Bremner vs Bush

Among the comments to the previous post I particularly liked this one by Joe N:

What I found rather cute in the R4 documentary, was the way it tried to be reasonable, but resorted to “mockumentary” tacktics anyway.

They had a voice-actor imitating President Bush at each segment, and when they played a series of quotations by him, the background music was of rural banjo fuges, as though it meant to cue the pavlov’s dogs of the listening audience a seeming reference to the movie “deliverance”.

The arrogant, culturally ignorant bastards at the BBC don’t even realize that there is no such tradition in Texas, and that he doesn’t comre from the Appalachian or mountain-south traditions associated with the type of fade-in/fade-out music they played.

Really – they are idiots willing to employ what they think they know about a folk culture to abuse someone! It’s about as sophisticated and shows as much a lack of depth of familiarity as a would-be photo-montage of Barack Obama with a watermelon and a bucket of fried chicken.

I assume Joe N is referring to this programme in which the impressionist Rory Bremner “considers the rhetorical evolution of George W Bush from gaffe-prone candidate to grandiose war president.”

I caught the end of the programme. It could have been worse, I suppose. At least it allowed various of Bush’s speechwriters and so on to have a word, though of course the beginning and end of each segment had to be according to the BBC narrative. I did notice one thing – after actually praising Bush for some good rhetoric, the inevitable contrasting Bush-is-stupid bit was the occasion where Bush said that he was “proud to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hands cut off by Saddam Hussein.”

Ha ha ha.

Now, given that the BBC researchers managed to dig out from the archives a clip of his actual words (52 minutes in) then the programme-makers must have known the context in which this speech was made. The link takes you to a post at the Volokh Conspiracy blog, which (unlike the BBC or the Slate magazine feature that prompted Eugene Volokh’s post) gives the next few lines of the speech:

I’m honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein. I’m with six other Iraqi citizens, as well, who suffered the same fate. They are examples of the brutality of the tyrant.

I am also here with Marvin Zindler, of Houston, Texas. I appreciate Joe Agris, the doctor who helped put these hands on these men; Don North, the documentary producer who made a film of this brutality, which brought the plight of these gentlemen to the attention of Marvin and his foundation. These men had hands restored because of the generosity and love of an American citizen. And I am so proud to welcome them to the Oval Office. . . .

Bush was able to shake this man’s hand because he was among several men who had just been provided with artificial hands by US surgeons. That was what occasioned the speech being made at all. He was saying, wasn’t it great that they did, once again, have functioning hands despite the barbaric punishment inflicted upon them.

As I said, the programme makers must have understood those circumstances. But they – and Rory Bremner – chose a cheap laugh over explaining them.

The trouble with those people is they think they can do whatever they want.

“Can Israel do whatever it wants?”

That’s the headline on today’s World Have Your Say, presented by the BBC. I haven’t got time to go into all the buried assumptions and question-begging this choice of headline embodies. It’s designed to draw forth either the answer “Yes – because the world will not stop these maniacs” or “No – the world must stop these maniacs”.

The hours go by.

Stewart Fleming, a 37 year old signalman and father of two, was photographed by his wife as he waited for six hours in Medway Maritime Hospital’s A&E department. He is shown clutching a note from his doctor saying that he must be seen immediately. The photo can be seen at the head of this story in the Sun. It has a certain poignancy now, given that during the wait Mr Fleming’s organs failed one by one and he is now dead.

Squander Two writes:

Secondly, this is being reported all over the place, of course, and every report I’ve seen mentions the six-hour wait, what with it being the whole point of the story. Except the BBC’s:

An inquiry is under way into the death of a man after a two-hour delay in him being seen by an A&E unit in Kent.

I’ll print the rest, what with the BBC’s well-established reputation for stealthily editing their reports after criticism without changing the “Page last updated” bit — for lying, in other words.

Squander Two then does so, and adds some considered commentary on how the BBC could possibly have ended up describing a six hour wait as a two hour wait. His remarks are all the more damning in that they strive so hard to be fair.

Perhaps the BBC read it, as there is something rather shamefaced about the follow-up story concerning the statement on the case by the Chief Executive of the Medway NHS Foundation Trust, which does manage to mention the unadjusted times involved.


