says that one of her correspondents tried sending similarly-worded posts referring to “racist/apartheid Israelis” and “racist/apartheid Palestinians” to a BBC messageboard in order to see which ones were removed.
Since individuals are fallible, and different moderators will be on duty at different times, some inconsistency is to be expected. However there did seem to be a definite bias against Israel in the results.
Tim Blair has some choice quotes from an ABC interview with Phil Rees. Rees says:
When I joined the BBC, by the way, 20 years ago now, it was assumed, it was a basic standard, that you adopted the idiom that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
And
If you use terms like militants, insurgents, guerrillas, you are not saying these people are evil. The word ‘terror’ conjures up a lot more. If I can persuade you that somebody else is a terrorist, then what we are doing is saying that we agree that this person is morally wrong.
Can’t have that. As Tim Blair says, “Who are we to deny this individual the truth of his journey?” Here’s one The Good Blair didn’t mention:
… certainly at the time of 9/11, they used the word ‘terrorist’ to describe the perpetrators. But it is quite funny, that when one of the senior managers suggested that it shouldn’t be used again, there was, not a rebellion but I think several staff members think that the BBC should enter the real world, and accept the language of what people in the street are saying. Now fine, but in doing that, as I say, you are in a way, supporting the Bush Administration and the language that it uses and its enemies.
Rees is exactly what you’d expect, but it is interesting to learn that several World Service staff members, while not exactly rebelling, thought that the word “terrorist” should be used.
asks the Children’s BBC website. This treatment is plenty better than it was the last time I posted about CBBC coverage of the subject. This time if you follow the list of links to related mini-stories you’ll see they explicitly give the pro-gun side a hearing! Still, it’s fairly pathetic that the article does not even mention the very different laws in different states. Handguns are practically illegal in some notably high-crime areas such as New York or DC.
The BBC makes the very serious claim that the American government refuses to allow aid money to be spent on treating prostitutes suffering from AIDS. In fact it makes it twice.
Here is the BBC story: Brazil turns down US Aids funds. It says:
Washington says it is important not to promote prostitution, and does not want any of its funds to be spent on treating prostitutes.
and
Much of the spending is being channelled to programmes that advocate abstinence, rather than condom use, and cannot be used for abortions or to treat prostitutes.
There is a blog called “Behind Enemy Lines” run by a Republican living in San Francisco who calls himself “Secret Agent X-9.” It is ironic that this romantic soul bothered to fact-check where a mainstream news organisation did not. In this this well-researched post he tracked down the relevant Acquisition and Assistance Policy Directive. It says, in summary, that the US demands that organizations who take US aid must say they oppose prostitution and sex trafficking. It also says that organizations may be given American aid even if they have moral objections to condoms. One may agree or disagree with this stance of the US government, but one thing is clear. The document specifically said that
“Nothing in the preceding sentence shall be construed to preclude the provision to individuals of palliative care, treatment, or post-exposure pharmaceutical prophylaxis, and necessary pharmaceuticals and commodities, including test kits, condoms, and, when proven effective, microbicides”
Hat tip – “Sunbonnet”. Bet you picked that name deliberately.
A commenter says he spotted and grabbed a screenshot of this.
Hat tip to Adam, who directed me to this link: BBC News Item or Death Race 2000 Remake? and added, “The Ministry of Truth springs to mind.”
The reporter, BBC Bristol’s Chris Kelly, or someone else concerned with the preparation of the original version of this story, failed to spot that a certain claim made in the body of the story and supported by a quote is ridiculous to anyone who knows about the subject. A blogger wrote in to set them right. Commendably, the mistaken claim of fact was corrected, although it remains on other BBC stories. But now, oh dear, the quote is no longer usable. What to do? Change the quote, of course.
It is reasonable to assume that the quote was changed with the consent of the speaker, as it would only take a moment to ring her up and ask for a new quote. In fact since her original words make her look silly I expect she was anxious to have the quote changed. Even so the whole procedure – an invisible rather than visible correction of both story and quote – lacks frankness. Bloggers do better.
This story is not political. (The blog from which it comes, Confusability, seems to be largely focussed on computer usability issues, accompanied by very occasional left-leaning anti-war comment, and a delightful post about tracking the popularity of knitting blogs.) However the tale of the appearance and subsequent disappearance of the Great M4 Massacre does not increase one’s confidence in the BBC’s treatment of matters of controversy.
by Justin Webb concerns the history of that curious American institution, the filibuster. Mention is made of Jimmy Stewart’s moving performance in Mr Smith goes to Washington. Mr Webb records with an indulgent smile the 87-year old Senator Robert Byrd (Democratic – West Virginia) reminiscing on the art of the filibuster: “And so when I filibustered 14 hours and 13 minutes in 1964 I never got off the germaneness of the subject.”
Some journalists might, at this point, have thought to include a little period detail as to what “the subject” was, or why the Senator says that southerners in particular had mastered filibuster technique. What measure did the Republican party propose* in 1964 that was so bad in Senator Byrd’s eyes that he was willing to make this heroic effort to stop it? Justin Webb’s article does not say.
The Rottweiler Puppy will tell you the answer. I imagine most of the readers of Biased BBC know already. I wonder how many casual readers of the BBC website do?
Even the briefest of articles about the debate over the use of the filibuster in American politics is incomplete without some mention of what the filibuster was most notoriously used for in the last few decades.
(Hat tip – DumbJon)
*[CORRECTION: I was not correct to refer in my original post to the 1964 Act as a measure proposed by the Republicans. Commenter “Sachem77” points out the Act was initiated by the Democrats, and then pushed through by a coalition of Northern Democrats and Republicans against the opposition of Southern Democrats. More history here.]
The Daily Propaganda has analysed that election logo in detail.
I am rebuilding from memory an email I accidentally deleted. It doesn’t matter that I can’t remember the author’s name as he did not want it used. He pointed out this entry from the ‘Election Monitor’, the BBC’s campaign weblog:
PM Tips
By Mark Mardell
Chief Political Correspondent
POSTED: Thursday 21 April, 1610BST
A tip from a colleague for getting rid of Labour canvassers. Just tell them: “I will give you my vote because I so admire Tony Blair’s stand on Iraq.” Evidently they back away in confusion, unwilling to offend the nutter.
Neat trick on the part of the BBC – because if anyone does say they are offended, then ho, ho, they must be a nutter.
Remember, due to the unique way it is funded, it’s your BBC.
UPDATE: My original correspondent added, speaking on his own account, “- or a supporter of freedom and democracy” after the word “nutter”.
