Author Archives: Natalie

Belated sense, belated reports.

By | |
Comments Off on Belated sense, belated reports.

The BBC banned then unbanned one of its message board threads discussing Little Green Footballs. There is a detailed post discussing the affair at Augean Stables: On the Politics of Silence.

The latter post led me to this post from Daniel Pipes’ blog, mentioned by Laban here, in which he said how odd it was that his recent debate with the mayor of our capital city, Ken Livingstone, in front of a capacity audience at a conference held yards from the Houses of Parliament was all but ignored by the media. There has been one BBC report on it, although, for a reason Laban pointed out, this report was of limited utility to most of the licence-payers. This silence despite the debate being chaired by the BBC’s own Gavin Esler. Perhaps a report is in preparation.

I still am terribly busy, and haven’t even had time to do more than skim the blogs – even Biased BBC! So apologies if this has already appeared and been discussed to bits.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Roundup.

By | |
8 Comments

I’m a little pressed for time at the moment, but I prefer blogging to working can just spare a moment to post some links. Some are things I have seen around the internet, some are emails from readers.

  • “Like Dresden, But With Cows.” – the escalating bovine security crisis in Somalia is covered by House of Dumb
  • My old barber is as biased as the BBC – Daniel Finkelstein in the Times. (I’ve just spotted that my colleague Andrew covered this at more length below.)
  • The following email comes from a Thai reader. I don’t claim to know very much about the situation in Xinjiang discussed in the BBC story, and am no admirer of the Chinese government, but was interested to hear this reader’s view, particularly as it relates to Thailand.

    hello from thailand. i like your blog very much; know i have a refernce to support my gut feeling about bbc for so long now time.

    This story is worth pointing out to you if you have not seen it

    China ‘anti-terror’ raid kills 18

    waging a campaign

    Is it not the Muslim separatists who are waging a campaign?

    but human rights groups say the Chinese authorities are using the fight against terrorism as a way of cracking down on the independence movement and suppressing religious freedom.

    What are the names of the “Human Rights” groups they mention? Who are they and what is their relevance? Why is it wrong for a country to suppress an independence movement seeking to overthrow the government? Why does the BBC consider people armed with weapons and sowing terror to “religious” people? Or are we just supposed to believe China is picking on Muslims because it has nothing better to do?

    Chinese crusaders?

    Uighurs worried about Chinese immigration and erosion of traditional culture

    This is the same excuse that BBC puts at the bottom of every article dealing with Islamic terrorists fighting to carve away a separate Sharia state in other countries. Every BBC article about Islamic terrorism here in Thailand ends with the same note. It is intended to imply that there is some justification for the terrorism and thereby excuse Islam as the motivating cause of the violence. BBC clearly has a pro-Islamic, anti-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist-anything other than Muslim bias that no one seems to want to talk about.

  • Alan writes:

    Suggestion: that BBBC reviews new books on BBC –

    1.) Robin Aitken ‘Can We Trust the BBC?’ (out 10 Feb); see Amazon for details.

    2.) Richard D. North ‘Scrap the BBC! : Ten Years to Set Broadcasters Free’ for details see Amazon, or the interesting site: Social Affairs Unit

    Cheers,

    Alan.

  • David Hadley of This Brief Life of Sparks and A Tangled Rope writes:

    Natalie,

    Why isn’t there a RRS feed at Biased BBC? With so may sites, blogs etc about I – for one – can only keep up with those with RSS feeds and I would like to keep up with Biased BBC.

    Guiltyguiltyguilty. Fiddling with computer stuff is a task that I hate so much that I actually prefer work in comparison. Nevertheless I will do something about this Real Soon …er… Soon.

    UPDATE: In the comments Hettie and Yaffle say that all Blogger blogs are RSS-enabled via Bloglines and Simon says that there is an RSS feed here, although for the latter link I am getting “Cannot view XML input using XSL style sheet,” whatever that means.

    Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

    • “To kill various Palestinians…”

    By | |
    Comments Off on “To kill various Palestinians…”

    A BBC mole sent Stephen Pollard a “Mini briefing on the Israeli and Palestinians” that was either written by or forwarded by Jeremy Bowen. Read it, and Stephen Pollard’s comments, here. One memorable phrase:

    the way that Palestinian society, which used to draw strength from resistance to the occupation, is now fragmenting.

    Emphasis added. Readers might like to discuss the meaning of “strength” in this passage.

    The “kill various Palestinians” bit came from this description of Ehud Barak:

    (Among his many exploits was disguising himself as a woman during a raid in Beirut to kill various Palestinians).”

