From the BBC’s From Our Own Correspondent:
Phil Goodwin on how war has changed Syria from a hospitable, friendly place into one that’s brutal, paranoid and vicious.
Goodwin asks the friend of a dead Syrian Air Force pilot how Syria can be so friendly and yet so brutal at the same time.
The answer…… “It’s religion…there’s a beast inside us.”
Wonder which religion that might be?
I guess in far off foreign lands you are allowed to say that sort of thing….just not here in the land of democracy, free speech and freedom of thought.
Here is Brian Sewell at the 2013 Sandford St Martin Trust Awards talking about the lack of intelligent debate and investigation, especially around the subject of religion, on TV..and in particular on the publicly funded BBC.
The BBC, as a broadcaster which doesn’t have to bother with the restrictions of the commercial world, can ‘afford to make serious programmes based on subject, argument and intellectual necessity.
Among them programmes that deal with religion.
We live in times much troubled by religion. It forms the politics of modern nation states from Burma and Indonesia in the Far East to the shores of the Mediterranean in the Near where it is torn apart by the divisions in Islam, Christians are menaced minorities and Jews are prepared to do battle in the Holy Land.
Christians might better understand if we knew more of other faiths. Those who are not Christians should know more of Christianity for not only does it lie at the core of British culture, history, law and social attitudes it is politically important in the Hispanic Americas and in extreme Protestant form is a vital force in the politics of the United States.
Religion still effects the future of humanity and the world. It is too important to be neglected by broadcasters.’
So if I read that correctly…religion is at the heart of politics and shapes the world…it also has a seriously violent downside.
And yet the BBC refuse to countenance anyone who expresses similar views….not only refuses to countenance them but actively tries to demonise and discredit them….as they have with ‘Tommy Robinson’ and the EDL.
Serious, intelligent argument? Not on the BBC. Just look at the BBC’s attack on ‘Tommy Robinson’ by Andrew Neil. Character assassination the preferred method of dealing with his line of argument.
I thought that in spite of the Andrew Neil onslaught Tommy Robinson did well and caught him out more than once, when he claimed to speak for the parents of Lee Rigby, and misused Help for Heroes. And why should he enter politics, there are plenty of pressure groups who don’t get accused of being anti-democratic because they don’t. Neil then interviewed someone from the Muslim Council, this was very low key, Neil didn’t challenge him for example when he claimed he didn’t know anything about the machete attack. I for one didn’t believe that.
Ritual condemnation and attacks on the EDL are becoming tedious. I am not a member, I’m not sure if being sympathetic to their message makes me a supporter, but it has to be recognised that they were at the outset the only group that had the courage to say and protest about what others were too cowardly to mention. Now the debate has moved into the mainstream, but they get it in the neck regardless. I don’t know what to call those who vilify them but it has something to do with double standards, and I think it’s a class thing too. It is very distasteful when someone who does the dirty work is attacked at smart dinner parties and by the media. Something to do with hypocrisy and snobbery I think. Maybe commentators should have the courage to defend them instead. I admit they do shout very loudly but at least they are attempting to defend and raise the profile of the need to fight against an extremely dangerous enemy which intends to replace of way of life and civilisation. And they are very brave too, who else puts their lives at risk? I haven’t noticed any journalists or politicians doing so. I’m beginning to think they need to supported, so throw aside your prejudice and give them a chance, after all our legitimate leaders are not doing anything like enough. There are active supporters and promoters of the enemy in our Universities and schools who are not being challenged.
Well said. If Neal was to have interviewed the MCB representative in the same manner as Mr.Robinson, then he’d have started by questioning their repeated boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day-
http://hurryupharry.org/2009/01/26/muslim-council-of-britain-boycotts-holocaust-memorial-day-again/
Well, @afneil put his boast in public yesterday, on twitter, he said ” I’m fully up for one ( interview) with islamist”
Lets see if he’s as big as his boasting.
So the MCB isn’t Islamist? Okay, then. But having the two polar opponents as the only voices in the debate solves nothing, convinces no one. The BBC has a different goal here, I think, Andrew Neil or not.
Oh, and also today @afneil has been tweeting with the possible intent of linking EDL and Tommy Robinson with UKIP.
