201 Responses to OPEN THREAD

←Older Comments
  1. zz says:
    May 8, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    UEA CRU tries to hide wasting loads of our dosh. Paid to someone the BBC normally vilifies.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/uea-waste-112000-on-public-relations-consultancy-during-climategate/

    Is this story hidden in plain view on the BBC site? I couldn’t track it down even knowing it’s there.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-17838436

       1 likes

    • johnnythefish says:
      May 8, 2012 at 7:54 pm

      Got a lot of time for Graham Stringer. He was the only one on the parliamentary inquiry into Climategate who complained that no scientists or analysts from the sceptics side were called to give evidence (notably Ross McKitrick who would have had ‘Prof’ Jones tied up in knots).

         2 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:
      May 8, 2012 at 4:41 pm

      RT Davies continued the tradition of Thatcher hatred. Viz the episode with the blatant Belgrano reference and Tennant’s nostrils flaring, “They were leaving!!!!”, and screaming about how the female PM was horrible and dangerous for destroying the enemy ship, an act which of course predicated her downfall.

         6 likes

  3. noggin says:
    May 8, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    i note with interest, that resident a/noon chimp on 5live R Bacon, bleats about french politics, and suddenly spits out “its been said many times? … ver are daawk claads ova euwope” …… what? … said many times???
    oh yes he must mean by … 😀 Unite Against Facism Weirdo Martin Smith hmmm! … its his fave mantra
    actually last time i heard that, was a el beeb hatchet job doc on G. Wilders

       5 likes

  4. Wayne X says:
    May 8, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    Thanks to Guido…
    You will never see a better example of BBC bias.

    http://order-order.com/2012/05/08/news-you-can-trust/#comments

       1 likes

    • DB says:
      May 8, 2012 at 3:07 pm

      There are similar ads for LibDem and Conservative posts. It’s not unique.

         1 likes

    • Roland Deschain says:
      May 8, 2012 at 3:11 pm

      I think Jim Dandy has answered that one pretty effectively! See above, where he has unearthed an identical advert, except “Conservative” has been used.

         2 likes

      • Guest Who says:
        May 8, 2012 at 4:00 pm

        It is always worth a moment of reflection, and indeed keeping powder dry, in such cases.
        I noted Mr. Fawkes’ initial post and then returned after the first batch of replies.
        In there were a few making the point it was not unidirectional (if still deuced odd on a variety of levels, beyond the political partiality).
        Hence in this such as Mr. Dandy serves a noble and valued function, with the correction all the more eloquent for being free of additional contribution that can, on occasion, seem hard to resist.
        For which.. kudos.
        Were it the case that the BBC takes on board legitimate counter-view with equal good grace, acknowledgement and stealth-free mea culpa.
        That they are genetically incapable of this, even with a typo much less a howler, will be their undoing.
        As Darwin showed, if you protect the weak (or in this case the weasels) and r/eject the strong (those with ability and integrity), when other forces from outside intrude, the whole Ostrich herd will ultimately suffer.

           4 likes

      • Millie Tant says:
        May 8, 2012 at 4:13 pm

        If he’d written that he had found a similar one for the Conservatives, everyone reading the thread would have known.

           0 likes

  5. George R says:
    May 8, 2012 at 2:58 pm

    Of course, BBC-greenies would be apalled if the UK government were to reduce the tax on fuel, as argued here, even if the result would be a boost for the economy.

    “UK plc is in deep trouble.”

    http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1185/uk_plc_is_in_deep_trouble

       1 likes

  6. Guest Who says:
    May 8, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    Remember the matter of complaints was raised recently?

    Just had two back, and now responded.

    The first was from an ECU Director who, though subject to the control of a clearly impossible to manage system, seems to try and be as fair as the one David P encountered on Stuart Hughes.

    The second was from the cannon fodder Forlorn Hope who cope with the first barrages, and seem close to breaking point. You’ll see why, and why they may have wished theirs arrived before this one:
    —-

    On 8 May 2012, at 09:28, xx wrote:

    I am writing in response to your four emails of 7 May.

    Sorry about the number. But I note you can also tend to respond in batches, especially as deadlines impose.