    Pollard comments that this is, “written as if he did so for the sake of it.”

    It is also written as if the Palestinians to be killed were selected randomly, like, er, the way Palestinian suicide bombers select their victims. Innocent civilians were killed in that Israeli operation, as well as those most definitely guilty – but the intended targets were not just any Palestinians but senior members of the PLO. The operation was part of the effort to kill those responsible for the 1972 massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes. But mentioning that would spoil the story.

    Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

    Not unforgiven.

    By | |
    27 Comments

    Rob Schneider wrote on 2 January:

    Natalie,

    In tonight’s BBC news Matt [Frei] was reporting on ex-President Ford’s funeral in Washington. He said (and I can’t remember the exact quote) that “He was a popular president. But he pardoned President Nixon and the country never forgave him.”

    That is simply not true and misrepresents history.

    Ford became president on 9th August 1974. He announced his decision about President Nixon on 8th September 1974. That was approximately one month after assuming office. He hadn’t achieved any level of “popularity” during that month. Instead, the country was still reeling from events which lead the resignation of President Nixon. There are vast numbers of people in the country, while regretting that such a pardon was necessary, but still understand that it was the right thing to do. The “country” never considered the issue of “forgiveness” as that’s not really the issue.

    Surely the pardon could be on many people’s thoughts as they voted in 1976, when Ford lost to Carter. However there were many other issues, including the economy (it was a period of high-inflation), the remants of the Vietnam War, Republican vs. Democrat (the Republicans had won the two previous elections), etc.

    –rms

    I can’t claim to know a great deal about the events in American history that Mr Schneider describes, and I have no strong opinion either way on whether the pardon was a good thing. But Matt Frei’s statement that “the country never forgave him” is contradicted by the many recent articles covering Ford’s death saying that the pardon turned out to be a good decision. These articles did not just come from right wing or Republican sources. Here, for instance, is a leading article from the Guardian. If that does not count because it is not an American newspaper, here is another from the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. There were many others.

    Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

    A churgoing couple.

    By | |
    88 Comments

    Pounce comments on one of today’s front page stories at the BBC:

    Skin bleaching cream couple fined

    A couple believed to have earned £1m selling toxic skin lightening creams were ordered by a court to pay nearly £100,000 in fines and costs. Yinka and Michael Oluyemi sold banned bleaching concoctions from their two cosmetics shops in south-east London.

    [snip]

    The church-going couple, who lived in a £725,000 house in Sydenham, have three children, including one who is studying law.

    Pounce writes:

    Ok help me here. Why is the fact that these people go to church (thus pointing out they are Christians) in the story?

    Pounce goes on to say that there are numerous BBC stories that pointedly don’t inform you of the faith of non-Christian criminals or alleged criminals, even where it is much more relevant than that of the Oluyemis. One such, the plumber charged with terrorism offenses, Kazi Nurur Rahman, whose mastery of the mysteries of the U-bend is always considered worthy of mention when other more relevant aspects of his life are not, has become an in-joke here. When I went looking for a comparative story to illustrate Pounce’s point I knew my search would not take long. In the event it took about ten seconds. Also on the England front page this morning was a story concerning the murder of his wife and four daughters by Mohammed Riaz. This crime took place in Accrington last November.

    A search for “Accrington” and “Riaz” on the BBC news website got fifteen relevant results (the one at the bottom of page 2 refers to someone else). Only one of these fifteen, this one, mentions that Mr Riaz was a man who “did not socialise much, other than at his local mosque.”

    Note that I am not saying that the murder of his family necessarily had anything to do with Mr Riaz’s religion. The possibility of a so-called “honour killing” was raised widely in the press and explicitly not discounted by the police, but eventual investigations pointed to the most likely prime motive being something to do with the breakdown of the Riaz marriage. We’ll never know. However the likelihood of religion being a factor was higher than for the vastly lesser crime of Mr and Mrs Oluyemi.

    Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

    Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:

    By | |
    281 Comments


    Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.

    A Happy New Year to all our readers and commenters. It may take a while for posting to get up to speed – but here’s a new open thread before the old one bursts a seam.

    Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

    Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:

    By | |
    701 Comments

    Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.

    They are like ravening beasts. What shall I feed them?

    By | | , , ,
    48 Comments

    Blimey. 409 comments. Looks like it’s time for a roundup, below, and a new “open thread” post coming up in a minute.