It’s the sly juxtaposition, repeated, that plants the seeds in the minds of the sheeple, that both organisations are one and the same.
the bbc narrative here is simple and insidious
By not allowing equal voice to the vast majority of the population, who abhor violence, but agree on the big islamic problem …
The inference is the same old bbc roll …
say anything negative about islam
you are far right/nazi/bigot/islamo-FAUX-be/
racist? …
an isidious and deliberately peddled lie.
Just like, with their pneumatic tourettes like mantra the, ahem … (al bbc drum roll)
“far right” EDL
Deceitful. devoid of any logic, or common sense … its utterly absurd
The vast amount of the population know there is a big issue,(or in fact many) with islam.
where are their representative voices eh!
…. don t ask the Biased Broad Cresent, it only represents its own view.
The BBC is responsible for your arrival at this position, Prang Wizard. If they featured respectable voices discussing what Robinson is brought in to discuss, there would be no need for all this “I have no time for the EDL but….” hand-wringing. It’s a very difficult position in which to find oneself, and it’s largely the fault of the BBC for creating this environment where the only person allowed a regular platform on air to voice even legitimate concerns is Robinson. Instead of Charles Moore, Douglas Murray, or even Rod Liddle, the EDL skinheads are the face of your opinion. Thus you’re demonized by association even before you open your mouth.
The BBC could do so much better on this issue than simply trundling Robinson from studio to studio. He’s all over the airwaves, so the message that there’s a problem with extremism is intimately associated with him and his crowd. It can only be done on purpose, because the Beeboids in charge are really not that stupid. The BBC has a lot to answer for. I’m rather surprised that none of the pundits who do voice their concerns don’t wonder aloud why this is. Perhaps they’re equally cowed by the BBC.
Full marks to Robinson – he condemns violence at every turn, unlike the people he is protesting about. Of course the Biased BBC never mention that!
Because he stands there quietly at rallies when his cohorts call for violence and make racist remarks. Making all the right noises in the studio won’t help him here.
David, have you seen the interview? For some reason you are anti-EDL. Brillo’s interview is one attack after the next, he never asked Tommy one single question that was not an accusation to be defended. He never gave him a chance to say his piece. Then he interviews a bloke who certainly seems to be a moderate. But not one single attack question, not one single question about his background, arrest history, no personal comments, no contradiction, just short, open questions, with lots of long pauses for comment from the interviewed. Some good points made, but a completely racist interview, the difference between the two interviews was palpable. Remember, the EDL have never attacked anyone, the only times there has been violence was when the Islamists attacked the EDL. When the Muslims march, Brits leave them to march. When the EDL march, Islamists attack them. Not fair, and their news coverage is not fair.
Well said lojolondon.
“For some reason”, eh, lojo? Sanctifying the EDL does you no favors. Robinson voices some legitimate concerns, yes. I’ve said so more than a dozen times over the last few days, maybe weeks, which you obviously haven’t noticed. But he and the EDL have too much baggage to be a useful voice for those concerns. They haven’t beheaded anyone, of course, but they’re hardly choirboys with the purest of motives, and they’re probably the least telegenic spokespeople you could find. You’d be better off having Krusty the Klown as your figurehead. It’s laughable to claim that Robinson’s warning about “the full force” meant they’d be handing out fliers in front of polling stations. If you can’t see that, I don’t really know what to say other than to urge you not to confuse criticizing the messenger with criticizing the message. That allows the BBC to win the debate before it begins.
You should be supporting Douglas Murray, Charles Moore, Rod Liddle, or even Mark Steyn, all of whom have voiced similar concerns, and stop relying on Robinson. He’s not the only person in your country expressing these concerns, not by a long shot, and it’s getting a little depressing to keep reading comments from people acting as if he is. Yet he’s pretty much the only face of them, which gets in the way. That’s the BBC’s goal, of course. Keep supporting Robinson and skinheads as your symbol, and you’ll lose the opportunity for substantial public debate. You’ll play right into the BBC’s hands. You should be shouting from the rooftops that the BBC’s bias on the issue is revealed in the way they make Robinson and the EDL the public face of those concerns, instead of more profound voices.
I watched a very similar ritual played out over the last four years in the US with the Tea Party movement. I’ve had to sit through the BBC telling you I’m a racist and Kevin Connolly insulting me and a million other people on air – and still in print online – with a sexual innuendo. You won’t be able to easily dismiss my perspective on this one simply because I’m a foreigner.