    I also note you are managing a level of reason and civility that is sadly lacking from your more junior colleagues. For which thank you.

    You may wish to have a word about that as it makes any ‘bad faith’ arguments pretty much all fall in favour of those expressing concerns vs. the petty mindsets we as licence fee payers are compelled to deal with. As you will discover in short order.

    Now, to our exchanges…

    In your email about Dateline London, you asked who can respond to your concerns about the selection of guests for such a programme. The choice of contributors is a matter of editorial judgement and so you should write to Stephanie Harris, Head of Editorial Compliance and Accountability, BBC Television News, Room 5601, Television Centre, Wood Lane, London W12 7RJ.

    You can also ask Ms Harris to respond to any concerns you have about the manner in which complaints about BBC News online material have been addressed (assuming the complaint was made direct to News Online via newsonline.complaints@bbc.co.uk ).

    If you have concerns about the manner in which other complaints about BBC content (not including News Online) have been addressed at the first stage, you should write to Lee Rogers, Complaints Manager, Room 5472 White City, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TS.

    Thank you. But now, just to confirm, I am having to conduct these exchanges via post, and two separate entities, when even the Trust level escalations are accepted via email? How very.. traditional. It also does tilt towards even more confusion and complexity. Which the BBC does not seem to cope with well.

    In all cases, the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust can also consider the manner in which complaints have been handled at Stage 1 and at Stage 2. To be clear, the ECU represents Stage 2 of the BBC’s complaints process in relation to complaints which raise a potential breach of the BBC’s Editorial Standards. In other cases, such as editorial judgement and complaints handling, BBC management are responsible for providing a Stage 2 response to complaints.

    That I had gathered. Which is why, sadly, I have had to escalate to them (when directed in the event of deadlock) on a few occasions. By email. Even more sadly, no acknowledgment even, or response, as yet.

    I appreciate that the manner in which the BBC handles complaints may appear bureaucratic and process-driven

    It has and does present ‘challenges’.

    and it may reassure you to know that the BBC Trust is currently reviewing the complaints process.

    I was aware of that, and indeed did contribute, as you may imagine, a few thoughts on the past, the present, and the future. As to the latter, these included a few bits of feedback on what is said vs. done not always seeing the talk matching the walk.

    You may find it useful to know that complaints made direct to BBC News online do not get a reference number (I don’t know why that’s the case), unlike complaints made via the BBC Complaints page http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/ which are given a reference beginning CAS-and followed by seven numbers and six numbers/letters.

    I did not know that until now. All I knew was that, when seeking to express concerns, I went to the BBC home page, typed ‘complaints’ in search and followed the pages and prompts. As this is this is the only avenue into the BBC complaints system the public is offered, but then appears to get split in many mysterious ways internally, as these can lead to demands back that can seem… less than fair… or even coherent… maybe this is another area you and your colleagues may see fit to investigate and address? Certainly in your position as a Director of Complaints, it may be worth finding out why those to BBC online don’t get the number (or another one?) often demanded of me back by other departments when seeking ways not to help, but make petty points.

    I simply wonder for now how many at BBC complaints know this.

    As I may have explained before, the ECU can investigate a complaint about the editorial content of an item broadcast or published by the BBC once it has been appropriately addressed at Stage 1 of the complaints process; an appropriate response at Stage 1 normally means a complainant has received two responses to the complaint, at least one of which includes an informed and considered response from those responsible for the content.

    All fair enough. I’d like you to bear in mind that ‘informed and considered’ statement in light of what follows. As to ‘appropriate’, this does rather fall into what is understood and by whom. Sadly, I tend not to feel ‘we think..’ ‘feeling comfortable with..’ etc, go enough beyond ‘the BBC feels it is right because the BBC feels it is right’ mindset to be legitimate any more, much as this is frequently attempted.

    Most (not all) of my complaints are not on matters of interpretation, which can be a zoo to pursue, but are usually substantive, quoting actual text or transcripted conversations or even page captures.

    It can be frustrating to find these fall off even iPlayer in the course of discussing them, which is why I am grateful for the CDR on the Dateline London Falklands edition.

