Monthly Archives: March 2011

THINKING ALOUD?

By | |
9 Comments

One of the worst characteristics bout BBC bias is the sheer scale of it and even as we watch or listen to one programme you can be sure there will be another one on the network that is equally reprehensible. A Biased BBC reader notes;

“I don’t know whetheryou listened to the regular Wednesday afternoon programme of ‘Thinking Aloud’ on BBC Radio 4 (Wed 16 March at 4pm – still on I-player). This was a specialprogramme devoted to the views of Stuart Hall who (in the words of the text onthe BBC web-site!) is (sic) “Britain’s leading cultural theorist”.What we actually know is that Stuart Hall has always been a voice of the’left’. He was the first editor of the ‘New Left Review’ and a contributor to’Marxism Today’ etc etc and a favourite of the Guardian. In what I guess shouldhave been a full-length interview on cultural trends or the culture of politicsin Britain we actually got a full political lecture from a particular ‘leftwing perspective’.

One section of the interview covers the current Government and Stuart Hall’sviews of it (quote) “Think of the nonsense about fairness which has goneon since the coalition got in”.. I would have thought as this show wasgiving voice to someone with a very particular ‘political’ view of Governmentand society the BBC’s Charter would have meant that a second person of similarstanding should have been allowed to air contrary or different views. But Iguess this is too much to expect!”

It is indeed. The BBC loves putting out this kind of leftist dross, tucked away all over the weekly schedule.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

THE ONLY GAY IN THE CHANGING ROOM…

By | |
3 Comments

As Sue rightly points out, the BBC aren’t that bothered by the Hamas onslaught against Israel and that is understandable when you have such important issues to cover as…..a gay football player. Earlier this morning, on Today, they ran a 5 minute item on a Swedish football player who has declared he is gay. Naturally this caught the eye of the BBC and we got the usual 5 minutes bemoaning the homophobia rampant in the game. I was surprised that the BBC were intent to suggest that Hysen is the only gay that’s been in the game – surely this is wrong. Also, I’m not quite sure what the point of this item was other than some vague “isn’t it awful…”? I would have thought there were many more items worthy of coverage but then again the BBC knows better…

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Sue or Bite

By | | ,
15 Comments

Inayat Bunglawala, the Mr. Bean-alike chair of Muslims4UK has instigated a police investigation of Melanie Phillips because she said “The moral depravity of the Arabs is finding a grotesque echo in the moral bankruptcy and worse of the British and American ‘liberal’ media.”
If the police really do waste their time on this, while they’re at it they should look at Bungle’s own racist remarks.
Anyone else noticed the culture of blaming the victim that has sprung up this spring?
Jews living in Muslim lands, i.e. Israel, have only themselves to blame. By being there they’re putting themselves in harm’s way. Women, not covered from head to toe, are asking to be molested. Provoking a Muslim by not being a Muslim amounts to bringing it on yourself. Peacefully counter-demonstrating near a pro Palestinian hatefest is putting oneself in harm’s way. Jews cause offence by existing, and it’s their own fault if they’re bitten on the cheek.

Seen this, BBC? I’m blaming you and if I see you I can’t decide whether to report you to the police, or just bite.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Honours For Horrors

By | | ,
7 Comments

The recent escalation of rocket attacks from Gaza is of little interest to the BBC. Scanty reporting treats Israelis impersonally, while Palestinian individuals are likely to be given names and ages.
Reporters know that subtly empathetic wording will have one effect, just as distancing, dehumanising phrasing will have another. Why should the BBC use these tactics at all, let alone apply them to one side and not the other?
Because they think we are stupid? Luckily for them, many of us are.
For example the Jerusalem Post gave a brief account of an attack. Nothing melodramatic, just giving a few names; painting a picture, as you would if you were concerned.
Here’s a report which calls a terrorist a terrorist. It’s pro Israel, but it doesn’t shy away from quoting speech from the Al-Qassam Brigades. More accurate because it’s not crippled by political correctness.

We know which side the BBC is on. Not only do they apply journalistic tactics such as distancing or empathy to substantive incidents like rocket attacks which they are obliged to report, but if they can get away with it they omit huge swathes of subtle material altogether, skewing the picture heavily against Israel.
When the BBC reported the Fogel family murders they used the term “a Jewish settler family” under the headline “Palestinian kills five Israelis in West Bank.” No details, only inverted commas, inserted first in one place, then altered, making an already awkwardly-phrased sentence look more absurd in their efforts to dehumanise an horrific act.