Yes, I’ve seen the interview. Yes, I’ve seen the video of Robinson standing there while someone else makes unpleasant statements. You will not be able to convince me that he and they are the best spokesmen for the legitimate concerns about Islamist extremism.
That doesn’t make what Neil did right, and it doesn’t mean I don’t see the blatant double standard at the BBC (it was pretty sickening watching Neil suck up to Owen Jones like that instead of pointing out how his darling protesters were exactly the kind of violent Communist thugs Neil lumped in with Nazis and Fascists when scolding Robinson). Nor, however, do I accept your apparent sanctification of Robinson and the EDL. Not only does he have too much baggage, but he really doesn’t have the kind of presence – or respect of the Beeboid interrogators – to get the message across properly. Even though, much like Baroness Warsi in her appearances on the BBC as Conservative party leader, he’s been coached and is better versed in useful talking points than he used to be. The character assassination will never end, because it’s a useful and easy tactic. Instead of defending the EDL, full stop, you should be demanding that the BBC talk to better spokesmen for the concerns about Islamist extremism instead of Robinson. The pundits I’ve named would have an infinitely more powerful affect on the public than anything Robinson could say, and the Beeboids couldn’t get away with playing the man instead of the ball.
This all depends on what your actual position and goals are, of course.
The Spectator (circulation around 60,000) – compulsory reading in the working class communities of Luton and Bradford.
David, I take your points on and I respect your POV. BUT. Tommy R is not a politician, he is not perfect. He is a leader of a group that is often highjacked by the wrong message. But I always support him because he is not afraid to meet Andrew Neil, Jeremy Paxman, Dimblebury or anyone else. He knows full well their entire plan is to make a fool of him, and still he goes. No media training, just a simple message, which he repeats over and again. Of course they like to ignore the message and tackle the man – all these things like ‘you are really a racist’, ‘you changed your name’, ‘you assaulted someone’, and pointedly not listening or addressing his message. And do you know why I like to watch him? Because every time they interview a Muslim apologist, the BBC exposes themselves as they bend over backwards to acommodate these immigrant welfare-abusing criminals. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MUSLIM FAMILY NEXT DOOR, WHO WORK HARD, KIDS GO TO UNI AND ARE GOOD CITIZENS. I am talking about the Chuadhury and all his Mullah mates, the scum you see ‘patrolling’ around Hackney and the wasters that attend anti-British army rally’s, etc. The Biased BBC gives them such an easy ride, and they whinge about any tough questions, Tommy R goes in there knowing he is going to get his arse handed to him but he still goes because he wants to get his message across, and that is why I support him. Also, I live in a nice area and I send my son to a good school, but Tommy makes the point that his kids and other poor British people will have to send their kids to school with people who are extremists, wait until some 12 year old boy is killed for holding the hand of a 12 year old girl, it can’t be far off! (again, I know this is not mainstream, but there seem to be so many extremists who are so damn extreme!)
Like all the B-BBC, Neil comes down hard on the Conservative, UKIP and any normal, white, British people. Then he bends over backwards for Liebour, Limp Dims, muslims, etc. This is so as not to show ‘bias’. The BBC is way beyond it’s sell-by date, it needs to be cut off at the roots, and all the BBC people need to go and find a job in the real world. Like Adrian Childs and Christine Bleakley, I suspect most will sink, not swim when we stop sponsoring their one-sided propaganda claptrap.
I can explain to my Primary School son that there is no threat or danger to him from any ‘far-right’ organisations……..but when he has seen what happened to Lee Rigby and the almost daily reporting of Islamic violence, is warning him of muslims ‘Islamophobic’?
“And yet the BBC refuse to countenance anyone who expresses similar views….not only refuses to countenance them but actively tries to demonise and discredit them….as they have with ‘Tommy Robinson’ and the EDL.”
Utter nonsense. Robinson has been allowed TWICE on the BBC in a week to air his views. In both instances he has come over as utterly clueless when asked what would he do. The only person who discredited Robinson was himself.
Anyone with an internet connection can easily find out what the EDL is about. The complete and utter failure of their political wing shows the general contempt MOST people hold this organisation. It’s not for nothing that UKIP doesn’t want EDL or BNP near them. They are the electoral kiss of death.
However it’s now time the BBC and other media outlets stopped treating Robinson and his equally moronic mate Choudry with any more space. Both need each other. We don’t need them.