    • An article in the New York Sun by Daniel Johnson says

      The BBC now has a huge audience in America as well as in the rest of the world for its endless reiteration of the implied thesis that the Jewish state is the root of all evil — not only of war in the East but of terrorism in the West too — and that the ” Israel lobby” rules in Washington. Gloating over the supposed triumph of Realpolitik since the midterm elections, the BBC can hardly contain its Schadenfreude at the departure not merely of Donald Rumsfeld but also of John Bolton.

    (Hat tip: Alan)

    Oliver writes:

    “Hi BBBC – I thought this report interesting especially the line:

    “The barrier goes up, and you drive in through a gap in the 30-foot high concrete wall that Israel says it has built to keep out suicide bombers.”

    Love that ‘says it has’…

    Yours

    Oliver

    • Neil Craig of A Place to Stand wrote to the BBC, copying us in. An extract:

      Dear BBCThis morning David Attenborough was interviewed on the Andrew Marr programme on the subject of putative global warming & made the somewhat improbable statement that “in 20 years much of Norfolk will be under water”. Since sea level has been rising at about 0.6 mm a year since the last ice age & does not appear to have significantly changed recently this would require much of Norfolk to be less than half an inch above sea level now which I do not believe is the case. Indeed historically Norfolk has, for geological reasons, been rising faster than the sea. Even the alarmist BBC have heretofore claimed only 30 cm* a century which amounts to 2 inches in 20 years.

      I was therefore somewhat surprised when the interviewer never even questioned the remark & finished the interview calling Mr Attenborough, whose basic claim to fame is as a BBC spokesman an “icon”, which clearly put a BBC seal of approval on it.

      If it really is the case that the BBC are officially promising us that Norfolk will largely be underwater by 2026 I will have to accept that as the sort of ridiculous propaganda which represents the very highest standards to which the BBC aspire.

      *Taken from the BBC article. A typo in Mr Craig’s email meant that the link url had been typed over the next few characters. Read the rest of his post here.

    • On a similar subject, another correspondent writes:

      Hi,

    • First, we know how these signed “petitions” by THOUSANDS of scientists go as reported by the BBC et al. Did deep and you’ll find a overwhelming list of left wing partisan advocates and non-“scientists”. This BBC article is no different. You get your usual suspects in this article. The BBC just carries the water whenever they put out a PR.

      US scientists reject interference

      The statement, which includes the backing of 52 Nobel Laureates, demands a restoration of scientific integrity in government policy…..[and the Bush bashing begins]

      One of the main article sources, the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security is a San Francisco area left wing “green” advocacy group represented by the BBC as a “Non Partisan” organization. Well, as usual, the reporter simply didn’t look at the board of directors or it’s advisory board. Look for yourself

      http://www.pacinst.org

      The other source The Union of Concerned Scientists, again, is a green advocacy organization. Check it out. http://www.ucsusa.org.

      I don’t see this blog as having any particular collective opinion on whether and whither climate change. But we are getting quite a few emails saying, as these do, that the BBC is very much of one opinion when presenting the issue.

      UPDATE: Ian Hart, the communications director of the Pacific Institute, comments

      First, the Pacific Institute is a think tank or a research institute, not a “‘green’ advocacy group.” While we may advocate certain policies, it is not our primary goal or tool. If you look at our staff you will not find lawyers or lobbyists, but mostly scientists.

      Second, the Pacific Institute is a non partisan organization and Jonathan Amos was correct in noting that in his article. When we work with governments, we’ve worked with Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians. We’ve also worked in numerous countries where those parties mean nothing. So we are indeed non partisan.

      Looking at its website, it is true that the Pacific Institute is non-partisan in the sense that it is not connected to any political party. The Advisory Board contains both Nancy Ramsey, the Legislative Director for Senator John Kerry (D) and the Hon. Claudine Schneider, a former Republican Representative for Rhode Island.

      Nonetheless, the Pacific institute is not apolitical. Sample quotes: “Social justice has long been the missing element from the debate over environmental pollution and economic development.” “Globalization and privatisation of the world’s resources are leading to controversy, dispute and even violence.” It favours mildly statist solutions.

      I am more sympathetic to Ian Hart’s defence of his own organisation than I am to the BBC’s description of it. The phrase “non-partisan” will be taken to mean “non-political” by most readers of the website, and I rather think the BBC knows this and exploits it – in many cases, not just this one. In particular I think that the BBC gently exploits the fact that in the US, because of campaign finance restrictions and the fact that political donations from individuals are made public there, the fact that an organisation can be non-partisan and yet have a political agenda is widely understood, whereas over here the two terms “non political” and “non partisan” are practically interchangeable. A think tank as right wing as the Pacific Institute is left wing would almost always be described as “right wing” on the BBC.

     

    Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest

    By | |
    423 Comments

    Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.