Monthly Archives: May 2013

The BBC has been tiptoeing around the fallout of the Rochdale and Oxford sex abuse revelations…and has begun to come to terms with there being some connection to religion in the choice of victims and the way they were treated.

Will that translate into a wider and more open discussion about Islam and an examination of its real meaning and consequences just as the BBC does with Christianity?

Investigating and challenging the teachings and values of a  religion is perfectly legitimate…but only if you carry out the same examination of other religions. 

The BBC, in an example given further on  in this post, seems to take sides as it lays out a claim that attempts to undermine Israel’s right to exist….if based upon biblical readings….there can be no more controversial subject than that….and yet the BBC quite happily wade into what is a war zone…and as it says….is basically providing ‘ammunition in an ideological war’ to the Palestinians and those who wish to delegitimise Israel.

I mentioned this programme before, A Womb Is A Weapon, in which the BBC declare that Christians are using babies as a weapon against, in particular, Islam…

‘…encouraging larger Christian families is part of a project to outbreed other religions, particularly Islam, winning back the world for Christ one baby at a time.’

The BBC would never dare say anything like that about Muslims who had just as many children.

The BBC quotes from the Bible to back up its claim that the Christians are producing ‘weapons’ with every birth….

The psalm – where children are compared to arrows for war – is the inspiration for the Quiverfull movement.

“Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They shall not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate.”

But how often do we have the BBC quoting text from the Koran as they quote here from the Bible….the numerous Koranic verses demanding Muslims fight the Unbeliever…or demanding Muslims do not make friends with Jews or Christians?

As said, the BBC went out of its way to downplay concerns about the increasing Muslim population in a secular, democratic Europe…so what is the concern about Christians?　

This is of course a familiar pattern…the BBC prepared to insult Christians, to denigrate their beliefs and impose radical re-interpretations of the Bible upon the world….on the other hand they refuse to treat Muslims or the Koran in a similar fashion.

In this series from 2011, Bible’s Buried Secrets, the BBC seems to set out to destroy the Bible along with its teachings and to undermine the authority and the consequent historic outcomes as a result of the accepted reading of the Bible that are still playing out now.　

There are three episodes, here each with the presenter’s introduction…you can see that Christianity and the Bible and the basis for Christian faith are torn apart and blamed for many of the ills of the world…and that religion, or rather Christianity and Judaism, is recognised as having political consequences…something the BBC does not admit as being a fundamental part of the Koran and Islam:

Did King David’s Empire Exist?

The Hebrew Bible is built on shifting sands….it describes how David united the tribes of Israel and made Jerusalem his capital….modern archaeology is challenging the accuracy of the Bible …and this has huge implications for the region…and the world….David’s legacy is ammunition in an ideological war.

Did God Have A Wife?

There’s something about this ancient world that the bible’s not telling us….A very different story that fundamentally challenges the bibles claims.  I’ll be looking at the Bible not as scripture but as literature with a religious agenda that distorts the past…a radical revision which rocks the foundation of monotheism to its core and challenges what its past means to its faith today.

The Real Garden Of Eden

Adam and Eve in Paradise…A story fundamental to Christianity…but is it true?

Their story is our story, their crime our crime…their story has had a devastating effect on history,….human nature being cast as fundamentally bad.…The real story about Eden is too important to ignore.   What’s at stake is the authority of scripture…if Adam and Eve were not real it would undermine faith.

All quite powerful, radical and subversive statements from the BBC attacking the credibility and authority of the Bible, the basis for Christian faith, and the Church….not to mention the legitimacy of Israel’s claim to existence.

Bare the BBC’s attitude in mind when you read the articles linked to below…..which conclude it is necessary and ‘politically correct’ to examine Islam more rigorously…something the BBC might like to consider…..‘Buried  Koran Secrets?’….

George R provided this link:

Brussels as the headquarters of the European Union is the nominal “capital of Europe.” One would expect the city to be the center of enlightenment—the exemplification of political and social tolerance and freedom of speech, assembly and religion, not to mention an advocate of human rights. Disappointingly, recent events have shown that Brussels has increasingly become a place of lies, deliberate disinformation, political manipulation, anti-Semitism and attacks on Israel.

Which led to this one  which says that it is important to talk about Islam and the consequences of its teachings and values and not to ignore it out of some misguided belief that we can‘t talk about ‘that‘…the article is written from a ‘liberal’ perspective:

How much Islamophobia is just enough?