While shepherds washed their socks by night

All watching ITV

The angel of the Lord came down

And switched to BBC.

Anyone else remember that? I’m pretty sure that in the playgrounds of my youth it was that way round, though Google gives about 50-50 the angel switching to ITV. I draw no particular conclusions. The only real purpose of this post is to wish everyone a merry Christmas.

Radio Solent: serving all sections of the community

BBC Radio Solent (no relation whatsoever!) reports that four animal rights activists have been convicted of blackmail, criminal damage, extortion, bomb threats…

So what is Radio Solent’s response to this?

To give the microphone to a spokeswoman for the criminal group responsible so that she could justify their actions, of course. Listen here; it’s 1 hour 57 minutes in.

Hat tip: Chuffer.

Roundup

  • Bishop Hill on the close yet unclear relationship between the Cambridge Environment and Media Programme and the BBC.
  • Tom Gross of the WSJ writes, “If this isn’t terrorism, what is?”

    For much of the Mumbai siege, the BBC went out of its way to avoid reporting that the Jewish community center was one of the seven targets. At one point viewers were told that “an office building” had been targeted (referring to the Jewish center as such).

    Then on Friday morning, TV pictures of Indian commandos storming the besieged Jewish center were broadcast by networks around the world. Heavily armed commandos, their faces covered by balaclavas, rappelled from helicopters onto the roof while Indian sharpshooters in buildings opposite opened fire and a helicopter circled overhead. Huge crowds of onlookers could be seen looking aghast as they watched from nearby streets. While Sky News and other channels were gripped by these dramatic pictures, BBC World was not, almost pretending there was no siege at the Jewish center — even though by then it was one of only two sites that remained under attack in Mumbai. Had the terrorists chosen to besiege a church or mosque instead, can you imagine the BBC ignoring it this way?

  • You mean those scary statistics in the letters from TV Licensing weren’t true?
  • Following on from Laban’s post, I was listening to Radio 4 the day before yesterday at about 6.15pm. There was quite a lengthy discussion of Governor Rod Blagojevich’s corruption without, yet again, any mention of what party he represented. I expect this tactic works quite well. Anyone listening properly would have gathered Mr Blagojevich was of the same party as Mr Obama, but the many, many people who listen with half an ear while they get on with something else would never hear “blah blah corruption blah blah Democrat blah” whereas you can be sure that in a similar scandal involving a Republican they would get “blah corruption Republican blah THAT’S RIGHT, REPUBLICAN blah”.

I’m looking for something.

Can you guess what?

Israel buries Mumbai attack dead“Six Jews died at the centre, which was one of several places targeted in the attacks that left 188 people dead.”

“She [Sandra Samuel, Moshe Holtzberg’s nanny] hid in a cupboard when the centre was attacked, but emerged to rescue the child after his parents were killed.”

“The Chabad centre was stormed on Wednesday evening by armed militants who seized hostages and fought a gun battle with Indian commandos.

Indian forces eventually regained control of the centre, killing several gunmen, but six of the hostages were found dead.”

Officials quit over India attacks (An earlier headline, preserved in the header, was “Troops battle to end Mumbai seige.) “Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, 29, had been killed alongside his wife, Rivka.”

Israel awaits Mumbai attack dead “The organisation confirmed that Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, 29, had been killed alongside his wife, Rivka. Their two-year-old son survived.”

Mumbai victims from all walks of life “Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, 29, and his wife Rivkah, 28, were among six Jews killed in the Mumbai attacks. They were found dead at the Jewish cultural centre, known as Nariman House, which was one of the gunmen’s key targets.”

Officials quit over India attacks (Has the header “Police declare Mumbai seige over”, and seems to be a later version of the second story listed.) “The organisation confirmed that Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, 29, had been killed alongside his wife, Rivka.”

Tense times for Mumbai’s Jews “Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife, Rivkah, were among the six people who died in the attack at Nariman House. “

As it happened: Mumbai attacks 27 Nov – contains references to the Holtzbergs being held hostage.

