Author Archives: Andrew

is how the BBC’s Nisha Pillai introduced a report by Brian Barron about the growth of Christian music, radio and publishing in the US on BBC News 24’s Reporters programme this week. Did you notice a far right putsch in the US last November? Me neither, though I do recall a democratic election – one in which the winner took office in accordance with the law. Either the BBC’s definition of ‘America’s far right’ is very broad, covering 50% plus of American voters or they’re spinning us their interpretation of reality again.

Notice also the conflation in Pillai’s introduction of ‘far right’ with ‘evangelical Christians’ – a faulty presumption, slipped in as if fact. Whilst there may be some individuals who fall into both groups, I am sure there are many in each group who would be aghast at being tarred with the brush of the other.

This conflation isn’t an isolated occurence – Joan Bakewell, reviewing the Sunday papers on the BBC’s Frost on Sunday this morning referred, with considerable angst, to “far right Christians” protesting about the forthcoming national tour of Jerry Springer, The Opera, tarring the right with the brush of apparent religious intolerance, quite at odds with the typical British right-of-centre view on matters like this, namely to let them all get on with it – let the theatre producers put on their play, let the protestors have their protest, so long as whatever is done is peaceful and within the law – although recent events in Birmingham, where Sikh protestors disrupted and forced the cancellation of a theatre play they didn’t like, may make these particular Christians feel that intimidation
works in Blair’s Britain, since the police declined to enforce the law to the extent necessary to protect free speech in the Birmingham case. Not that Bakewell mentioned any of this while slandering the right.

Further to the posts below about the BBC’s erroneous reporting, they have at last quietly published an item, BBC apologises over Iraqi figures, on their hidden away Newswatch and Notes and Corrections pages (I don’t know why they have two slightly different ‘error correction’ pages).

They have also replaced the link on the Panorama pages to Iraq data ‘includes rebel deaths’ with the even more anodyne Iraq Health Ministry Figures. The difference between the two pages? The original page contains the “The BBC regrets mistakes in its published and broadcast reports” apology up front, the replacement page omits any form of apology and adds a lot of obfuscatory blather. Seems like today is another good day for burying bad news.

And the stealth edit? In my post below I mentioned how the BBC’s erroneous reports were destined to become established ‘facts’ (at least for ignorant journalists and leftie axe-grinders), citing an example already on the BBC itself – Killings hit run-up to Iraq vote, which included the statement “Casualty figures obtained by the BBC suggest coalition and Iraqi forces may be responsible for up to 60% of conflict-related civilian deaths in Iraq”. But lo, look again – that statement is no longer there – now you see it, now you don’t!

Once more Google’s cache confirms the BBC’s sleazy stealth editing – the same page, Killings hit run-up to Iraq vote, is there in Google’s cache, exactly the same except for the inclusion of the BBC’s egregious error in the cached copy, both with the same timestamp – Saturday, 29 January, 2005, 05:53 GMT. Shameful stealth editing dishonesty – yet again.

that has instead been exposed itself (as promptly reported here by B-BBC commenters 24hrs ago), it is notable how quiet the BBC has been in fessing up to such a monumental and dangerous cock-up.

They claimed, in the name of their World Affairs Editor, John “Liberator of Kabul” Simpson, that, coalition troops in Iraq are killing more Iraqis than the so-called insurgents are.

On the Panorama section of BBC News Online their page advertising the programme, available via Google’s cache BBC obtains Iraq casualty figures (courtesy of USSNeverdock), concentrated heavily on the claim about coalition deaths:

The data covers the period 1 July 2004 to 1 January 2005, and relates to all conflict-related civilian deaths and injuries recorded by Iraqi public hospitals. The figures exclude, where known, the deaths of insurgents.

The figures reveal that 3,274 Iraqi civilians were killed and 12,657 wounded in conflict-related violence during the period.

Of those deaths, 60% – 2,041 civilians – were killed by the coalition and Iraqi security forces. A further 8,542 were wounded by them.

Insurgent attacks claimed 1,233 lives, and wounded 4,115 people, during the same period.

Panorama interviewed US Ambassador John Negroponte shortly before it obtained the figures. He told reporter John Simpson:

“My impression is that the largest amount of civilian casualties definitely is a result of these indiscriminate car bombings.

But, as it turns out, the BBC’s interpretation of the figures was quite wrong – the figures include people killed by the so-called insurgents, yet the BBC attributed these deaths to the coalition, and then made their erroneous claim about the extent of deaths caused by coalition forces. Worse, according to Reuters, the BBC went ahead reporting these claims even after they were told that their interpretation of the figures was wrong:

Iraq’s health minister said the BBC misinterpreted the statistics it had received and had ignored statements from the ministry clarifying the figures. (Emphasis added).