That’s probably the least sensitive way to pose a question that has been bothering me lately.

How many bad apples taint the barrel? The anti-jihadis would argue that it doesn’t matter: Public safety overrides niceties about civil liberties and religious freedom. Liberals, meanwhile, might argue that scrutinizing Muslims, like all forms of racial profiling, is a greater assault on America and its values than are the terrorists themselves.

David Plotz, the editor of Slate, recently noted how both of those responses are unsatisfactory. “At what point do we as a nation actually say something out loud collectively about the people associated with radical Islam [who] are a threat in a way that no other religion appears to be?” he asked on Slate’s “Political Gabfest” podcast. “What is the conversation that we can have about it that doesn’t make conservatives sound like they want to intern every Muslim in the country and doesn’t make the liberals pretend that there is nothing going on?”

So it’s in our interest to have this conversation, and to reconcile our instinct to protect civil liberties with our justifiable fears about religious radicalism.

Guest Who provided us with this link that reports on the BBC’s ability or inability to broadcast the independence vote and the Commonwealth Games……when you read it you might ponder the case for the BBC’s move to Salford….especially when the BBC admits that …..’the referendum will be the most important constitutional event in these islands in 300 years.’

Here is the BBC’s report of the Scottish Parliament’s deliberations on the matter.

The Scottish Parliament has investigated the BBC’s readiness….made more difficult because the BBC refused to provide anyone to talk to them until Lord Patten was contacted and who then promised to ensure the BBC would provide suitable spokesmen.

It notes:

However on 30 October 2012 we heard evidence from Paul McManus of BECTU that:

―”The BBC simply cannot deliver the same level of output in Scotland as it has done in previous years. It does not have the staff to do that…The BBC cannot lose 17 staff from the news and current affairs department and deliver the same levels of programming.”

In oral evidence on 22 January 2013 John Boothman stated that BBC Scotland would ―go anywhere at anytime to any place to ensure that this referendum is covered properly, whilst Ken MacQuarrie stated—　

―”the referendum will be the most important constitutional event in these islands in 300 years. We note its absolute significance as a major story not only in Scotland but in the UK and globally. Our aspiration and determination is to cover the referendum with quality, range, depth and analysis, and to place in an independent and impartial manner the best possible information and journalism before each and every sector of the audiences that I mentioned. I am absolutely confident that we will do that.”

The parliamentary committee finishes off by saying:

To summarise, 2014 will be a challenging year for BBC Scotland in respect of the coverage of major events. As the parliamentary committee charged with consideration of broadcasting in Scotland, we wish to ensure that it has the necessary capacity to do this effectively. Indeed, on 22 January 2013, Mr MacQuarrie stated: ―We welcome the challenge and scrutiny from the committee.

It is therefore a matter of considerable regret that BBC Scotland initially declined our invitations to give oral evidence.

It is unfortunate that contradictory evidence has been provided to us in terms of staffing numbers and the effect of DQF. There is nothing we can do to substantiate claims by either party other than to continue to monitor effects on programming output and quality. We would be extremely concerned if anyone has deliberately set out to mislead a parliamentary committee.

The reason for the questions raised about the BBC’s ability to cover these events is that jobs are being cut at BBC Scotland as budget cuts are implemented….the number of jobs being lost, mostly from news and current affairs, is 17.

This raises another question….was the BBC’s move to Salford the best use of resources or was it simply shuffling the chairs around a bit whilst not actually improving the service? Could that money have been more effective spread around all the regions not just Salford?

The Salford move doesn’t save the BBC money…it costs it money…..an extra £120 million over and above the cost of carrying on as before the move over the period until 2030.

The actual cost of the move is said to be £224 million…..if they hadn’t moved…that would have been £224 million that could have gone on all the other regions to improve their services…instead it has been spent on a cosmetic, ‘politically’ inspired move.

The BBC says its intent was to spread its ‘spend’ more evenly across the UK and to increase economic investment in the region….and yet it cuts services in Scotland at a time when there are going to be major news stories occurring there…whilst now, as mentioned, overspending on the move to Salford….a move which is purely ‘political’ rather than done on a genuine business case….more about ‘soul’ than efficiency and improving the service.

Does Salford do anything that, had they stayed in London, or Oxford Road, could not have been done equally well or better? There is nothing specifically ‘Northern’ about the services that moved there…they could just as well have remained in London….BBC Breakfast, children’s, 5Live, sports and Future Media and Technology.

