163 Responses to OPEN THREAD…

←Older Comments
  1. deegee says:
    August 18, 2011 at 6:09 pm

    It’s like a master class in BBC manipulation. A quick Google of Eilat Bus site:bbc.co.uk brought six hits over 8 hours. Until one hour ago the headline changed to Israel pounds Gaza after deadly attacks near Eilat without linking to previous stories. This subtely turned the story away from a terrorist attack on Israel to mean old Israel attacks poor Gaza. It’s not even clear who was responsible for deadly attacks near Eilat.

    The earlier headlines:  Israeli bus shot at near border with Egypt (by whom?), Deadly attacks hit Israeli vehicles near Egypt , (by whom?) Israel bus attacks: ‘Several killed’ (killer buses?), Gunman attack bus and military vehicle in Israel (would be an improvement other than the inaccuracy there were more than one). 
     

       0 likes

    • Biodegradable says:
      August 18, 2011 at 7:55 pm

      I was watching the coverage on BBC World TV earlier. They were going to great lengths to repeatedly report that among the bus’s passengers there were soldiers, as if in some way that made it all OK.

      The first Israeli they had on to comment was an ex-editor of Ha’aretz (Aarons?). Apart from Ha’aretz being pretty much far left I seem to remember that this Aarons (?) character once made statements to the effect that the creation of the State of Israel was a mistake and the solution was one state. He also ran with the line that maybe Hamas weren’t responsible, but it was always easy for Israel to claim they were.

         0 likes

  2. David Preiser (USA) says:
    August 18, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    Here’s something constantly censored by the BBC, never mentioned by Mark Mardell or other Beeboids reporting on the US:

    Most people disapprove of the President’s handling of the economy, to the tune of 71%.  Approval is at a new low of 26%.  All blame is not placed on Congress.  Yet all you ever hear is the White House talking point that the problem lies with “wrangling in Washington”.

    Aha, say the defenders of the indefensible, but approval of Congress is even worse: 81% disapproval, and only 13% approval.  The worst in history! So the President is right, as always the only adult in the room who wants to save the country and isn’t blocking progress for partisan reasons, they will say.

    Except in 2009, when the Dems had a super-majority, enough to ram through ObamaCare and mortgage bailouts without ever having to stoop to working with Republicans.  And approval was only at 30%. So approval was already low even when there was no “wrangling”. Historically, it generally doesn’t get much past 40% anyway.  The reason it’s so low now is that Democrats stopped approving after Nov. 3.  Funny, that. Republicans and Independents never liked it in the first place.

    BBC:  ZZZzzzzzzz

       0 likes

  3. As I See It says:
    August 18, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    Five unsympathetic questions from a BBC interviewer to a charity spokesperson – could that really have happened ?!

    Calm down dear, it wasn’t to ask whether foriegn aid is always well spent? or how it is that a tightening of public expenditure might harm a true charity? 

    Of course not. It was the BBC off on another Logan’s Run in support of Euthenasia.

    Peter Allen of 5 Live Drive Time was giving a guy from Scope a hard time. More power to the poor chap’s elbow I say as he attempted to explain how further legal thin end of the wedging on this issue might be harmful to the interests of those with disabilities. The good Beeboid wasn’t having any – not when euthenasia is one of the tenets of the unoffical Beeb charter. Sorry Scope but that was like sending in a grandma against a Shipman.

       0 likes

  4. OWEN MORGAN says:
    August 18, 2011 at 9:52 pm

    Thursday morning’s edition of the endlessly shameless “Labour Toady” programme (our maddening Auntie’s flagship news programme, as we are tediously told) had me shouting at my car radio with even more vehemence than usual.  I caught the end of a typically soft interview with some bleeding-heart, making unsubtantiated and, naturally, unchallenged assertions about the supposed severity of sentencing in the wake of the recent riots.    To round off the item, Evan Davies read out a snippet from the NY Times, predictably in sympathy with the Heinz Kiosk clone who had just been heard.   This was presented as though it clinched the argument.   I was rather surprised Davies didn’t sneer, “So there!”   Needless to say, no-one was invited to dispute the NYT’s opinion.

    Are Auntie and the Gray Lady in any way related?

    Then an item came up about Syria.   Appearing as the sole talking-head, implying that his comment could be expected to be measured and dispassionate, was Patrick Seale, serial apologist for the Assad regime.   Even Seale didn’t try to pretend that the killings in Syria hadn’t happened, but he did imply a kind of moral equivalence there, affecting to believe that the protestors have somehow killed five hundred of the regime’s troops, while also assuming aloud that the army has remained solidly loyal to the Assads.   If he can believe those two things simultaneously, in the vicinity of breakfast, he could give the White Queen a run for her money.   His suggested solution to the problem was for some sort of unarmed intervention by Brazil, Turkey and India, three countries whose forays into foreign relations generally seem to combine delusions of grandeur with conspicuous appeasement of Iran (coincidentally, a close ally of Syria).

       0 likes

  5. Andrew says:
    August 19, 2011 at 8:29 am

    I see Mardell was up to his usual tricks again:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14565245

    Another excuse to trot out Republican Gaffes under the guise of serious analysis.  Strange how his so called serious analysis only included Republicans.  He puts them out there and tries to dress it up as analysis of the gaffe when it reflects someones “world view”

    Also I note particulalrly clever wording around the Perry “Black Cloud” comment.  There was very careful framing of this section.  References to Fox news calling him out for racist remarks against a black president with bold wording (links I grant you) that reinforce the narrative. Then tucked away underneath is the idea that he was quoted out of context as he was talking about the economy.

    Look at what this leaves us with.  Fox News = Sloppy journalism (can’t even be trusted to get the facts straight) or if they’re calling Perry out he must be bad.

    Strange this is all attributed to Fox.  Oddly enough the link in the report doesn’t work.  What Mardell doesn’t tell you is that the whole story comes from the Ed Schultz show on MSNBC. The narrative either side of the video sees Schultz laying into Perry for racism, specifically citing the black cloud comment as being directed at Obama.

    They get exposed by Breitbart TV here:

    http://nation.foxnews.com/rick-perry/2011/08/16/nbc-news-edits-perry-black-cloud-comment-make-him-seem-racist

    Woops – not so much a simple quote out of conetxt but a deliberate edit to frame a narrative.  How’s that moderating the tone of political discourse going there Mr President?

    Funny how Mardell attributes this to journalists scrambling for a story in a non story. Funny how that “reflection of your worldview” aspect suddenly doesn’t apply in this case.

    Its not like they’re without form on this one.  Many will recall Bill Whittle’s video The Narrative in which carefully edited footage shows a man at a presedential rally with a tasty looking weapon strapped to him.  The accompanying commentary was definitely that this had racist undertones against the president – except the full footage showed the gun owner was black.

       0 likes

←Older Comments