As with the Bhopal hoax a few weeks back, this is a story that wouldn’t have got so far if the situation were reversed, if the claims were not about coalition caused deaths. A few basic questions and some pause for thought would have seen the story spiked long before it got on air – but, as with the Bhopal hoax, it seems that this is another story that matched what the BBC wanted to say – that was too good to check properly.

As you might imagine, this is a dangerous error to make – it gives support and encouragement to the fundamentalist head-hackers and Baathists who wish to tyrannise Iraq, as well as to home-grown stop-the-war moonbats. It’s the sort of error that risks becoming established fact, that becomes a cause-celebre against which all manner of atrocities can then be justified.

So how has the BBC made good their error, to prevent it from becoming established fact*? Have they broadcast on air apologies to correct their falsehood? Not that I’ve seen. Have they published an apology prominently on their website? Not that I’ve seen. Have they published an apology on their hidden away Newswatch or Notes and Corrections pages? Not that I’ve seen. So much for “NewsWatch will publish all mistakes of a serious nature across the BBC’s platforms – TV, radio and on the web“!

So, what have they done? Well, they’ve replaced the Panorama page (i.e. buried the evidence) mentioned above with the rather anodyne Iraq data ‘includes rebel deaths’, where “The BBC regrets mistakes in its published and broadcast reports” is as far as they go. And that, of course, is hidden away on their Panorama pages – not on their front page or even on their Middle East pages. Hardly open and honest. Michael Grade, the BBC’s Chairman seems to agree that the BBC has to be more honest and admit its mistakes and be less defensive about doing so. Well Michael, this story would be a good place to start.

* Too late – it’s already an established ‘fact’. Lee Moore points to this on the BBC: Killings hit run-up to Iraq vote (“Casualty figures obtained by the BBC suggest coalition and Iraqi forces may be responsible for up to 60% of conflict-related civilian deaths in Iraq”), while Mick points to this crap on MichaelMoore.con. Quelle surprise.

excessive sports coverage and irritating trailers for itself (“In America…”, aaargh…), I switched over to BBC News 24. Between 3 and 4am they reported “In Britain, the Conservative’s have launched their latest campaign poster on immigration”, voiced over a tight shot from below of Liam Fox up a ladder with a paste bucket – then back to the presenter, without actually showing a shot of the poster (which is why politicians do posters these days). This was quite in contrast to the blanket coverage of Labour’s new posters a couple of weeks ago. So, the ‘balanced’ BBC can claim they’ve covered the Conservative’s poster, even though they’ve treated the two main parties quite differently. Perhaps the BBC didn’t like the message on the poster – It’s not racist to impose limits on immigration. Yes, I expect that’s it – complete anathema to the BBC.

According to our dear B-BBC commenters, this morning Radio 5 Live did a ‘text’ poll asking for people’s opinions on whether or not the UK should sign-up to the new EU constitution. The result of the poll was cheerily reported by the presenter as being 67% in favour of Britain signing up, with 33% against – which is, as anyone who reads the newspapers knows, almost the exact opposite of properly conducted polls.

Cheerily that is, until this bit:

And so far, the voting in our straw poll is as follows, 33% of you [intake of breath, long pause], uh, is this right? This is the wrong way, this is, er, opposite to what we were saying an hour ago, ah, I’m gonna just check those figures for you. Apparently, no, you don’t want to join 67% of you, and yes, 33%. Which, I have to admit, is absolutely opposite to what I reported to you about twenty minutes ago to Eric Forth, so we’ll clarify that for you, I do apologise, but a lot of people are saying that our unscientific vote isn’t fair because it’s skewed towards younger people who have mobile phones and are more likely to text us, so we’ll find out about what proper scientific polls say about the subject a bit later in the programme, although I do think that is ageist because my mum’s over fifty and she knows how to text.

The funny thing about this is how shocked the presenter was at her mistake. We all make mistakes from time to time, but her first, mistaken, interpretation was so at odds with known polling on this subject that surely she should have stopped and questioned that result, rather than stopping later to question the correct figures, especially as Eric Forth, when he was interviewed, pointed out just how far off beam the earlier (mistaken, unbeknownst to him) figures were…

As for her then going on to emphasise how unscientific the poll was, I don’t believe that this point would have been emphasised to this extent were the situation reversed.

Presumably the complaints about the ‘text’ nature of the poll, to which the presenter referred, were older listeners responding to the earlier figures being so far out from their perception of the state of public opinion, although as it turns out, the ‘text’ generation (cast me as a thirty- something techie fuddy-duddy who reckons ‘texts’ are poor value for money, at least in terms of bits-per-pence!) is, reassuringly, firmly against getting further embroiled in the EU too. It’s a pity Radio 5 Live isn’t so in tune with its audience.