While the BBC is obsessed with blaming only Israel’s construction work in ‘settlements-illgal-under-international-law’ for obstructing the peace process, an erroneous theory repeated so often that it is embedded in the collective Brains of Britain, they are silent on the real, fundamental, immovable obstacles to peace. The most obvious goes unnoticed. Hamas doesn’t want peace at all, and Fatah wants it as an interim measure only, for neither can ever renounce violence or recognise Israel. Why not? Because they have indoctrinated the people so thoroughly that they’d never get away with it. Not only their people. The Guardian and its cronies espouse such an enthusiastic pro Palestinian militancy that when they thought PaliLeaks revealed that concessions were being discussed, they were mortified by what they saw as a betrayal by craven Palestinian negotiators.

The glorification of terrorism is newsworthy because it is a massive obstacle to peace, second only to the antisemitism inherent in the Koran that makes the Arab World’s acceptance of Israel so inconceivable. If there’s ever to be peace, glorification of martyrdom and terrorists must stop and education must start.
If the BBC paid half as much attention to these crippling practices as they do to empathising with the Palestinians, even people who haven’t heard of Barry Rubin would have a chance to see reason.

The BBC influences people who make the decisions that affect us all. Even if individual MPs look beyond the BBC for information, education and entertainment, public opinion exerts pressure on our leaders just as the man in the mosque exerts pressure over his political and religious masters. Just as we beg the Muslim media to re-educate their public, we equally beseech our BBC to do likewise unto ours.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

COJO SAYS THE ECHR STILL HAS ITS MOJO

By | | , ,
12 Comments

The BBC’s former European Affairs correspondent William Horsley ceased being a BBC correspondent in 2007 but still continues to write for BBC Online as an analyst. (He was on ‘Broadcasting House’ this morning, reading his own essay denouncing the Japanese political class. I’m not exaggerating!)

Here he is, writing (at the BBC’s invitation) on their College of Journalism blog last month:

UK media blind with indignation at Strasbourg court

Some extracts will give you a flavour:

Our politicians have set a shrill tone and made some misleading attacks on the supposed mission creep of the Strasbourg court…

Those cries of foul have been amplified in the media. The result is that a hot-and-bothered strand of UK popular opinion is encouraged to believe in a conspiracy of foreigners to force Britons, against their better judgment, to protect criminals over the interests of law-abiding citizens. The ECHR is imperfect – as any court or judiciary may be – but the picture is wildly out of kilter with reality.

How has this hostile caricature of the Strasbourg court as a sort of predatory enemy of British interests emerged in the media?

It is the envy of people in large parts of the world…

What particularly struck me was this passage:

…the record shows that mandatory rulings from the court have helped Britain to improve its patchy human rights record on issues where political or popular opinion had seemed implacably opposed to change.

Examples are the judgements banning corporal punishment; and those requiring changes to the control order regime set up by the Blair government, as well as sweeping stop and search powers for the police.

Thank goodness for the ECHR for allowing a judicial elite to dismiss “political or popular opinion”!

Who would have thought a former BBC European Affairs correspondent was so firmly in the ‘anti-populist’ pro-European camp?

On of the few comments on the CoJo blog says, “I think the BBC should stay out of politics and refrain from inviting its friends to put the BBC point of view.”

Sounds right to me.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Compare and Contrast: BBC Obamessiah/Libya Edition

By | | , , ,
15 Comments

Compare this report from Fox News:

U.S. Launches Cruise Missiles Against Qaddafi’s Air Defenses

The U.S. Navy fires the first U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan leader’s Muammar al-Qaddafi’s air defenses Saturday, a military source tells Fox News.

The U.S. military strikes clear the way for European and other planes to enforce a no-fly zone designed to ground Qaddafi’s air force and cripple his ability to inflict further violence on rebels, U.S. officials said.

Sounds like the US fired first right? But skip a paragraph about Hillary Clinton attending some meeting about this and we get this:

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive military operations, said the Obama administration intended to limit its involvement — at least in the initial stages — to helping protect French and other air missions.

French fighter jets fired the first shots at Qaddafi’s troops on Saturday, launching the broadest international military effort since the Iraq war in support of an uprising that had seemed on the verge of defeat. The French military says warplanes have carried out four air strikes, destroying several armored vehicles of pro-Qaddafi forces, according to AFP.

So those damn Froggy warmongers (always spoiling for a fight, right?) drew first blood, and the US was close behind. What a difference from when Chirac wouldn’t even let us fly over French airspace to go after Sadaam.

In any case, contrast it with this report from the BBC:

French military jet opens fire in Libya

A French plane has fired the first shots in Libya as enforcement of the UN-mandated no-fly zone begins.

