Author Archives: Sue

BBC v Israel. Judge Paxman Presiding.

By | | ,
58 Comments

BBC’s Jeremy Paxman, flagship presenter amongst a flotilla of BBC presenters, sets off on a mission to aid Hamas and uphold the embargo on reason, logic and truth.

(Note: The BBC seems to have issued a special edict. A permanent sneer must be attached to matters concerning Israel. The qualifying prefix “Israel says” must be added to anything speculative, factual, or plain as a pikestaff, if it alludes to Israel in any favourable or mitigating kinda way, to remind the gullible viewer that “Israel” may be lying.)

Newsnight. The Trial.
“Now; Israel has started deporting some of the survivors of the convoy which set out to bring aid to Gaza and ended up being attacked by the Israeli military-who-killed-9-people. They’re being deported from a country they hadn’t want to go to anyway. The UN Human Rights panel, a body usually roundly ignored by Israel, meanwhile has condemned the attack. It’s striking that the US hasn’t questioned Israel’s right to blockade Gaza which they say is an attempt to protect their citizens.
But what’s it like inside Gaaarhza? Tim Whewell has spent a day there.”

Oh what the hell. I might as well add emphasis to the whole lot.

NB. Tim W’s report was almost reasonable yesterday. Will he be psychologically spooked into colluding with Paxman the bully?

Not really, till he consults the repulsive, ex-BBC, Christopher Gunness of the UN relief and Works Agency, whose primary role is spewing propaganda against Israel. “Poverty rates have gone up by threefold in the last year” he says with a triumphant smirk.

“There’s not many people here with not enough to eat,” says Tim, casually. Wait a minute, we thought people were starving but no time for splitting hairs. We’ve a mission to complete.

Back to Pax.
“We’re joined now from from Washington by US Assistant Secretary of State P J Crowley. Mr Crowley why hasn’t the United States condemned this Israeli attack on the flotilla?”

“Well, the US supported the UN Security Council President’s statement which does use the word condemn, we obviously deeply regret the loss of life, we’ll continue to work with the international community to see how we can expand the amount of assistance to the people of Gaza.”

“So the United States does condemn this attack by the Israelis?”

“Well, the US regrets that this confrontation led to a civilian loss of li……..”

“ That’s a different word. Its a different word of course. Regretting and condemning are different things.”

“But we absolutely understand that Israel has legitimate security needs, its people have suffered through rocket attacks over months and years from Gaza, the Israelis had indicated in advance to this flotilla that there was a mechanism by which this material could be inspected and then brought into Gaza, [……….]”

“You don’t use the word condemn let me put to you the remark of the secretary of state…”

No punctuation needed because the beginning was uttered under Paxman’s breath with the comically exasperated yet sarky tone typical of Rowan Atkinson’s Blackadder and straight into the next line of attack.
Now Paxman is emoting about the settlements, “Are we entitled to wonder” [….settlements. Joe Biden. deliberate. blah blah….. ] “and now launching this attack on the flotilla. Is there anything Mr. Netanyahu could do which would incur condemnation from the US?”

“You use a very loaded term there by saying this was the launch of an attack…. this was a military operation by Israel, which Israel believes is perfectly legal to be able to make sure that it can prevent the flow of dangerous materials including weapons….”

“Could you give me another word apart from that”

“This is a very legitimate concern that Israel has…”

Enough.

Paxman’s unimaginative, worn out tactic is to attempt to trap the accused into saying a particular word, which Paxman hopes will reveal what he has deemed to be the truth, so he can conclude with a dramatic, “gotcha!” flourish. He wants to expose Mr. Crowley’s refusal to use the word ‘condemn,’ which is what professor Paxman deems righteous. He imagines he’s Rumplole of the Bailey. Or, who was that barrister who won cases for the defence against all the odds, for defendants guilty or not? Oh yes, it was George Carman. Paxman is suffering from delusions of grandeur. Some loonies think they’re Napoleon, or Jesus. Paxman thinks he’s George Carman. He’s descended into a fantasy in which he is judge, jury and probably executioner.

Excuse lack of brevity.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Flotilla

By | | ,
15 Comments

It was inevitable that I’d have to return to this story for the third time, now that things have come to the boil in such an unfortunate manner.

It is always difficult for defenders of Israel to make their case in an atmosphere of such overpowering hostility. When Israel’s actions appear disproportionate, unreasonable or excessive, both to the casual listener or viewer and the downright antisemite, everything reaches a horrible crescendo.
In this case Mark Regev has another monumental task. He faces disrespect, discourtesy and ignorance. Indignant, disbelieving hostile questioning and from BBC News 24, a kind of interrogation with underlying insinuation and cynicism.