Courtesy of commenter ‘Anonymous’, you can hear two excerpts from the above in this MP3 recording: http://upload4free.com/files/1810.mp3. Thank you Anonymous!

Caroline ‘Haw-Haw’ Hawley was in supremely miserable form on the BBC’s Six O’Clock News this evening, describing this morning’s loss of a US helicopter with thirty-one souls aboard as “A huge blow for the American military”, followed up by the programme presenter commenting that today was “A very bad day for the Americans”.

Whilst the loss of the thirty-one people on the helicopter is a tragedy for the US military, especially for the personnel and relatives involved, it is stretching it a long way to describe this tragic incident as “a huge blow” – it will have no bearing on the outcome of present events in Iraq – however much Haw-Hawley wishes it to.

– at least that’s what you’d think from comparing the two BBC pictures of Robert Jackson on BBC Views Online. Jackson the traitor is happy and smiling, whilst Jackson the Conservative is as glum as can be.

And yet if you look at the two pictures they were obviously taken at the same time as part of the same set – the clothing and lighting are identical in both. So why is it that when Jackson was a Conservative the BBC portrayed him as a miserable git, yet when he sees the error of his ways and becomes a shiny New Labour turncoat he’s suddenly charm itself?

Maybe it’s an unfortunate coincidence. Or perhaps it’s just another instance of subtle left-wing BBC bias that we’re not supposed to notice.

Update: On closer examination it is also clear that the ‘happy’ New Labour Jackson’s colours are quite natural, whereas the old ‘Conservative’ Jackson’s picture’s contrast is badly skewed, thus, compared to the ‘happy’ picture, the top left corner is washed out, the left of Jackson’s face is thrown into shadow and his forehead verges on overexposed. Was this mere incompetence, or a deliberate attempt to portray the Conservative version of Jackson as harshly as could be got away with?

While we’re on the subject of defections, the BBC’s See also: list seems very sparse, given the constant froth of malcontents (did you hear about Robert Jackson’s knighthood? Me neither) to-ing and fro-ing between Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dee Party, for instance, Richard Balfe’s 2002 defection seems to have been omitted. Short of time I expect.

I noticed Greg Dyke’s recent book, Inside Story, being sold off in Waterstone’s for half price, only three months since it was first published. Amazon.co.uk have it for even less – a mere £8 – 60% off the list price!

A quick search of the web turns up an article by Andrew Donaldson in the South African Sunday Times that throws some light on the matter:

This was a year when the big hitters in the book industry paid vast sums for huge, often very self-important books which swiftly wound up in the remainder bins.

Penguin, for example, forked out £600,000 for Revolution Day, by the ‘handsome’ BBC Iraq reporter Rageh Omaar. It has sold just 16,000 copies — and, according to observers, recouping just 5% of the publishers’ advance.

HarperCollins doled out £600,000 for Shooting History, the memoirs of Channel 4 News presenter Jon Snow, and £500,000 for Inside Story, the bitter confessional by former BBC director-general Greg Dyke. Snow’s book sold about 9,000 copies, while Dyke’s sales almost hit the 6,000 mark. Not good, to say the least.

It seems that British readers aren’t buying Greg (or Jon or Rageh).

Presumably this is because the book market in Britain is a free market – no one is compelled to buy a particular state-specified book just so they can read some other book – unlike their television viewing equivalents – forced to pay the BBC’s tellytax just to watch something else.

– according to BBC News Online and the BBC One O’Clock News today. What neither of these unbiased, impartial BBC productions manage to mention in covering this good news is the role of US Navy personnel and equipment from the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in the removal operation – as anyone who’s been watching Sky News this morning would know all about, with film of the removal operation and interviews with some of the participants. Airport cleared, BBC guilty (again).

A couple of BBC news stories, both on and offline, caught my eye this morning – both have been admirably fisked already by The Candidate and by Marc at USS Neverdock.

The BBC stories and their fiskings are as follows:

BBC: Army restricted ethnic recruits

The Candidate: Army restricted ethnic recruits… probably

As The Candidate says, the story, as presented by BBC News Online, makes an unsupported logical leap – the headline should really be Army recorded ethnicity of recruits – there is nothing in the BBC story to suggest that anything was actually done with the information recorded – yet the BBC, both online and in Breakfast Time and again on the One O’Clock News are spinning this recording of information into ‘secretly restricting numbers’. It just doesn’t follow.

BBC: Eyewitness: Taking detainee testimony in Iraq

USS Neverdock: BBC exposed using anti-war activist as source

This is far from the first time that BBC sources have turned out to have suspect backgrounds and/or motives – either unnoticed or undeclared by our fearless BBC inquisitors. In this case, the ‘eyewitness’ seems to be the BBC witnessing an anti-war activists allegations, rather than an eyewitness that’s actually seen something firsthand.