    I presume further feedback or direction on what was raised as a result on my email on May 7 is in progress still? Along with advice or redirection on the others?

    As I am sure you can appreciate, the BBC receives thousands of complaints and comments and so it is not always practical to provide a detailed and considered response to all aspects of all complaints in the first instance.

    Of course. However, the winnowing process seems flawed currently by being either knee-jerk or adversarial at best from the outset.

    One can perhaps accept the inevitable cookie cutter template often deployed (almost all have the ‘we’re sorry we’re late… // …rest assured we’ll file this away for later’ sandwich, other than a few I’ve had by return from some producer in a pub who hasn’t bothered to check his or her facts before showing off to their mates, in which case they are not sorry for anything and have no intention of logging it), but what happens in the middle needs to be treated seriously if sent very seriously initially.

    That’s why a second response is required to ensure that those responsible are given an opportunity to respond to the detail of a complaint before it is investigated further by the ECU or BBC management.

    Again… fair enough. However, I do sense that the requirements of the BBC system seem to be making BBC employees grumpy at the volume they are needing to field as a consequence of their own system, and then they take it out on the hapless… customer. The people who pay their wages. This can lead to a downward spiral where no one gains, I do hope you will concede.

    I hope that is of some help and will enable you to pursue your complaints in the future.

    Certainly one aspect is clarified further by new knowledge. However mostly I think I am conforming as well as any member of the public to the demands of the BBC system. But on current evidence, I am unsure if those within the corporation tasked with this critical customer service task are as well.

    [love that ‘in future:)]

    —

    Subject: Re: Complaint about Dateline London, 11 February 2012 – ECU Finding (24 Apr)

    Dear xx,

    Ta for the CDR.

    Saw this recently, and in watching just now thought of our discussions on offering succour via the airwaves to those who would wish this country harm as events unfold:

    http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/uk/2012/apr/03/falklands-protesters-attack-british-embassy

    ‘violence as Argentinian demonstrators throw firebombs at embassy during Falklands anniversary’

    Combined with the latest oil on troubled waters our empathetic panel’s Argentine fellow travellers have lately managed in an Olympian sense.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100156276/argentina-is-humiliated-as-international-olympic-committee-blasts-buenos-aires-over-falklands-advert/

    Especially in light of…


    Dr Saul Zadka: I would regard it as a provocation…
    Nabila Ramdani: Absolutely.
    Dr Saul Zadka: … and I think…
    Michael Goldfarb: The Israelis would!

    There seems an odd tolerance of views that are oddly tolerant of rather violent actions, and seem only become concerned when those being attacked move to defend themselves.

    About the only consistent aspect on the BBC seems to be who the BBC asks on and allows free rein to conflate away.

    I also wonder, what was what the Israelis would ‘regard’, anything to do with the UK responding to ramped up rhetoric and aggression that has lead to firebomb attacks on our embassy by Argentinians?

    As it was raised, history shows poor precedent in appeasing violent regimes, along with facilitating morale-sapping one-sided propaganda at home. And it’s not like the BBC does not have a history itself of inviting on those who get allowed to say things by proxy…

    http://cifwatch.com/2009/12/23/a-formal-complaint-to-the-bbc/

    Another one of those ‘live’ mis-speaks, no doubt? That the high paid BBC moderators seem unable to control… on occasion.

    Maybe this might see the BBC reassessing who speaks for whom?

    Oh, and as to who I can discuss the panel composition choices with… any time you are ready on that. It is a critical aspect and cannot be divorced so easily from what those invited on choose, are allowed or prompted to say:

    http://daphneanson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/pumping-out-anti-israel-poison-bbc.html

    “In fact, as so often, he was a panellist on “Dateline London” this weekend, along with France24 correspondent Benedicte Paviot, John Fisher Burns of the New York Times, and Sir Simon Jenkins of The Guardian.(A nice politically balanced panel, no? Er, no.”

    It seems getting on folk with singular views and letting them run with them is rather prevalent. So beyond what is said, I think who gets invited on to say it does bear further discussion.