The BBC is not bias in exposing Robinson for the chump he is. Robinson is.
‘Anyone with an internet connection can easily find out what the EDL is about.’ Or for that matter most other things. So you agree no need for the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation funded by its poll-tax.
Ohhhh….Now you have done it Kyoto…
He’s gonna give you both barrels of his “Bore” blunderbuss!
I hate the EDL too. Being terrified of being hacked to death in the street, being blown up on buses, or their constant calls for jihad and ‘death to the infidels’ really puts me off them. Oh no, hang on…
All of that is far outweighed by the benefits of ‘diversity’ . .
Andrew Neill looked faintly uncomfortable working from a list of tightly controlled questions and ‘facts’ to ask Tommy Robinson. Plainly the list was insisted on by the producer so Neill was having to interview in a way alien to his usual approach.
The researcher had obviously worked long into the night before coming up with a series of questions identical to those produced by Mehdi Hasan after the Today interview in an article entitled ‘Ten Questions That Sarah Montague Could Have Asked the EDL’s Tommy Robinson’.
Robinson coped well although chose not to attack the demonising approach of the BBC.
You will not be seeing or hearing his like again as the Beeb can now reply ‘But we did give him airtime’.
the bbcs blanket “hatchet job” approach and
determination to erm “expose”? mr lennon,
will in fact work entirely against them …
as they say in showbiz … “theres no bad publicity” … the al beeb propaganda arm
is working so feverisly …
and yet to the viewers/listeners?
hmm who is this chappie who will keep calm, keep relaying the facts no matter what? who will not be intimidated? eh! will speak openly?
‘interview’…that was NO interview. It was ‘judge, jury and sentence’ in one move. But on the other hand he did apologize to Mr. Murad for interrupting him. So that balances the overall presentation!!
No, they’ll probably continue to give Robinson as much oxygen of publicity as possible until they feel they have thoroughly discredited him. By extension, they will have stifled the debate, which is the true goal.
Now now Owen. Do calm down.
“Robinson has been allowed TWICE on the BBC in a week”
utter nonsense! 😀
“BBC not bias in exposing Robinson for the chump he is” …
utter nonsense! in actuality they instigated bias because they COULDN T make him look, “a chump”
who showed mr lennon to look a chump? …
not Montague
not Neil
not that laughable panel, on al beeb 3, the host or the audience
not Nihal, on the al beeb asian network.
… all of the callers?
Will … 2/10 must try harder
Nice one Noggin.
will.duncan’s use of the word ‘allowed’ speaks volumes. As in… Once a year the people of the village are allowed into the grounds of the great manor house to celebrate Lady Toynbee’s birthday.
Are muslim apologists ‘allowed’ on the BBC? Good heavens, no – they are speed-dial invited, stroked & permitted to roam free. Many of them appear to have moved in.
Given the increasing amount of emboldened street-level muslim chestbeating & pack violence, more people than will.d would like to think are listening to Robinson’s often unsophisticated, but accurate words. Those people who have to live outside the BBC/Guardian elite bubble, & live bang next door to the consequences of a criminally insane mass immigration policy.
Karma moves in mysterious ways, & despite will.d’s contempt for the EDL, he may well find himself wishing he & his loved ones were standing next to something a little more robust than Hope not Hate, or his local inter-faith group, when a chunk of ‘enrichment’ arrives on his doorstep.
Still banging away in that pulpit Mathew? At least you have dropped the casual disdain for the lower orders. I see were all in it together now.
“However it’s now time the BBC and other media outlets stopped treating Robinson and his equally moronic mate Choudry with any more space. Both need each other. We don’t need them.”
No what we need is a public broadcaster that encourages ,freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and democracy
In case you couldn’t bring yourself to read my last reply to your sermon here is it s summation. It still stands
‘ Either grill them both or give them both a free ride and let the viewer make up their own mind ,that’s all I ask from the BBC .Any thing else is bias ‘
Anything else is bias get it?
As for the contempt of MOST people as expressed through the ballot box (I wasn’t even aware that the EDL had a political wing you are certainly well informed about them) I note that TUSC, the SWPs latest foray into politics, came 5th at Rotherham ,behind the collapsing BNP. But the BBC are still happy and eager to give them a platform
The BBC is not biased in exposing Robinson, no. They are biased in having him as the only face of what are legitimate concerns by at least a plurality of the population, when there are several more respectable voice they could be talking to. Of course, that depends on what the BBC is actually trying to accomplish here.
