Author Archives: Natalie

“Then imagine bumping into an old friend who tells you he’s now working in one of the old Soviet republics which has found it hard to throw off the state control. Here, your friend says, you have to inform the state of your address when you buy a television. This address and your name is then kept on a database which is used to verify whether you have a licence to own such an instrument. The state owned channel which you must pay for, whether you want its product or not, broadcasts to further the political Left, although in theory, they are meant to be impartial. And just in case you manage to get a TV without informing the authorities, the government have vans with electronic detection equipment that patrol the streets looking for signals that betray unlicensed TVs. If you’re caught without a licence you are heavily fined and could even be imprisoned.”

– a post by Gary Walker to this Telegraph forum.

ADDED LATER to the same post because it was so close in theme: Lib-Dem blogger Stephen Tall argues against his party’s policy on the licence fee. (Via the Adam Smith Institute.)

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.

asks Drinking from Home.

At some point since Wednesday 27 September the BBC changed the phrase “a Ministry of Defence (MoD) report has said” to “a research paper prepared for the Ministry of Defence’s Defence Academy says”. Paxman’s claim that “We didn’t say it was the Ministry of Defence view” is easier to justify with the updated version. Sneaky move, eh?

For those new to the game, this is standard BBC practice. Stories on the BBC website have a “Last Updated” timestamp at the top. Again and again this website and others have spotted that stories have been updated yet this timestamp remains unchanged. Let us assume that nine times out of ten this neglect is the result of idleness or forgetfulness rather than dishonesty. Given the vast sums we forcibly pay for the BBC, that is not an impressive level of service, but then again it is the nature of a nationalised industry to promote a organisational culture where sloppiness is the norm, so let us blame the unique way the BBC is funded rather than make harsh judgments on individuals.

Around one time in ten such a kindly interpretation becomes impossible. Stories are not merely “updated” they are corrected, as on this occasion. Bloggers and other people with a reputation to maintain usually make significant corrections explicit. My fellow blogger Andrew suggested some practical ways the BBC could do this. But even if admission of mistakes is too much to ask of a news organisation that says that trust is its foundation, ordinary honesty is not too much to ask. To claim, “We never said X” and also (before or afterwards, I wonder?) go back into the records and stealth-edit the bit where you did say X is dishonest. Where the very point at issue is “did you or didn’t you say X” that unaltered timestamp is not a mistake but a falsehood.

(Hat tip: Max.)

UPDATE: The editor of Newsnight has replied that the error “was a swift correction, not a subsequent stealth edit.”

From the opening speil to a Have Your Say forum:

Is UKIP the “voice of the British majority”?
Is the UK Independence Party at the “centre-ground of British public opinion” as its new leader, Nigel Farage, claims?

The party is best known for campaigning to withdraw Britain from the European Union. Despite this, it won 10 seats in the 2004 European Parliament elections.

Emphasis added. Spotted by Pete_London.

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.

(UPDATE: I’ve bumped the timestamp on this open thread forward rather than start a new one so soon. Several new posts below.)

links to a Real Player clip of two BBC types discussing the collapse of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh at a rally.

One of the presenters says:

If we were talking here about an Israeli prime minister for example one would assume that he would have the best of medical care available just an arm’s length away.

ADDED LATER: The more I think about it, the more I love that “for example.”

In all sorts of little ways the BBC wants to make sure that you get it. Here is a story from Saturday: Bomber attacks ‘model’ Iraqi city.

Four soldiers and 10 civilians died in the blast in the northern city which US President George W Bush held up as a model in a speech in March.

And

Tal Afar, to the west of Mosul, was supposed to be a showcase for American-led efforts to pacify Iraq, the BBC’s Jim Muir reports from Baghdad.

Terry Johnson commented, “Surprisingly I don’t recall Al-Beeb refering to the London suicide bombings as “Bombers Attack Livingstone’s Multicultural “Model” City” or that “Londonistan was supposed to be a showcase for the Left’s efforts to create a “multicultural paradise”.

why the BBC’s timeline of North Korea’s nuclear activities goes no further back than 2002? USS Neverdock can.

“The truth is, most “quality” BBC programmes aren’t paid out of our license fee, but make a profit,” says James Graham of Qaequam blog. “What you pay for out of your license fee is the uncommercial stuff, which with the exception of things such as educational programming and news, normally means low grade crap such as soap operas and reality TV.”

Is that right? Reading the comments on the Quaequam post, I found one by Michael Jennings, a blogger with a good knowledge of how industries work, suggesting that James Graham’s argument is correct.

I would, in fact, still support the abolition of the licence fee on principle even if is not. Grown-up countries need state-run TV stations the way they need state-run newspapers.

However if Qaequam Blog is correct, it is a good counter-argument to those such as Oliver Kamm, who argues that the abolition of the BBC licence fee would drive the BBC downmarket.

-All via Jackie Danicki.

P.S. I have to defend the BBC on one point. I’m practically ready to fight a duel to defend the BBC on one point! Dad’s Army is not low-grade pap. And I believe it still pulls in a steady profit on repeat fees.

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.