    Though what they do say is often intriguing. I noticed in a preceding exchange that Mr. Goldfarb managed to come out with ‘I don’t mean extreme in the extremist sense’ by way of comment when trashing, surprise, Republicans.

    And on what is said or meant left hanging, I’d also have liked to have seen Mr. Richards challenged on ‘..the mythology of the Falklands War.. Most of it completely false, actually..’.

    Might that not have warranted a request for clarification? Unless it simply fitted with the host’s views as well, in which case one can see how the echo chamber simply kept resonating.

    So no, still too much not satisfied on any editorial basis for me to be prepared to let this go. Please either bump up the greasy pole again or tell me to whom I need to.

    [Much there still in need of answers as yet not forthcoming, which I presume will mean the Trust. I will await his lead on this]

       2 likes

    • Guest Who says:
      May 8, 2012 at 3:48 pm

      Now the next, which does rather benefit from information provided in the first…

      —-
      Dear (never hurts to observe the courtesies, I find) Sirs,

      On 8 May 2012, at 11:16, NewsOnline Complaints wrote:
      Mr xx,

      In future, could you please send your complaints direct from this page:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/

      I know you are not keen on answering questions, preferring to ask them or make demands in response or distraction, but if there is another means to make a complaint I may have inadvertently used, please advise, with URL, what it is, so I may avoid it.

      You should then get the tracking numbers you require,

      ‘Should’ is an interesting word, semantically, as of course it is not as definitive as ‘will’, offering a hint of excuse in the event that things do not work out as well as so often claimed with such initial robust confidence.

      I wonder if you are aware of this, from a Director of Complaints your end..

      You may find it useful to know that complaints made direct to BBC News online do not get a reference number (I don’t know why that’s the case), unlike complaints made via the BBC Complaints page http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/ which are given a reference beginning CAS-and followed by seven numbers and six numbers/letters.

      .. suggesting that whatever path I as a mere licence fee payer may follow inbound via the BBC system imposes, the BBC system then has further, different ways of processing internally, and this can often come back with, how to put this… strident demands of the viewing public on procedure they may not be able to respond to as well as may be expected by those more familiar with their own systems. Such as your own Directors.

      From now on, we will deal only with complaints sent via this route.

      It is the only route I thought I was using, unless responding to an email, in which case I am afraid I can’t be expected to keep track of what you choose to send back in all its varied incarnations.

      You send out some emails that work, and some that demand reapplication down the same route all over again.

      Other times there’s an auto reply with a tracking number; other times not.

      It’s your system… you sort it out, and please do not vent your frustration with your messed up system on your customer base.

      You can’t work it, and make your problem mine, I pull my licence fee for failure to honour service delivery not only in content but system procedures in pointing out errors. Does that only ‘route’ deal register?

      We cannot forward complaints to this address ourselves because of the way the BBC’s logging systems work.

      Workmen. Tools. Finish the sentence off yourselves. Self-evidently, some bodge can work. Try and make it work officially.

      As to the specifics of this one, let us look at the facts.

      As have I, to now. You have been venturing, at all stages, into subjective opinion.

      The report is the official finding of the committee, whether or not there was a vote of six to four in favour.

      Please reread the original complaint.

      Are you suggesting that if a murderer is convicted by a majority verdict, a headline should focus on the jurors who didn’t think he was guilty?

      Please do not go down silly routes of analogy, or I will too, and much as that is a distraction I am sure you’d love to indulge in, I am not playing.
      It is clearly part of the story that not all the MPs endorsed this part of the report, and that is included.

      Please reread the original complaint.
      However, the headline is accurate and it stands.

      Please reread the original complaint.
      Robert Peston was updating his initial take on the report as events unfolded and that is a perfectly legitimate practice.