On Today, an unusual interview with heroic apostate Ayaan Hirsi Ali preceded the report about the flotilla. Her comments about Islam were apposite. Yet no-one on the Today programme was honest enough to make the connection.

The media is playing its own not insignificant part in whipping up the situation, and the more we hear about Angry Muslims Rising Up, the more they will do so.

I often complain about the BBC’s ignorance. If anyone is interested in how Israel came into being and the legality of its presence in Jerusalem, I suggest they watch this. It’s long, but persevere, because you’re worth it.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Aiding and Abetting Part 2

By | |
30 Comments

It seems the revised ‘Free Gaza’ Flotilla E.T.A. is Saturday (tomorrow.)

I hear that someone from BBC radio 4 is on board one of the vessels, but the BBC has been strangely silent on this.

Amongst the online chatter about the situation in Gaza – the abundance of produce, Olympic-size swimming pools, the availability of luxury goods, and the ultimate gourmet experience advertised by Roots Club – the argument goes that all this does not prove that there isn’t real hardship and poverty there too.

There are many other places on earth where extremes exist side by side; where corruption keeps the poor in poverty and the rich in luxury.
They probably have to make do without a flotilla, and presumably without humanitarian aid from countries they’ve sworn to annihilate.

Hamas smuggles various goodies through the tunnels, but nevertheless Israel supplies Gaza with necessities such as fuel, medicine and food despite Hamas’s continued refusal to moderate its hard line stance. Numerous inventories of the goods regularly delivered to Gaza by Israel do little to disabuse Israel’s critics from their persistent allegations of humanitarian crises and deprivation, illogically attributed to Israel. Hamas having been absolved of all responsibility.

The flotilla is less concerned with Human Rights than with carrying out a provocative publicity stunt to stoke up a propaganda coup against Israel. They are such humanitarians that they turned down a request from the parents of Gilad Shalit to plead his case with Hamas.

Tomorrow, if Israel rises to the bait and confronts them, the BBC will probably have the story they are waiting for.

I am not the only one who has noticed the BBC’s bashfulness. Someone from the opposite camp has noticed too, and thinks it would make just the story the BBC likes, so he’s written a letter.
“Hi. As a BBC online viewer, I’d like to alert you…….”

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Aiding or Abetting

By | | ,
18 Comments

The BBC’s approach to the I/P conflict is to assume there’s a unanimous consensus amongst its viewers and listeners that Israel is guilty on all counts.

Dissenters like myself take the view that the BBC taints the news it brings us by using a combination of devices.
A distancing, dehumanising approach to Israeli individuals, the exaggerated human interest treatment of Palestinian victimhood, the omission of vital context and historical background, and undue prominence given to unverified statements from Palestinian spokespersons; to name but a few.

All this reinforces the perception of Israel’s unreasonable conduct, and rationalises the guilty verdict.

There has been a lot of news about the merits or otherwise of giving large amounts of aid to needy countries. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, say some, and aid inevitably gets into the wrong hands, causes corruption, and creates dependency and hampers self determination and enterprise.

One group, however, is so needy and so deserving, that the urgency of their predicament supersedes such considerations, causing all doubts to melt away. Which brings us to..

The Flotilla.
When the flotilla approaches Gaza, people wonder what will happen. What will Israel do?

What will the BBC do?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Falsehood and Madness

By | |
89 Comments

“Reporters are mouthpieces for people in power”

On Today, Guardian writer and one-time journalist of the year Nick Davies tells us that the internet is a mechanism for distributing falsehood and madness.
But not to worry. Although much journalism is necessarily inaccurate, the bastions of truth and good journalism are the BBC and the Guardian.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Bias Against Thinking

By | |
19 Comments

This heading is designed to preempt queries about its relevance to this site. I put it to you that dumbing down and bias are closely related, maybe siblings.

The BBC’s dumbing down and repetitive programme ideas have become sinister. They constantly parade low standards and questionable ideals before our square and hypno’d eyes. This creates unrealistic expectations yet somehow stifles aspirations.
Take this programme about entrepreneurship called High Street Dreams. Tired old formula, seen it millions of times before. Mentoring members of the public and bringing an *idea* to the *marketplace.*

The ideas weren’t ideas at all. There was nothing there. What we were shown wouldn’t have reached a pre-audition for Dragon’s Den. The episode I watched was about toys and children.

