Author Archives: Hugh

This time it’s spot the missing word (or phrase) from this BBC report about “an Australian politician”, who has been forced to resign because he likes techno (fair enough, I say). For a clue check these reports from the Standard, Mail and Metro – or this one from the Independent. Or, er, this one from the Guardian, courtesy of the AP; or this one from Reuters; or this from the Times…

Thanks to our anonymous commenter who picked up on this.

UPDATE: Thanks to the prompting of “Anon” in the comments, it seems we have reason to be grateful for the BBC’s report on this after all. For when Morris Iemma, the Labor New South Wales State Premier, was forced to resign last week it appears the Beeb’s website didn’t report it at all. Readers relying on the BBC were left puzzling over a single line referring to it in this blog entry a few days later. There was, of course, no mention of his political affiliation.

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.

What on earth are we to make of this pig and lipstick comment? Was it a jibe at Palin or an innocent remark? It’s times like this when, to be honest, I actually wish the BBC could take sides. Unfortunately, impartial as ever, its original report – of, erm, Obama’s denial – is no help, only noting that “Republicans may well try to keep the controversy going, although one difficulty for them is that John McCain has himself used the offending phrase”. And, as one might expect, neither is Matt Frei. He can only tell us that Palin’s “campaign advisers and those blushing violets around the uber-sensitive John McCain are more offended than nuns in a nudist romp… And the Republicans are getting away with it.”

Oh well, perhaps Webb will be more help – he sometimes stretches the rules to help his readers out… “All of this hugely interesting for another area of scientific enquiry: the psychology of voting behaviour. Do facts matter?” No, no help there either. I’m confused as ever.

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.

Here‘s another great opinion piece from the Beeb. The story begins in the aftermath of al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks on America (a pre-emptive strike by Muslim freedom fighters against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq):

But some of the defendants in this trial believed passionately in aiding fellow Muslims and undertook voluntary work at the charity’s Chatsworth Road base. Four of them went on to deliver aid – and their experiences in those camps radically altered their worldview…

Says our correspondent who has quickly taken to presenting the defence lawyer’s case as fact.

Abdulla Ahmed Ali, the ringleader, told the trial he had been shocked by “appalling” conditions in the camps.
The camps existed before 2001 but grew in the wake of the US-led invasion in Afghanistan.

Bingo! It’s all America’s fault.

Abdulla Ahmed Ali, the ringleader, told the trial he had been shocked by “appalling” conditions in the camps. His anger was compounded by the failure of the 2003 mass protest against the Iraq war. The anger felt by men like Ahmed Ali accelerated the political and theological debate among hard-line Islamists over whether the UK was a legitimate target for attacks

Because prior to the failure of the mass protests, hard-line Islamist nutters were pretty evenly split on the rights and wrongs of bumping off infidels.

But then, of course… The real common factor in the lives of all those so far convicted, in all the trials we have seen during the past three years is far easier to identify: a simple and seething anger over British and American foreign policy and an overwhelming belief that Muslims are its victims.

Which makes one wonder why half the left-wing commentariat haven’t been up before M’Lord. Could there be another common factor in the lives of these convicted Islamist terrorists that we haven’t thought of? Anyone got any ideas..?

UPDATE: Sorry to add to an already long post, but I wanted to share this – the author Dominic Casciani’s contribution to a debate following the July 7 bombings (follow the link at the bottom for the full transcript):

“[A]ll the evidence suggests the opposite of what Douglas Murray said” he begins. Murray had said “that it’s manifestly obvious to anyone in this country that the problem is Islam.. [and] if we want to start this conversation by pretending that this is a societal failure, you’re simply going to spend your time apologising for terror.” Casciania disagrees and goes on to do just that, in rambling fashion, before concluding: “In the Muslim community, these poor lads that blew themselves up, that was their expression of their disillusionment.”

Of course, reading the article above you probably already knew that that was his view. But you shouldn’t have been able to. As someone once said:

“Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters.” Does the piece above really pass that test?

“Daring Mission: Al-Qaeda’s most ambitious attempt since 9/11,” says the Beeb’s website. Thrill as jihadists plot to blow up men, women and children; gasp as they target the UK; laugh as Rashid Rauf eludes the infidels; cry as you realise your license fee is being used to produce this.

Because I seem to be missing the point of this brilliant piece of irony. Is it the Today programme’s last ditch effort to give the Mail editor an aneurysm; an article designed to achieve the Beeb’s aim of balance over time, and I just missed the Mark Steyn piece preceding it; or could it be just what it seems* – a lament that the left has failed to reach the Republican base and the fat, stupid, gun-totting, God-bothering idiots whose reflexive belief system “has every thinking person here in the US, except perhaps John McCain and Sarah Palin, worried”.

* For a clearer summary of Bageant’s argument, try this. Oh, and thanks to Andrew Ian Dodge in the comments for alerting me to the BBC piece.

You’ll have your own views on the bias of this piece on immigration by Easton, but the main objection must be that it’s astonishingly silly. After careful study of his colour-coded maps, Easton has concluded that we can, after all, fit a few more people on this island without pushing the Cornish into the sea.

“The debate, it seems to me, is not ‘can we cope?’ but ‘how would a larger population change our way of life – for better or worse?’,” says Easton sagely. Am I alone in begining to suspect they think we’re a bit thick?

“Why do Americans think Andy Murray is English?” asks the BBC. “Has there ever been a thinner premise for an article,” wonder its readers. It does serve two purposes for the Beeb, though. First, to paint Americans as idiots, and second to make a dubious case that its Olympics coverage didn’t adequately note Scottish achievements. Others have made a slightly different argument, though.

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.