in the local authority that the toll-bridge is not in fact a good investment. After paying for upkeep of the bridge, roadway, surrounding land and the tollkeeper’s cottage, the bridge barely breaks even.

    In addition, the toll-collection is by no means the sole cause of traffic jams around Eynsham, or even on the road in question. The road is narrow, and the bridge can just take two cars passing; if a bus or lorry comes over, all traffic stops.

    In short, the BBC report was plain wrong – and I think it’s significant that they chose a slant that maximised the message ‘another fat cat benefiting from outdated historical laws in order to cause misery to the less fortunate’.

       0 likes