      Please reread the original complaint.
      We recognise your reluctance to consider the BBC’s coverage against other media, but believe it is instructive in this case and ask your forbearance:

      Rupert Murdoch deemed ‘not a fit person’ to run international company – Guardian

      Rupert Murdoch ‘not fit’ to run global company – Reuters

      Murdoch ‘not fit’ to run global company – FT

      Murdoch ‘not fit to run a company’: MPs slam ‘wilful blindness’ over phone-hacking and accuse his execs of misleading them – Mail

      Rupert Murdoch ‘Not Fit’ To Run Company – Sky

      Murdoch ‘not fit to lead a major company’ – Independent’s i

      Rupert Murdoch ‘not fit’ to run News Corporation – ITV

      Phone hacking: Rupert Murdoch ‘not a fit person to run major company’ – Scotsman

      MPs’ phone hacking report: Rupert Murdoch not ‘fit person’ to run News Corp – Telegraph

      The only variance seems to be in the Murdoch papers:

      MPs split on whether Murdoch is ‘fit’ to run his empire – Times

      MPs in bust-up over report into hacking – Sun

      Not the ‘multiple wrongs mean we are right in it with the worst of them’ attempt again?

      Please advise which of these publications/media require me to fund them via compulsion, no matter what the quality and impartiality of their reporting and editorial?

      And as you are so keen on equivalencies, in future if other media (especially those commercially competitive, bar SKY, who are rating addicted and would drop their granny in it to score a soundbite that drives the twitter traffic so they can sell more wonga.com ads) weigh in on tribal or feeding frenzy grounds in areas that don’t suit the BBC’s unique world view, will the BBC be joining in?

      And if not, why not?

      And if so… are you now saying inaccuracy is fine so long as you can point at others doing it?

      I am sure the ECU and Trust will groan at that attempt.
      This is not a question, in our view, of bias, but of journalistic ability to identify the key story and present it accurately.

      ‘Your view’ no longer sufficing, self evidently, especially when expressed in the tone being adopted. And with a grasp of internal procedure not inspiring confidence in other areas this apparently encompasses.
      We are satisfied we have done that.

      Again, your satisfaction is noted, but irrelevant.
      So, to clarify, is your central complaint still that the headline on Robert Peston’s blog is inaccurate?

      To the extent that it can be made any more clear, for the reasons given originally, twice now, yes.

      Looking back at my original complaint, I note that no effort has been made to address the fact that Mr. Peston initially failed to make any clarification that would have put that inaccurate headline even in context and then, in the first blow off attempt, the quaint notion was introduced that this clarification was valid by being cited elsewhere on the BBC broadcast news estate, so some ‘link’ ‘may’ have been possible to make. And my highlighting this nonsensical attempt has been ignored.

      Anyway, now we have ticked the two boxes your own system appears to demand, please now invoke the Candyman or whoever this gets elevated to next, again.

      Preferably in a mature way.

      Meanwhile, I am off now to read about unbiased, trusted news elsewhere. Usually across a spread. But it is all at least for free.

      —-

      I think I have gained a glimpse into the dark heart of a very messed up system.

      Depending on a few niceties being observed.. two strikes… and you are in🙂

         3 likes

      • Roland Deschain says:
        May 8, 2012 at 4:22 pm

        “Are you suggesting that if a murderer is convicted by a majority verdict, a headline should focus on the jurors who didn’t think he was guilty?”

        Bloody hell. Have I read that correctly? Are they really equating Rupert Murdoch to a murderer found guilty by jury?

        If we must use that analogy, would the fact that a jury found said murderer guilty by a 5:4 majority be of piffling importance when writing up the story? Or would it be used evermore as evidence of how unsafe the conviction was. Well, I guess that depends on which boxes the murderer ticks.

           4 likes

        • Guest Who says:
          May 8, 2012 at 4:56 pm

          ‘Are they really equating ..
          Trying to, but I rather suspected this was a ruse to get into daft trades on ‘which is worse, your analogy or mine?’, and detract from the actual point.
          Which was, and remains what happened, what was ‘reported’, what was not, what was added later, and what was accurate at the outset and to now.
          However, in revealing the mindset at play here, you do highlight an interesting point of moral equivalence in spinning any ‘story’.
          As you say, the number and which boxes ticked chez Aunty might well lead to another headline approach entirely.
          An interesting area worth debating here, but one I will avoid with them.
          I simply await the answers requested having proffered those demanded.