‘Robinson has been allowed TWICE on the BBC in a week to air his views. In both instances he has come over as utterly clueless when asked what would he do.’
What, like in this exchange with Montague on Today?
Montague ‘But Sharia law doesn’t operate in this country’.
Robinson: ‘There are a 100 Sharia courts in this country’.
Montague: ‘But that law doesn’t govern you, does it?’
Robinson: ‘No, but it governs British Muslim women’.
Which one sounds clueless to you, young will? (btw, not expecting an answer – too much harsh reality there for you to deal with)
Agreed, in fact when he has appeared on the BBC he has completely vindicated their decision to allow him on by showing what a complete idiot he is. A bit like Nick Griffin’s legendary appearance on QT. Give these people enough rope.
There are no trials like show trials.
Especially for shepherding the flock when like to go astray
what is it with you? … is it deliberate?
it is wilfull, your ignorance right?
the issues are there, they are not going away,
they need to be seriously addressed, they are not at present.
there are many more, eloquent voices, with the same message, the bbc, and actually a lot of msm in general, do not will not allow them to be heard …
lose your infantile “shoot the messenger” gripe, address the issues at hand, without pressure in the public sphere being applied,
nothing will change, the edl are in actuality a “pressure group” … this is needed to affect said change.
Will, it’s always laudable to expose a racist organisation like the EDL that seeks to exploit people’s fears over Islam, but it’s a shame that Andrew Neil (one doesn’t hope for any better from most of his colleagues) doesn’t choose to expose a far-left/Islamist alliance like UAF that tries to exploit people’s fears over racism to deflect attention from the Jihadist threat this country faces. At time of war, should the BBC really be trying to lay down a propaganda smokescreen on behalf of the enemy?
Just a cursory bit of Googling over his subsequent guest Mr Farooq Murad of the MCB shows that at the very least he has a past every bit as troubling as that of Mr Robinson’s, but unfortuntately, a correctnick culture prevails at the BBC and even an erstwhile journalist like Mr Neil is in lockstep to it.
Neil has available a good range of democratic, articulate voices – Melanie Phillips, Douglas Murray, Charles Moore, Andrew Gilligan – who have raised very legitimate concern about the threat of Jihad in Britain in the wake of Woolwich, but instead of inviting them on it appears he chooses to play the BBC’s in-house UAF propaganda game.
Hopefully, a constructive reaction may lead him to recalibrate his approach for the future, and if the totalitarian left/Jihadist enabling culture of the BBC prohibits that, whisteblower time??
Working class man, who drops his /h/ and doesn’t know a genitive from a gerund, exposes fears of other working class people who are actually at the sharp end = exploitation.
Middle class man, whose car probably cost more than the working class man’s house, and who has miraculously avoided any brushes with the law, occasionally “raises concern” in low circulation middle class magazine or newspaper = democracy at work.
Charles Moore, Eton, Cambridge; Douglas Murray, Eton, Oxford; Melanie Phillips, Oxford; Andrew Gilligan, Cambridge.
Melanie Phillips has at least shown some consistency, but the rest are late starters – very late starters. The writing has been on the wall for some time. Where were they?
It doesn’t take a great deal of courage to act as an occasional safety valve by hammering out a beautifully worded piece from your home counties study. It does, however, take courage to live in Luton and put your name to something that actually looks like a campaign.
Doesn’t excuse the BBC of course. But you’re assuming that these people would be prepared to stick their necks out in an effective way, as opposed to mere hand wringing, in the first place.
Yeah, that’s why, certainly in MelPhil’s and Douglas Murray’s case, they are constantly on public platforms denouncing Jihad.
Are you trying to say that guys like Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh were just middle class luvvies not taking any physical risk in speaking out either?
Tommy Robinson’s violent football hooligan, racist past says it all to people with eyes to see.
Jihad or far right nationalism? No, the choice is a bit wider than that.
Yes, that’s a fair point about courage and how it might manifest. I did wonder earlier whether or not the BBC had actually asked any of those people (not including Phillips) to appear, and whether or not they had turned down invitations. But Murray and Gilligan have been speaking out regularly, at times more strongly than “raises concern”, in print for a while. Where they were two years ago or whatever seems kind of beside the point now.