The BBC Trust says of the move:

There are encouraging signs that the anticipated benefits of the move are beginning to be realised. The BBC’s relative share of overall television viewing and reach to BBC radio in the north-west has increased when compared to the UK average, more collaborative and flexible ways of working have been introduced, some efficiency savings have been delivered and there has been significant economic investment in the region.

Really? I would be interested to know how a move to Salford increased audience share…how is the one influenced by the other? Do you listen to 5Live more because it comes from Salford?

The National Audit Office examined the move in detail but qualified its investigation by saying:

‘The BBC’s decision, in 2006, to move to Salford is outside of the scope of our report.’

Some parts of the report:

Most of the BBC’s decision-making and spending has been historically concentrated in London. To help address this imbalance, the BBC developed plans in　2004 to relocate a number of its departments to a new regional centre in the north of England.

The BBC’s objectives for moving to Salford are to:• better serve audiences in the north;• improve the quality of content for audiences across the UK;• improve efficiency using new technology and ways of working; and• provide economic and other benefits to the region, including up to 15,000 jobs.

And in more detail:

‘To achieve a more balanced national spending profile and better reflect audience needs outside of London, the BBC set targets in 2004 for the　period up to 2016 to:  increase the proportion of public service staff based outside London from 42　per　cent to 50 per cent; increase annual spend on programmes outside London by 35 per cent to £1　billion;　and move 20 per cent of decisions (measured by spend) to commission new programmes outside of London.’

However the BBC said the move would actually cost them more money than had they kept their operations as they stood…..　

The BBC calculated that moving to Salford could increase the net cost of its estate by up to £120 million (after discounting future cash flows to their present value) over the period to 2030 compared to alternative options. However, it　concluded the move would still be value for money owing to the wider benefits of: helping to better serve audiences in the north; increasing the quality of its content and using new technology and ways of　working;　and providing economic and other benefits to the region.

What are those ‘Regional economic benefits?: 

‘The BBC intends to establish a world class media talent pool in the region, strengthen independent northern production and bring economic benefits to the region, as measured by:

Increasing the total BBC spend in the region; the number of people working in the media sector in the region;  BBC spend with northern independent production companies; and gross value added to the region, which is a way of measuring the economic impact on the region of the BBC’s move to Salford.

How many jobs are at Salford?

There are currently 2300 BBC staff working at Salford with an additional 1000 more jobs being transferred from London by 2016…with a hope to create 15,000 jobs in the region.…254 BBC staff were recruited from the Greater Manchester area (including　39　from Salford)

 The Mail tells us that:

At the same time, hard-pressed residents are furious over claims by BBC bosses — including former director-general Mark Thompson, who conceived the ludicrous scheme — that the venture would create 15,000 new jobs for local people. In fact, unemployment in the area has risen.

The BBC has a total 9.7% of its staff from ethnic backgrounds and 3.7% who are disabled…it is unknown how many climate change sceptics they employ.

Some of the relocation payments to staff:

11 staff received over £100,000 to move….322 received over £20,000.…123 of those receiving £50-60,000…a few receiving £150,000 or more.

The BBC estimates that the final cost of fitting out the buildings at Salford and moving people in will be £224 million, which is £9 million less than the revised budget approved by the BBC Trust in February 2011.

Will it prove to be efficient?

Although the BBC has completed the transfer to Salford, it is too early to judge whether it will deliver value for money. This will depend on the BBC’s ability to achieve a　sustained improvement in audience approval in the north, embed new ways of working to achieve efficiencies of £151 million and provide sustainable economic benefits for the region. The BBC has developed an appropriate approach to measuring the future impacts of the move but has not yet set out clearly how it intends to make all of its planned efficiency savings.

One problem might be that when the BBC calculated their efficiency savings they included the sale proceeds of their Oxford Road premises in Manchester from which they expected to receive £19.6 million but actually only got £10.3 million….and that they predicted that they would make efficiency savings of £128 million over a period to 2030…but the actual savings are going to be half that…only £61.4 million.

During the recent elections in Pakistan the BBC thought the big story was Imran Khan falling off his election platform…….