As it happened: Mumbai attacks – 28 Nov “A Brooklyn-based rabbi and his wife were killed in the siege on the Nariman House Jewish centre, the Chabad-Lubavitch movement confirms. Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg were “the beloved directors of Chabad-Lubavitch of Mumbai”, it says.”

Jewish centre seized in Mumbai – contains a reference to the status of Rabbi Holtzberg being unknown at that time.

(Emphasis added in all cases.)

‘Cos Doctor says.

A BBC report, Patients going ‘private’ on NHS by Nick Triggle, says:

Thousands of patients a month in England are using a government reform to get what is effectively private treatment paid for by the taxpayer.

Patients have the right to opt for any NHS hospital or private unit that can offer the care at NHS cost.

In little over 12 months, the number opting for private hospitals has risen 10-fold to over 3,500 a month.

This story caught the attention of Tom Bowman at the Adam Smith Institute blog, who writes

You might think that everyone would consider this a good thing, but unfortunately you would be wrong. Just read the BBC article I linked to above, the implicitly negative slant jumps off the page every bit as much as the organization’s left-wing bias. Take the first paragraph as an example: “Thousands of patients a month in England are using a government reform to get what is effectively private treatment paid for by the taxpayer.”

Couldn’t they just have said, “Thousands of English patients are now getting better treatment at no additional cost to the taxpayer”, instead?

That would be an equally valid statement of the facts. The question of why the BBC couldn’t just – and just couldn’t – have said it is an interesting one, covered elsewhere on this blog.

However there is an even worse example of bias in the next sentence from Mr Triggle:

Doctors said patients needed to think carefully as vital NHS money was being lost to private health providers.

Emphasis added. I note this partly in obedience to the necessary convention that quotes are not doctored without warning, partly because it helps the reader better amuse him or herself when repeating these words in a voice modelled on that of an awestruck student nurse rebuking a recalcitrant patient in Carry On Nurse.

This and That

This and that

  • Blognor Regis, writing about the BBC’s “Time Shift 8: How to be a good president”, says he does not go in for hate, but

    …then I take a look at this motley crew, the same old same old rapid response talking head squad, ready to pontificate on anything at anytime, only five minutes from this television studio: Jonathan Freedland is helped by distinguished contributors including James Naughtie, Shirley Williams, Douglas Hurd, Simon Hoggart and Bonnie Greer. Celebrating the diversity of opinion there I don’t think.

 

  • David Friedman wrote about how the BBC reported a story concerning a worldwide improvement in the child mortality statistics:

    …the Lancet reports that, worldwide, the child death rate has fallen by 28% since 1990. Breaking it down by region, “deaths in western and central Africa have fallen by just 18%; in sub-Saharan Africa the figure was 21%, while in eastern and southern Africa it was 26%.”

 

How does BBC headline the story?

Huge split in child death rates

Beneath the headline, in boldface type:

“Progress in cutting the number of deaths among children under five is still ‘grossly insufficient’ in some parts of the world, Unicef has warned.” The picture that accompanies it is of two black children, one crying and one looking grim.

The actual news is that things are getting better. But that is not the impression that the headline, the introduction or the picture is designed to give.

I switched from CNN to BBC as a source of online news in response to CNN’s extraordinarily biased reporting of the FLDS case in Texas. BBC is not as bad—you only have to read to the bottom of the article to get the relevant information.

  • I see that after being cramped for so long by having to pay lip-service that tedious Charter obligation to be impartial, the BBC’s Justin Webb has finally drawn the “Get Out of Impartiality Free” card. Now that he has drawn this card, he, a BBC journalist paid by the BBC to write on the BBC website, can describe one of the American vice-presidential candidates in the terms detailed in David’s earlier post:

    And yet the Palin world-view – essentially ignorant, unable to name a single paper read – is not the view that a nation facing an economic catastrophe, complex and international and baffling to most minds, is likely to choose … to hear Palin screeching on about Reagan must be painful to many Republicans who knew him.

    Or he can described her in the terms detailed in Hugh’s post, namely as:

    the woman rational, educated Americans regard with ever-increasing horror.

    The other name for this card is the “Blog”card.