I suspect the BBC hasn’t made much of an effort, but until somebody starts asking these people we can only speculate.
But you’re talking reality, and I’m talking the BBC, which tries to create their own reality. The game must be taken to them on their turf, and that will require different players. At least let the debate grow beyond being EDL-centric.
You’re right about Douglas Murray and consistency, or rather his lack of it. He needs to decide whether it is appropriate for the West to involve itself in Islam’s theology or not. It seems to depend on who his audience is – the I2 debate being a case in point.
Beeboids’ appeasement of Islam is particularly evident in their ‘reporting’ and non-reporting of Islamic persecution of Christians (and other religions) in the Middle East, and beyond.
E.g., given its significant presence in Egypt, with a Cairo Bureau there, INBBC spends much time going along with the political line of the Muslim Brotherhood rulers, and ignoring the persecution of Christians.
Will INBBC report this?:-
“Egypt: ‘Do not sacrifice your children’ — Muslims threaten Christians not to demonstrate against Muslim Brotherhood president.”
[Excerpt]:-
“This is the same situation that is created by the dhimmi laws: second class status is institutionalized for Christians, and if they complain, the ‘contract of protection’ is annulled and they can lawfully be killed. And now, Christians are being forced to accept the Muslim Brotherhood regime, even though it means discrimination and harassment for them (and ultimately perhaps even the return of those dhimmi laws), and warned that they could be killed if they try to better their lot by demonstrating against the Muslim Brotherhood regime.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/06/egypt-do-not-sacrifice-your-children—-muslims-threaten-christians-not-to-demonstrate-against-musli.html
The BBC has finally reported that President Morsi has just appointed as Governor of Luxor a man mixed up with the outfit that killed 58 tourists in the Valley of the Queens in Luxor some years ago. His appointment has caused a lot of criticism in Egypt – especially from people whose livelihood depends on what is left of tourism on the Nile.
Arab Spring, eh !
Well it’s the NUJ, isn’t it, a socialist / marxist outfit, here’s their guide lines on reporting race and religion.
1. The NUJ believes that the development of racist attitudes and the growth of fascist parties pose a threat to democracy, the rights of trade union organisations, a free press and the development of social harmony and well-being.
2. The NUJ believes that its members cannot avoid a measure of responsibility in fighting the evil of racism as expressed through the mass media.
3. The NUJ reaffirms its total opposition to censorship but equally reaffirms its belief that press freedom must be conditioned by responsibility and an acknowledgement by all media workers of the need not to allow press freedom to be abused to slander a section of the community or to promote the evil of racism.
4. The NUJ believes the methods and lies of the racists should be publicly and vigorously exposed.
5. The NUJ believes that newspapers and magazines should not originate material which encourages discrimination on grounds of race or colour, as expressed in the NUJ’s rule book and code of conduct.
6. The NUJ recognises the right of members to withhold their labour on grounds of conscience where employers are providing a platform for racist propaganda.
7. The NUJ believes that editors should ensure that coverage of race stories should be placed in a balanced context.
8. The NUJ will continue to monitor the development of media coverage in this area and give support to members seeking to enforce the above aims.
Race reporting
Only mention someone’s race if it is strictly relevant. Check to make sure you have it right. Would you mention race if the person was white?
Do not sensationalise race relations issues; it harms black people and it could harm you.
Think carefully about the words you use. Words which were once in common usage are now considered offensive, e.g. half-caste and coloured. Use
mixed-race and black instead. Black can cover people of Arab, Asian, Chinese and African origin. Ask people how they define themselves.
Immigrant is often used as a term of abuse. Do not use it unless the person really is an immigrant. Most black people in Britain were born here and most immigrants are white.
Do not make assumptions about a person’s cultural background – whether it is their name or religious detail. Ask them or where it is not possible check with the local race equality council.
Investigate the treatment of black people in education, health, employment and housing. Do not forget travellers and gypsies. Cover their lives and concerns. Seek the views of their representatives.
Remember that black communities are culturally diverse. Get a full and correct view from representative organisations.
Press for equal opportunities for employment for black staff.
Be wary of disinformation. Just because a source is traditional does not mean it is accurate.
Reporting racist organisations
When interviewing representatives of racist organisations or reporting meetings or statements or claims, journalists should carefully check all reports for accuracy and seek rebutting or opposing comments. The anti-social nature of such views should be exposed.