Imran Khan ‘recovering’ in hospital after rally fall

Asia / 8 May 2013

Leading Pakistani politician Imran Khan is recuperating in hospital after falling off a makeshift lift that was taking him onto a stage at an…

Imran Khan injured in fall while campaigning

8 May 2013

Imran Khan, one of Pakistan’s most prominent politicians, is recovering in hospital after being injured falling from an elevated platform at an…

7 May 2013

Imran Khan injured in Pakistan campaign rally fall

Asia / 7 May 2013

Leading Pakistani politician Imran Khan has been hurt after falling off a makeshift lift that was taking him onto a stage at an election rally…

Imran Khan injured in fall while campaigning

7 May 2013

Imran Khan, one of Pakistan’s most prominent politicians, has been injured after falling from an elevated platform at an election rally in Lahore.

How will Imran Khan’s fall affect Pakistan’s election?

World / 7 May 2013

In an election called the most unpredictable in Pakistan’s history, the campaign took a turn no-one expected. Imran Khan, a rising political star,…

But there was a far bigger story in Pakistan…one that Khan was deeply involved in…to his discredit……a story ignored by the BBC for some reason during these elections…..that of Amadhi Muslims being persecuted…..though they did report ‘Taliban’ attacks on secular Pakistanis…

 Pakistan election: Taliban threats hamper secular campaign 

By M Ilyas Khan

All these parties are either overtly religious, or are run by right-wing liberals with religious leanings

Fascinated by that description….’Rightwing Liberals’.

The Guardian and The New Statesman reported the issues and revelations that Khan is not the ‘nice guy’ he is presented as:　

“In the western press he has reputation for being a secular, former playboy politician,” said Usman Ahmad, a Rabwah resident who moved from the UK nine years ago. “This shows him in a truer light.”

Note that Khan fully supports the discrimination against the Ahmadis….. 

Pakistan election: the 4m votes no one wants 

Ahmadi religious minority vilified by extremists as heretic and shunned by mainstream politicians such as Imran Khan

All of the candidates have given the town a wide berth because the vast majority of its 60,000 inhabitants are Ahmadis, a religious minority vilified by extremists, who regard them as heretics, and shunned even by mainstream politicians such as Imran Khan.

Last week, Khan, the leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party (PTI), vigorously denied he had ever asked members of Pakistan’s roughly 4 million-strong Ahmadiyya community to vote for him.

In an impassioned video statement, Khan promised to protect anti-Ahmadi laws and articles of Pakistan’s constitution that human rights groups have long criticised as deeply discriminatory.

The laws ban Ahmadis from “posing as a Muslim”, meaning almost any public act of devotion is a criminal offence, potentially punishable by death under the country’s notorious blasphemy laws.

In a statement, Khan said the “PTI totally subscribes to the articles of the constitution concerning Qadianis”, using a term most Ahmadis find deeply offensive.

“I have read the Qur’an very closely and I know that those who do not recognise Muhammad as last prophet is not a Muslim,” Khan said in his video statement last week. In Rabwah, the headquarters of the community in Pakistan, Ahmadis reacted with shock, but little surprise.

The Pakistan general election is fast approaching – but one community will not be casting votes 

Samira Shackle talks to members of the Ahmadiyya, a minority numbering 4 million. The Ahmadis are branded as “non-Muslims”, suffer violent attacks on their mosques and will boycott this weekend’s elections.　

The BBC certainly knows that Ahmadis are persecuted..here it reports on that persecution in 2011: 

London mosque accused of links to ‘terror’ in Pakistan

Leaflets circulating in Pakistan calling for the murder of members of the Ahmadi Muslim sect directed readers to a website naming Stockwell Mosque.

As far as I can see there was no mention of the Ahmadis and their persecution by the BBC during the election…or the fact that Khan supports that persecution.

Another week and another open thread…let’s hear what you’ve found….

This post has a look back to 2005 when Richard Curtis was given a platform by the BBC to campaign against ‘poverty’. It looks at the BBC’s response to questions about the impartiality of allowing Curtis to, as some might say, hijack the BBC and then it looks at whether the BBC has actually changed its ways or does it still take part in campaigns run by certain organisations?

Dvelopment Aid is political…..

Outrage as Britain’s foreign aid bill goes UP as other countries make cuts

Statistics from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development showed that aid handouts by the world’s 24 richest nations fell by four per cent last year to a total of £83billion as austerity-hit governments tightened expenditure.

At home the figures provoked renewed criticism of the Coalition’s £10billion annual aid budget, which is due to continue rising while most other Whitehall departments are forced to make savings.