             1 likes

  7. George R says:
    May 8, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    For BBC-NUJ-Newsnight-Occupy-greenies:

    “Anti-capitalist Occupy London camp accused of wrecking nature reserve ”

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/london/anticapitalist-occupy-london-camp-accused-of-wrecking-nature-reserve-7722355.html

       4 likes

  8. George R says:
    May 8, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    INBBC propagandises that these guilty men are ‘Asian’ not Muslim:

    “Rochdale grooming trial: Nine found guilty of child sex charges”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17989463

       4 likes

    • George R says:
      May 8, 2012 at 4:47 pm

      More on these ‘Asian’ men in ‘Daily Mail’:-

      “Nine Asian men guilty of grooming white schoolgirls for sex after plying them with vodka and drugs.
      Five girls aged between 13 and 15 were shared by men in the Rochdale area .
      Teenagers targeted because they were vulnerable and from broken homes.

      Police said one victim was forced to have sex with 20 men in one night.
      Gang used white girl, 15, known as ‘The Honey Monster’ to recruit victims .
      Girls picked up where young people congregate, such as outside takeaways.

      Attackers range in age from 22 to 59 – all are from Pakistan, apart from one from Afghanistan.”

      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141279/Rochdale-child-sex-trial-Nine-men-guilty-grooming-passing-round-young-girls-sex-plying-vodka-drugs.html#ixzz1uIGIYLVO

         5 likes

    • Guest Who says:
      May 8, 2012 at 4:48 pm

      ‘these guilty men are ‘Asian’ not Muslim’

      Well, one supposes their faith may be otherwise?
      I simply dread having to deal with the missus who, as a Chinese Singaporean, has yet to get over a census having her as either Chinese or Asian but not both, when she’s pretty sure she’s from SE Asia.
      Getting lumped in with this merry crew might not impress.

         5 likes

    • Umbongo says:
      May 8, 2012 at 5:16 pm

      GR

      It’s OK. On BBC News 24, the police are quoted as saying that, given the demographics of the area, the race (and religion?) of the perps is immaterial: that the crime had nothing to do with race: that it just so happens that this is Rochdale and these men were “Asian”. We are therefore instructed to believe that, whatever motivated these men, it wasn’t racism (with the implication that the victims just “happened” to be white).
      Of course, had the positioon been reversed – whites exploiting/raping asians/muslims – I think it can be safely assumed that both the police and the BBC would have taken this opportunity to smear whitey and lay all the blame at the door of the BNP and EDL for creating the conditions under which race crimes occur.

         9 likes

  9. DavidLamb says:
    May 8, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    Nine members of a muslim pedophile gang found guilty and the BBC reports this in the context of an attack on the far right.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17899841

       10 likes

  10. DavidLamb says:
    May 8, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    Nine members of a muslim pedophile gange found guilty. So the BBC reports on the activities of the far right

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17899841

       4 likes

    • DavidLamb says:
      May 8, 2012 at 4:44 pm

      Note how the BBC reports a guilty verdict as ‘child sex allegations’ in the pedophile trial.

         7 likes

    • johnnythefish says:
      May 8, 2012 at 8:01 pm

      Thank God these ‘Asians’ only groomed underage girls and didn’t burn a bible – else the ‘far right’ might really have gone for it.

         6 likes

  11. maturecheese says:
    May 8, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    The BBC have finally got around to reporting the grooming and rape case in Liverpool. 7 Pakistani scumbags have been found guilty but already the BBC are avoiding mentioning the Religion of Peace as a possible factor, instead getting some social worker type to reinforce the BBC view that there was nothing different about this case and other cases involving white perpatrators.

       8 likes

    • maturecheese says:
      May 8, 2012 at 5:34 pm

      correction 8 Pakistanis and one other (could be Afghani but I’m not sure)

         2 likes

      • maturecheese says:
        May 8, 2012 at 6:15 pm

        Listening to drive on 5 live it has taken an Asian (Pakistani I believe) man to say there was a racial (Islam) element to this to the annoyance of peter Allen. Cue the BBC view directly after that so that normal lies and deception is restored.