Do not sensationalise by reports, photographs,. film or presentation the activities of racist organisations.
Seek to publish or broadcast material exposing the myths and lies of racist organisations and their anti-social behaviour.
Do not allow the letters column or ‘phone-in’ programmes to be used to spread racial hatred in whatever guise.
Guidelines on travellers
Only mention the word gypsy or traveller if strictly relevant and accurate.
Give balanced reports, seeking travellers’ views as well as those of others, consulting the local travellers where possible.
Resist the temptation to sensationalise issues involving travellers, especially in their relations with settled communities over issues such as housing and settlement programmes and schooling.
Try to give wide coverage to travellers’ lives and the problems they face.
Strive to promote the realisation that the travellers’ community is comprised of full citizens of Great Britain and Ireland whose civil rights are seldom adequately vindicated, who often suffer much hurt and damage through misuse by the media and who have a right to have their special contributions to Irish and British life, especially in music and craft work and other cultural activities, properly acknowledged and reported.
How can any unbiased news reporting organisation employ anyone who subscribes to what is a blatant political agenda that has nothing to do with conditions of employment?
Is this for real? No link provided.
My apologies, forgot to link.
ethicaljournalisminitiative.org/en/contents/nuj-guidelines-on-race-reporting
And
http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2226&string=reporting race
…and I didn’t see your reply! posted the same thing
Thanks. Clear advocacy on a couple of major issues, and a laughable obsession with finding racists under the bed. This explains Mardell, anyway.
you know it is…
http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=1236&string=race%20reporting
The NUJ website links to the Hope not Hate website, who are on the same side as the UAF.
”The union suggests members print out the NUJ guidelines on race reporting and circulate them in their newsrooms.
Outside the newsroom, the NUJ is encouraging its members to get involved with events within the wider trade union movement that are making a stand to oppose the divisive politics of far-right parties. The call comes following last week’s Union Friday (May 15th), a trade union day of action to show opposition to the divisive politics of far-right parties. More details are available at http://www.hopenothate.org.uk.
The NUJ has a long history of opposing the racism and fascism, not only because the racist policies of parties like the BNP are completely opposite to the union’s equality policies, but also because BNP members have targeted journalists who have reported the truth about their party, intimidating them and threatening them with violence.”
20 May 2009
“Only mention someone’s race if it is strictly relevant. Check to make sure you have it right. Would you mention race if the person was white?
Do not sensationalise race relations issues; it harms black people and it could harm you.”
Does anyone not enjoy the hypocricy in these two consecutive statements?
Hate not hope
Amusingly those guidelines are themselves racist. They assume the journalist/perpetrator is white and the subject black.
BBC-NUJ branches still officially in political opposition To GREECE’s government, as part of NUJ policy.
BBC-NUJ is thereby unable to be politically impartial in reporting Greece.
“NUJ condemns Greek government’s closure of public broadcaster ERT”
[Includes political message of support from BBC-NUJ]:-
“NUJ condemns Greek government’s closure of public broadcaster ERT”
http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2950
NUJ condemns Greek government’s closure of public broadcaster ERT
Eastenders, Casualty, Holby City, Doctors, Flog It!, Cash in the Attic, Celebrity Cash in the Attic, four national 24/7 pop music stations.
It should be obvious to a man like Brian Sewell that the BBC is not meant to educate and inform the nation but to dumb it down so its people can be manipulated and controlled by the state.
From the state’s point of view the £3.5 billion of tax money spent on the BBC represents extremely good value for money. Better that the masses are slumped on their couches getting fatter while watching junk TV than worrying themselves about social problems.
Supplementary.
“Fiona Bruce paraded as an art expert. Professors made to act like stuntmen. Brian Sewell isn’t happy… Why DO ‘serious’ TV shows treat us like idiots.”
By BRIAN SEWELL.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2342912/Fiona-Bruce-paraded-art-expert-Professors-act-like-stuntmen-Brian-Sewell-isnt-happy–Why-DO-TV-shows-treat-like-idiots.html
Unfortunately for Sewell, he and the BBC have different goals for these programs. He wants them to be properly informative and educational, while the BBC ultimately sees ratings as the arbiter of quality. If the shows he’s complaining about got good ratings, the BBC wins.