The ‘ONE’ poverty campaign, founded by Bono, argues that governmental development assistance “plays a critical role in the fight against extreme poverty and disease”.

And it works relentlessly to influence government decisions and policy:

‘Our three million members around the world take action. They click petitions, make phone calls, write letters, attend rallies – to demand solutions from their governments. Your voice alone may struggle to be heard, but our voices together are hard to ignore.’

Development Aid is political on many levels….both international and domestic….those who campaign to alleviate poverty by ‘persuading‘ governments to alter their policies are engaged in that political debate….and the BBC has allowed itself to be used as a platform by these campaigns to further their political aims.　

The ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign group had the passionate support of Richard Curtis, author of many television series and not a few campaigning films about poverty broadcast by the BBC….as well as creating a film entitled No Pressure which was released by the 10:10 campaign in Britain to promote climate change politics. The film depicted a series of scenes in which people – including school-children – were asked if they were going to participate in 10:10 campaign. Those who indicated they weren’t planning to do so were told “no pressure” and then blown up at the press of a red button.

‘Make Poverty History’ itself was controversial….Ofcom declared: ‘We have reached the unavoidable conclusion that Make Poverty History is a body whose objects are wholly or mainly political. Make Poverty History is therefore prohibited from advertising on television or radio.’

Wikipedia tells us that the various national Make Poverty History campaigns are part of the international Global Call to Action Against Poverty  campaign and similar campaigns which exist in other countries under different names.

The campaign is generally a coalition of aid and development agencies which work together to raise awareness of global poverty and achieve policy change by the government.

The Make Poverty History campaign aims…….to increase awareness and pressure governments into taking actions towards relieving absolute poverty.

Make Poverty History set out to put pressure on politicians at the 31st G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland on July 6, 2005.…Bob Geldof’s Live8 was also involved in the same process:

Bob organised Live8 in 2005.  ‘This series of ten concerts, with an estimated global audience of 3 billion, were timed to put pressure on G8 leaders, who went on to make many significant poverty alleviation pledges at the Gleneagles G8 summit. Today Bob works closely with ONE, lobbying leaders to keep these promises.’

The BBC of course broadcast Live8 but they also broadcast programmes by Richard Curtis written specifically to promote the agenda of ‘Make Poverty History’.

The campaign was given a high profile launch on British television on New Year’s Day 2005 in a special edition of The Vicar of Dibley, written by Richard Curtis, who pledged support for the campaign during 2005. The same issues were highlighted in Curtis’ television drama The Girl in the Café, in an episode broadcast on June 25 on the BBC One channel in the UK on the HBO channel in the U.S. and on ABC TV in Australia.

The BBC looked at issues of impartiality surrounding these programmes in its 2007 review ‘From Seesaw To Wagon Wheel’.　

The Guardian reports that  ‘From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel concluded that the BBC should be wary of being hijacked by single-issue causes, after reviewing examples including with The Vicar of Dibley and the Make Poverty History campaign.

The report criticised the BBC for the amount of coverage it gave to the Make Poverty History campaign in 2005, which culminated with the Live 8 concerts and an Africa season of programmes.

Today’s report said that nowhere in the episode was it pointed out that the writer Richard Curtis was himself spearheading the Make Poverty History campaign.

“The implication was that the cause was universal and uncontroversial, whereas the Make Poverty History website made clear that it had contentious political goals,” the report added.

One unnamed BBC executive was quoted as saying that impartiality in the Africa season, also broadcast in 2005, was as “safe as a blood bank in the hands of Dracula”, the report added.’

Here are some of the BBC’s own thoughts on impartiality from Seesaw To Wagon Wheel:

Controller Editorial Policy at the time, Stephen Whittle, commented that this global music event [Live8] with a political message was a good example of ‘a contemporary challenge’ to impartiality. ‘

Impartiality is most obviously at risk in areas of sharp public controversy. But there is a less visible risk, demanding particular vigilance, when programmes purport to reflect a consensus for ‘the common good’, or become involved with campaigns.

When there seems to be consensus, impartiality may therefore seem redundant. Yet this is often where it is urgently needed – indeed, consensus can arguably pose a greater threat to impartiality than sharply-defined debate.