The UK prime minister later confirmed British planes were also in action, while US media reports said the US had fired its first Cruise missiles.

So who took the first shot? The stringent US media says – natch – the US fired first. Of course, they would say that, as Mark Mardell’s reporting would give us the idea that only all those foolish United Statesian warmongers obsessed with the notion of American decline would demand it. Unapologetically leading the charge and all that, yeah.

In any case, I can’t recall any criticism aired by the BBC from French anti-war voices. Is it not ill-advised when the French do it? Was there a segment with their equivalent of Caroline Lucas saying, “Pas de guerre pour l’oeil“?

After a few paragraphs about how the French are going over with no fewer than 20 aircraft, guns blazing, the BBC allows this:

Other air forces and navies are expected to join the French.

“Other air forces”. As if we couldn’t guess immediately which other ones are involved, and it’s not so important who they are. Except of course it’s vitally important for the BBC Narrative who they are.

The US would use its “unique capabilities” to reinforce the no-fly zone, said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, warning that further delays would put more civilians at risk. However, Mrs Clinton said again that the US would not deploy ground troops in Libya.

The BBC News Online editors are just playing games here.

The Prime Minister also said yesterday that nobody was going to occupy anybody, essentially no troops on the ground, full stop, occupation is “not going to happen”. It was aired at least twice on the News Channel yesterday. No mention of that at all here, even though it’s more relevant to the license fee payer who might be concerned about, you know, their own government. But the BBC’s focus is exclusively on protecting the US President here. He’s not George Bush, dammit.

Fox News, naturally, is focused on the US angle, and how the US is leading the way. On one level, this would seem to please those whom Mardell describes as being “obsessed” with the notion of American decline. The US is actually – laudably, to hear the BBC tell it – taking a back seat. Or, as Mardell would have it, “leading from behind”. This is obviously a definition of “leading” of which I wasn’t previously aware.

So, if the hated Fox News is clearly reporting from a pro-US, right-wing bias, a news organization which reports from the exact opposite perspective – not just different, but opposite, mind – must by definition be Left wing. I’m not talking about which report one agrees with: I’m talking about the angles and perspectives involved.

All of the BBC’s reporting from now on for this war for oil….no, sorry, UN-backed war for human rights, is slanted toward this angle. Just remember the Narrative that the US taking a back seat and following along is considered “leading from behind”. No problem, no bias, right, BBC?

UPDATE: While the Secretary of State is in Paris leading the US operations in Libya, the President Himself is sucking up to Brazil and waving at us from afar. Leading from behind, indeed. I assume Mark Mardell approves whole-heartedly, as he says that US decline is a doddle.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Unity at Last, Rejoice!

By | |
35 Comments

Compare these reports. The BBC website is upbeat about the Palestinians’ latest measures to heal the feud between Hamas and Fatah. Mahmoud Abbas is ready to go to Gaza, and Hamas has welcomed the move. Hoorah!

The second paragraph reads:

“Both parties seem to be responding to the recent demonstrations that were inspired by the uprisings elsewhere in the Middle East, reports the BBC’s Jon Donnison from Ramallah.”

Then why is it under the jarring sub heading “AIRSTRIKE” ? Oh. The article suddenly veers off topic, skidding onto a path well-worn by the BBC.

“Meanwhile, doctors in Gaza said at least two Palestinians were killed in an Israeli airstrike in the central Gaza Strip. The Israeli army confirmed the attack, saying it was responding to rockets fired from Gaza.”

The BBC is barely interested in silly old rockets fired from Gaza, it wouldn’t have mentioned them at all had two Palestinians not been killed.

“Israel says militants have sent dozens of rockets into Israeli territory since the start of the year.”

‘Doctors in Gaza’ said the interesting thing; disembodied ‘Israel’ says the barely interesting, dodgy-looking thing.

“Before Wednesday’s incident, UN figures showed at least eight Palestinians had been killed by Israeli military action in Gaza in 2011.”
No reason given.

Another report is discussed here.

“the Palestinian news agency Ma’an reported that Gaza demonstrators in favour of reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah were violently dispersed by the Islamist group:
‘They beat people with batons and set fire to tents that were set up by the demonstrators, according to activists in Gaza City.’

So, not all sweetness and light inspired by the glorious Arab uprising then, BBC?
And what’s all this?

“on a day ostensibly devoted to Palestinian unity, police brutally attacked photographers and cameramen, beating the, breaking equipment and confiscating photos and video footage. This is the latest in a string of chilling attacks on reporters in Gaza.”

But the West sits silent.