Thanks for the link, George. There’s so much to commend in Mr. Sewell’s article…
“Commissioning editors, knowing nothing of the subject themselves, assume that the approach must be made easy.
These editors run away from anything that might make an intellectual demand of those who watch.
They recoil from anything that might challenge, might stimulate enough to make a viewer go to the library and extend his new knowledge with a book.
Too much TV is blighted by ever increasing vulgarity and ever lower intellectual levels.
The first step of BBC programme-makers is to select a popular presenter, a supposedly safe pair of hands, who knows nothing of the subject, but is a friendly face.”
This explains so much, including the downfall of Horizon (I know, here he goes again 👿 )
great article I remember Sewell’s program about Dali it was excellent
But that was on C4 and his other work has been on channel 5. which has also done some very adult art programs with Tim Marlow
Sad day indeed when channel 5 present the great art in a more serious and informative way than the BBC
Yes – Brian Sewell’s ‘Grand Tour’ on Channel 5 a few years ago was a great little series.
There’s only one episode I can find on youtube, but they can be purchased on DVD. Well worth a look.
http://tinyurl.com/m2yesch
‘The Times’ (£) today, page 14:
“BBC say 400,000 don’t buy a licence after rise of iPlayer.”
I think I know where this will be heading, if the BBC gets its way.
All owners of PC’s, Laptops, Game Consoles or devices that can access the internet must pay the BBC pole-tax?
It’s the next insidious step on the BBC’s crusade to smother opposing voices, news and free speech.
Supplementary on Birmingham mosque attack:-
For INBBC to censor?-
“‘Allah will punish you all!’: Terror at mosque as worshipers and policeman slashed with machete by ‘Taser-proof’ madman after row over whether they were praying properly”
[Excerpt]:
“A Somali Muslim allegedly stabbed a policeman and three mosque worshippers after screaming: ‘Allah is going to punish you all.’
“The 32-year-old is said to have tried to kill the worshippers during an argument over whether they were praying correctly.”
“It is thought the man, who was not a regular at the mosque in Birmingham, became upset because the prayers were not being performed in the manner of his denomination.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2342504/Allah-punish–Terror-mosque-worshipers-policeman-slashed-machete-Taser-proof-madman-row-praying-properly.html
INBBC euphemistically (now a West Midlands item)-
“Birmingham mosque stab officer undergoes surgery”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-22935611
The guy attacked people because he hated their religious beliefs. How is this not a hate crime? Is his skin pigmentation not far enough away from that of his victims on the color wheel of justice?
Either the Mail is lying about the reason for the attack, or the BBC is being dishonest in their reporting, hiding behind the mental health issue and seeking out quotes from people who say it was a domestic dispute, or they simply don’t know the reason.
If Tommy Robinson and the EDL had any brains at all, they’d show up in support of the victims. Quite a few Beeboid heads would explode.
“If Tommy Robinson and the EDL had any brains at all, they’d show up in support of the victims. Quite a few Beeboid heads would explode.”
What a brilliant idea!
I’d love to see them squirm if that happened. 🙂
Or maybe Tommy could campaign against the Islamophile BBC and its ring of groomers that have been operating out of the BBC studios since-well the 60s I`d say.
Justice for the victims of Savile, of Hall and all those yet to come from the BBC!
No wonder the BBC softpedals perpetually about those manly sex rings in Derby, Rochdale, Oxford-and coming to towns not so far away from any of us very soon.
The BBC-those “Musclemen from Asia”…do I detect a bit too much empathy between these two cheeks of the same arse?
It`s all bottoms tonight isn`t it?
While BBC-NUJ politically opposes Greek government, it is quite sanguine about Erdogan and Turkey AKP government’s brutal repression of political opposition.
For report on Turkey which BBC-NUJ does not broadcast:-
“ERDOGAN’S ISLAMIC SS ARRESTS VOLUNTEER DOCTORS”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/06/erdogans-islamic-ss-arrest-volunteer-doctors.html
if the edl want to engage with muslim groups like tell mama to iron out there greivances well good on them.the only people who would be against that is the islamist dominated anti semites and alleged rapist and ex vice chair of the far left extremist violent uaf which i cant name for legal reasons but we all know who he is who stands accused of raping 2 female members of the socalist workers party.
Syria was once a hospitable, friendly place? I’m so puzzled. What is the current war about?