Programmes that are in league with campaigns have no place on the BBC, because of the inherent loss of full editorial control……‘it was not seen as appropriate for the BBC to be actively campaigning on a given subject, whether that be for a better NHS or for better school dinners, for example, but it was perfectly appropriate to supply facts or follow an individual on those campaigns’

Global, celebrity-driven mass entertainment in ‘a good cause’ is a bright new star in the political and broadcasting firmament, and the BBC is perhaps the organisation best equipped to be involved. Major issues of impartiality will always arise.

This comment is of especial interest as it accurately predicts the future…　

Live8 was not a one-off. It was the future writ large. Next time it will be a spectacular about conservation, cruelty to children or climate change. The challenge for the BBC will be how to both be involved and maintain an appropriate distance.

Recognising the future is one thing, doing something about it another….has the BBC learnt its lesson after Live8, the Vicar of Dibley and The Girl In The Café? 

It seems not:  Curtis is back again with a new campaigning film, Mary and Martha:

Following his didactic 2005 film The Girl in the Cafe (set against the backdrop of a G8 summit and designed to tie in with the global Make Poverty History campaign), Curtis has now made a new movie, Mary and Martha, about the preventable disease malaria – and he’s pulled in an A-list cast to help (being shown on the BBC and US channel HBO).

“At first I just wanted to raise money,” he continues. “But I’m a great believer in protest and the difference it can make. I think it’s all our jobs to make our governments look at the bigger issues as well as the immediate ones.”

Here the ‘One’ organisation suggests what it hopes Curtis’s new film will achieve in mobilising the public to pressurise politicians:

‘Speaking purely with a critic’s cap, I might argue with our brilliant friend (Love Actually screenwriter and Make Poverty History/Live8/Comic Relief hero) Richard Curtis about making Hilary Swank’s Mary more audacious when she debuts as a citizen advocate at a US Senate committee meeting. Nonetheless, when Mary realizes that even suburban moms like her have the power to make an impact, it’s a moment to which every ONE member can relate. That scene made me realize that, although I may not be working directly on the ground in Africa, every phone call, in-district meeting or public event we participate in to further Millennium Development Goal really does add up!’

Here ‘One’ promotes a film by ‘Why Poverty’ which is also screened by the BBC as part of a huge world wide campaign…amongst many, many other Media organisations, the BBC also broadcasting debates on the merits of aid.

‘Why Poverty’ explains what its films are about, here, while the film’s director, Bo Lindquist, is well ‘on message’ and asks ‘Do you want to be part of something…what will you tell your children when they ask what you did to relieve poverty?…it’s an important question.’

He shares his own thoughts on what he thinks Bono and Geldof achieved and why he thinks doing nothing in the face of extreme poverty isn’t an option.

….So not neutral on that.

30 years fighting against poverty

 Nov 24th, 2012 9:00 AM UTC
By Saira O’Mallie　

I’m proud to work for ONE. In the few months I’ve been here, I’ve seen some amazing achievements and steps taken towards our goal of ending extreme poverty.

So I’ll be tuning in to Why Poverty? Give Us The Money, a behind-the-scenes look at 30 years of Bob Geldof and Bono’s campaign against poverty. Without them, I wouldn’t be at ONE. I can’t wait to hear how they made it happen.

If you watch, I’d love to know what you think and if it raises any questions for you. But really I hope it gives you some ammunition.

Why Poverty? Give Us The Money will be on BBC4 in the UK on Sunday 25 December at 9pm GMT/UTC. To find about broadcasts in other countries visit the Why Poverty? website.

You can also watch BBC World Service Why Poverty? debate on Saturday 24 November at 20:05 pm GMT/UTC. Find out more on the BBC website

It is clear from that that Development Aid is all about the politics and that the Media play an enormous part in the pressure applied to politicians….and that the BBC is going beyond explaining and reporting the issues and is actively participating…beyond the fund raising of Comic Relief and Red Nose Day.

Curtis’s film is designed to influence people and make them join the campaign in one way or another…it is not just an ‘interesting story’ to fill some time in the TV schedules…but is an interesting story which has a political agenda attached…and there is a big difference between the two….

…as the BBC itself does recognise:

Programmes that are in league with campaigns have no place on the BBC, because of the inherent loss of full editorial control……‘it was not seen as appropriate for the BBC to be actively campaigning on a given subject, whether that be for a better NHS or for better school dinners, for example, but it was perfectly appropriate to supply facts or follow an individual on those campaigns’

In the previous post, ‘Old Times’  I showed a ‘joke’ that made obvious links to the Holocaust…it was made without any comment or links to the BBC.