           7 likes

  12. David Preiser (USA) says:
    May 8, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    You knew this was coming:

    BBC Hardtalk: Are American Jews fed up with Israel?

    Who’s their expert on this topic? Only a Jew who has made a career out of attacking Israel.

    Norman Finkelstein bids farewell to Israel bashing

    ‘It’s become too easy,’ says Norman Finkelstein, talking about his new and surprisingly optimistic book.

    In June, Norman Finkelstein will mark 30 years of criticizing Israel.

       6 likes

    • wally greeninker says:
      May 8, 2012 at 9:20 pm

      As an opera buff you may be tuning in to this Saturday’s Radio 3 offering ‘The Death of Klinghoffer’ -two Beeboids will be on hand to discuss the opera’s themes and controversies and the impeccably impartial Tim Franks will give the background for the Middle Eastern political situation in the mid ’80s during the interval.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01hjlrx

         2 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:
        May 9, 2012 at 6:27 am

        Here’s what legendary music critic and writer Norman Lebrecht had to say about the production:

        My personal estimation of the piece dropped a notch in the first ten minutes and kept on falling. Alice Goodman’s libretto clunked as never before. There were so many clumsy and misplaced metaphors that my companion and I lost count.

        To compensate for the wordiness and pseudo-worthiness of the script, director Tom Morris overdosed on visual metaphors, brandishing pro-Palestinian graffiti and an ominous West Bank wall – a barrier that was not built or dreamed of at the time of the terrorist murder of the wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer in October 1985.

        There is propaganda enough in the opera to obviate the need for such devices. Its most resonant line, from a chorus of Palestinian exiles, is ‘Israel laid all to waste’. The lines is repeated four times. There is no counterbalancing argument for the Israeli case. The Death of Klinghoffer is not, as I have stipulated elsewhere, anti-semitic, but it is anti-Zionist to the point of obsession.

        Perfect for the BBC, then.

           2 likes

  13. David Preiser (USA) says:
    May 8, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    It’s like the bias is reflexive:

    Indiana Senator Lugar in Republican primary fight

    Lugar is facing a primary challenge from a Tea Party-backed candidate. The News Online Beeboid writes this:

    Correspondents say defeat for Mr Lugar could increase Senate partisanship.

    Translation: The Democrats in majority won’t get their way as easily as when RINO Lugar played ball.

    The bias is reflexive. They don’t even realize they’re doing it. The article even defends Lugar by fisking ads showing him working with the President, telling you that the issue concerned was “non-partisan”. Nice to see the BBC defending a Republican, I guess, but why do they feel the need to tell you how a campaign ad is wrong?

    One reason Lugar is facing a challenge is his support for the Law of the Sea Treaty. It’s about the US signing away half our off-shore drilling royalties for the UN to redistribute to other countries. Ironic acronymn: LOST.

    Your own Government is about to do the same thing.

       2 likes

  14. ltwf 1964 says:
    May 8, 2012 at 10:23 pm

    just watching ancient Apocalypse on BBC4

    subject-the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah………who do we have?An Archaeologist dressed in suitable arab headgear,telling us about “the history of Palestine going back to around 2300BC”

    silly me-I’ve been labouring under the illusion for years that the place was called the land of Israel

    thanks for clearing that up al beeb

    by the way-no mention made of why God destroyed the cities of the plain……….in fact they are jumping through hoops to find reasons to explain away and involvement of God at all

    and scotty girl breathes a sigh of relief 😉

       4 likes

    • deegee says:
      May 9, 2012 at 8:04 am

      One very interesting development I’ve noticed in the propaganda war is Israel Haters quietly beginning to drop the laughable Palestinians were here with the dinosaurs (and therefore should receive indigenous rights that no other country gives its own natives) narrative in favour of an arguable ‘Arabs were here’ narrative.

      It implicitly rejects (Israel Haters have no trouble appropriating two or more logically opposing concepts and dragging out the one that fits, at a given point in the argument, even in the same article.) the historically ludicrous claim that territories can’t be acquired in war for a ‘previous invasion/immigration trumps the later one’ argument.