Well, not completely silent. They did mention the airstrike.
I do hope Jon Donnison gets well soon. I’m assuming he was knocked unconscious in the fracas. That must be it.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Hillary Clinton Proves Mark Mardell Wrong

By | | , , , , , ,
29 Comments

Hillary Clinton told CNN the other day that she won’t be working for the President if there is a second term in 2012. Not just that she doesn’t want to be Sec. of State again, but wants no position at all in His Administration.

She told Wolf Blitzer that she doesn’t want to be Sec. of State again because she has the best job in the world right now.

Because I have the best job I could ever have. This is a moment in history where it is almost hard to catch your breath. There are both the tragedies and disasters that we have seen from Haiti to Japan and there are the extraordinary opportunities and challenges that we see right here in Egypt and in the rest of the region. So I want to be part of helping to represent the United States at this critical moment in time, to do everything I can in support of the president and our government and the people of our country to stand for our values and our ideals, to stand up for our security, which has to remain first and foremost in my mind and to advance America’s interests. And there isn’t anything that I can imagine doing after this that would be as demanding, as challenging or rewarding.

Er, and it wouldn’t be in a second term? That doesn’t add up. So why is she going to walk away after next year? No prizes for guessing what her staff is saying:

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretary of States — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

Hang on, Mark Mardell has been telling us that The Obamessiah has been thoughtfully “deliberating”. So will he now claim that Hillary Clinton is wrong to think He’s been dithering because she’s “unfamiliar” with the concept? Or does she know better than the BBC North America editor because she’s, you know, on the inside actually dealing with reality and not making uninformed judgments from on high with a perfumed handkerchief held to the nose?

Clinton is said to be especially peeved with the president’s waffling over how to encourage the kinds of Arab uprisings that have recently toppled regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and in particular his refusal to back a no-fly zone over Libya.

Waffling? I guess she just can’t grasp the nuance of His finely tuned brain. What will the BBC have to say about this? Or this:

Bill Clinton: We shouldn’t be letting the Libyan protesters “twist in the wind”

Will Mardell now dismiss the former two-term Democrat President of the United States and the current Democrat Secretary of State as people who are “obsessed with the notion of American decline” or gung-ho cowboys who want an “unapologetically aggressive America storming ahead”?

Clinton’s announcement was not only on CNN but also mentioned on the HuffingtonPost, so we know the Beeboids are aware of it, and can’t pretend it’s not an important enough story for them to mention. So far, though, they’ve censored this news.

In sum, Hillary Clinton just proved that the BBC North America editor’s interpretation of US news has been completely wrong. Why trust him ever again?

UPDATE: Mardell is at it again! This time he’s giving us the spin on the President’s speech about Libya. See the comments thread for more.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

WISCONSIN

By | | , ,
13 Comments

This is an update to earlier blogposts by David Preiser about BBC coverage of the troubled passage of deficit reduction legislation in Wisconsin (see here, here, here).

Media double-standards over Wisconsin have become so blatant that even a left-leaning blogger on Huffington Post, Lee Stranahan, has expressed his distaste:

Why isn’t the mainstream media talking about the death threats against Republican politicians in Wisconsin?

…Ignoring the story of these threats is deeply, fundamentally wrong. It’s bad, biased journalism that will lead to no possible good outcome and progressives should be leading the charge against it.

Just before writing this article, I did a Google search and it’s stunning to find out that the right wing media really isn’t exaggerating — proven death threats against politicians are being ignored by the supposedly honest media. If you’ve never agreed with a single thing that Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly et al have said about anything, you can’t in any good conscience say that they don’t have a point here. Death threats are wrong and if a story like Wisconsin is national news for days, then so are death threats.

Quite so. If Tea Party followers had made death threats against Democrat politicians, and had gone to their homes to terrify their children, we can be sure that the BBC would’ve been all over it, ramping up the coverage with every fresh act of intimidation. I know this, readers of this blog know it, and BBC journalists, if they’re honest with themselves, must know it too. And we’re talking actual death threats here, not some vague perceived potential for violence of the sort imagined by BBC correspondents when reporting on the Tea Party movement.

The reason for this is simple enough. “It’s bad, biased journalism”, as Stranahan says. The BBC’s highly partisan coverage of American politics reflects the political leanings of its staff. As such, negative stories about Democrats and their supporters are either ignored or downplayed. This is in sharp contrast to the eager reporting of similar or less significant events which are used to bash the American right.

If any BBC journos disagree with my conclusion I’d be happy to read an alternative explanation for their news blackout over the Wisconsin death threats. Comment, email, blog, tweet. Anything.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.