I wanted people’s reaction to what is a highly offensive ‘joke’, but reactions uncompromised by any commenter’s own prejudices or bias…possibly influenced by my interpretation….that especially so for the critics of this site who so often ignore the narrative of a post and attack the person posting it.

Here they had no opportunity to defend the BBC ‘right or wrong’…or to ignore the content of the post.

We got an honest reaction from Albaman….as he said any such post would discredit any organisation that posted it as a joke….and I have no doubt regardless of his pro-BBC leanings he would have been equally scathing had he known the origins of the ‘joke’.

If you had been watching the latest ‘Have I Got News For You’  (Last few minutes) you may have been confused…you thought this ‘joke’ was highly  offensive and yet the audience laughed uproariously when the BBC put up the photograph and Paul Merton quipped…‘Here we are remembering old times.’

What went through the mind of the BBC person who saw that photograph and thought…’Yes, a German Chancellor with her arm raised ‘Nazi salute’ style standing next to a Jewish leader of Israel…that’ll make a great joke!’ ?

Six million Jews were killed by the Nazis in WWII…along with many other people…..Israel was raised out of the ashes of that Holocaust.

Funny…huh? 

Discredits the BBC or not?

Angela Merkel meets the Prime Minister of Israel:

‘Here we are remembering old times.”

See here to find out what this post is about.

Here’s the BBC’s North America editor Mark Mardell on today’s From Our Own Correspondent explaining why Benghazi hasn’t been a big deal for journalists such as himself:

Conservatives have long suggested a cover-up, that the authorities removed words the State Department objected to, particularly the word “terrorism”. Conservatives contend that what they call the Mainstream Media, and sometimes label the Lamestream Media, have ignored this and other stories. And that is largely the case. The trouble is from the very get-go the President’s critics eagerly build on uncertain evidential sands a tottering tower of such baroque design that anyone simply looking for the facts is a bit put off. The websites making much of Benghazi usually stress the president’s middle name – Barack HUSSEIN Obama – and hint he is a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

“usually stress the president’s middle name… hint he is a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood”? I’ve been following the story since the attacks happened and none of the websites I’ve been reading make such claims. Mardell is spewing nonsense, although in his defence he does admit facts are hard and he is easily “put off”. It’s difficult work, proper journalism.

Talking of which – on MSNBC yesterday Bob Woodward, a reporter not unfamiliar with the occasional cover-up, compared Benghazi with Watergate (via Weekly Standard)

“And I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, ‘Oh, let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’ I would not dismiss Benghazi. It’s a very serious issue.”

Mardell didn’t think it necessary to include the views of an actual Watergate journalist in today’s report, even though he mentioned Watergate in his link:

Conspiracy in DC – Watergate, Black Helicopters and the White House – listen to my from our own correspondent bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01…

— Mark Mardell (@BBCMarkMardell) May 18, 2013

I guess Woodward must be one of those nutters who thinks Obama is a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Whatever Woodward’s reasons for his interest in Benghazi, at least he isn’t the sort of journalist who is “a bit put off” when the facts are a little complicated. If Mardell had got the tip-off about Watergate all those years ago Nixon would have seen out his term of office without a problem.

Blimey…Ian Hills in the comments has pointed out that Ian Katz’s wife runs Mumsnet…you  know that organisation that all the politicians run scared of:

From Wikipedia: 

Mumsnet was conceived in early 2000 when Justine Roberts embarked on a disastrous family holiday. Her idea was to create a website where parents could swap advice about not just holidays but all the other stuff parents talk about. Once back in England she roped in friends Carrie Longton and Steven Cassidy to help build the site ^[1] Mumsnet’s 10th birthday party was hosted by Google UK at their London headquarters in March 2010. Guests included Ed Miliband and Steve Hilton, and both the then-Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and his wife Sarah Brown gave speeches. Gordon Brown referred to Mumsnet as one of the great British institutions.^[2] Mumsnet launched a site aimed at grandparents, Gransnet, on 5 May 2011.^[3]

In February 2013 Longton and Roberts were assessed as the 7th most powerful women in the United Kingdom by Woman’s Hour on BBC Radio 4.^[4]

Note all the friends in high places  and just how powerful Mumsnet is reckoned to be:

Ladies! Nick and Dave are fighting over you again: or, why Mumsnet runs Britain