      There were a majority of Arabs present in the British Mandate of Palestine therefore the whole cake belongs to Arabs no matter what their origins or when they arrived. Expect to see al Beeb adopting this more and more

         1 likes

    • Guest Who says:
      May 9, 2012 at 8:25 am

      Was watching a fascinating doco last night on wolf packs around Chernobyl.
      Still not a place any human wants to be around, but some interesting conclusions.
      There were greater incidences of mutation in such as vole populations, but these were ‘offset’ by the fact that they were otherwise thriving due to being left alone from human influence.
      In fact the key to a perfect natural world all traced back to this., beyond the impositions of radioactivity.
      From droughts to conflicts, they big eco-issue would appear to be the pitter-patter of tiny homo sapiens feet gobbling up land and resources.
      Maybe some prioritised immigration and affordable housing can sort out this Russian Eden too, and Mr. Black & Sir David can skirt around various issues to suit there too?

         0 likes

  15. Reed says:
    May 9, 2012 at 2:14 am

    This is an interesting developement on the Question time page…

    ————————————
    A Question Time clarification
    During Question Time on March 1st in Dewsbury, an audience member remarked that the former local MP Shahid Malik made a promise to clear the debt of the local hospital and then subsequently failed to fulfil this promise. We wish to clarify that this was incorrect, and that Mr Malik never made the pledge.
    ————————————

    Mr. Malik is, of course, a Labour MP. It will be interesting to see if they are equally keen in future to clear up after audience members who make unfounded claims about politicians from other parties – especially those of the right, who get harangued by the left-friendly audiences on a regular basis. Most recently, we saw Nigel Farage being taken to task over the issue of EU immigrants and the ease with which they gain access to benefits and housing in the UK. I await a correction to point out that Mr. Farage was indeed correct, and that the audience member was wrong, something he later admitted once filming was done.

    https://twitter.com/#!/Nigel_Farage/status/195638854621990912

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006t1q9

    I’m guessing that Mr. Malik was particularly bolshie (he has form) and pressed the issue with the BBC, thus the clarification. Others need to be similarly zero tolerance when it comes to misrepresentation, dishonesty or plain ignorance.

       1 likes

    • Guest Who says:
      May 9, 2012 at 8:15 am

      ‘interesting to see if they are equally keen in future to clear up after audience members who make unfounded claims ‘
      This goes to areas of precedent which, like most BBC territory is divided into ‘no-go’ if watertight oversight demands it, and ‘shout from the rooftops’ if a Nick Robinson lobby bar ‘source’ faxes it in as a ‘critics are saying’.
      I guess one can’t expect market rate talent debate chairs to know everything, and on the spot, but it is pretty common for a specially selected ‘guest’ to make a wild claim and not only remain unchallenged but find the host nodding along in agreement. Especially prevalent with an absent, thick or cowed counter person specially selected in (or out) for just those reasons.
      Quite interesting that in QI, on matters of in progress wisdom sharing, the elves can on occasion cause Mr. Fry to interject during the course of the show that what has been claimed is in fact false.
      Given the education and information remit of our most trusted national broadcaster, here’s a question being asked.. ‘why not on things that matter as much, or even more, such as live news and debate?’.
      Cue FoI exclusion shutters.

         2 likes

      • Reed says:
        May 9, 2012 at 8:46 am

        Good point in regard to QI – they do indeed have ‘the QI elves’ at the ready behind the scenes for almost real-time fact checking.

        Perhaps those newly employed specialists in Labour/Conservative ‘workings’ ought to be providing a similar correction service for Question Time, especially considering the uselessness of some of the political guests and the bias of the audiences. I’m thinking here of the Conservatives, who often seem unable to stand their ground and push back against the left’s BS.

           2 likes

  16. Paul Homewood says:
    May 9, 2012 at 10:23 am

    I don’t recall the BBC telling us about this Met Office cock up either.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/april-weather-in-the-uk/

       1 likes

    • Reed says:
      May 9, 2012 at 11:41 am

      Good blog post PH.

      They can’t predict the weather a month in advance, but we’re supposed to believe climate predictions for the next few decades. Hmmm.

         2 likes

←Older Comments