Children rarely like toys. They like the idea of toys, but the expectation is always far better than the actuality. But never mind. For me the values the programme espoused only went to show where we’ve gone wrong. Marketing, presentation, all with one goal. The triumph of trickery over content.

Mentor Jo Malone uttered the word ‘product’ so many times that it lost its meaning. That always happens when you repeat a word over and over. Product product product product product. Product. See? Now what does it mean.

“It will change your life,” they intone, as they do on every other programme.

“What does failure mean to you?” they ask everyone on TV. “I’d be devastated” comes the predictable reply.

Please, please. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Byford, when can we have some original programmes?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Incompetent, Immature and Ham-fisted.

By | |
24 Comments

Young, British and Angry.

“Ben Anderson gets exclusive access to the English Defence League, the movement set up to protest against what it sees as the dangerous spread of militant Islam in Britain. ”

“Exclusive Access?” Any Tom Dick and Arry could have had access if they asked nicely.

Poor Ben Anderson. His technique was as clumsy as a dyspraxic bull in a china shop. His agenda hung out shamelessly. His presentation was done in extreme plonking, that weird, patronising delivery.
“I wanted to find out if …..”
No he didn’t. He didn’t want to find anything out. He interviewed people and added a voiceover beginning, “I found (whatever they said) unconvincing.”

Ben Anderson found out that the EDL looked like football hooligans, skinheads, racists and Nazis, they were fairly inarticulate, one made monkey noises and they called people Muslims. But he knew all that already.

He interviewed a Muslim extremist to show that he didn’t represent the Good Muslims. To prove this he went to an Islamic Centre which had been on the receiving end of a firebomb, but as all the damage had been cleared up way back, Ben Anderson and Abdul the community leader just had to gaze at a bit of wall and reminisce nostalgically about the damage.

So. The EDL call people Muslims, the racists.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Time To Take Action

By | |
82 Comments

This is a guest post by Marcellus.

ENOUGH TALK, TIME NOW TO TAKE ACTION TO REFORM THE BBC

I have a suggestion.

I have much respect for the impressive work that Biased BBC is doing to expose the symptoms of BBC misuse of their immense power and influence.

I put it to you, however, that we have all shouted and complained long enough. We have listed, exposed, analysed, discussed for a very long time. We KNOW that there is a terrible problem.

We have talked enough. The time for talking is over. We now need to DO something about this menace.

My suggestion is this: that Biased BBC now develop an active campaigning arm to push for SPECIFIC reform.

I am not suggesting that you change anything that you are currently doing, and doing very well. No certainly not, I am merely suggesting that there is an ADDITION to your operations.

This suggestion would have been pointless just 10 or so short days ago, but now the Brown government has been removed. Now there are people in power who are more likely to listen to the complaints and have the power to be able to make the necessary changes. Jeremy Hunt is now in charge of this field of government and whereas (from personal experience) I have to be convinced that he understands the problem and knows what specific reforms are needed, he does at least have the power to act.

Perhaps Mr Hunt should be assisted by the blogosphere in seeing where reforms should be made.

I suggest that there is a set of specific proposals advocated by Biased BBC to reform the news and current affairs output of the BBC, which they then promote and demand to be effected by the government. I am suggesting therefore that Biased BBC should become a next generation campaigning site actively using the internet to put pressure on the government.

The greatest abuse is in the field of news and current affairs and so accordingly, although I am aware of the concern in connection with other output, I am suggesting that there should be an initial concentration on the production of news and current affairs, rather than aim at too many targets and become weak and diffuse.

Initially there could be a draft set of Proposals issued and publicised by Biased BBC and opened up for discussion and comment.

Accordingly here is a first effort, a very rough draft of such “Proposals for Reform of BBC News”.

**********************************************************************

REASONS FOR THE REFORMS

**********************************************************************

REASON 1
The BBC has been corrupted and is now misusing its immense power to manipulate its news output in order to influence political situations.

It is astonishing in a modern information-based democracy that we allow a small clique of unelected, unrepresentative, self-appointed, uncontrolled and unaccountable people to control the most awesome mind-controlling and influencing power in the history of mankind and to shamelessly manipulate the only news that most people will hear.

Labour was famed for misusing power for party advantage and the BBC was no exception. By ruthlessly selective staff recruitment and promotion the BBC was turned into an immensely powerful Labour Party propaganda weapon. A political attack dog; trained to promote and protect the Labour Party at all times. Well, the master has now gone, but the attack dog is still there, and it is now completely out of control. (See article by Daniel Hannan about his recent experience with the BBC).

Indeed many would argue that this misuse of BBC power has been the critical means whereby Labour has been able to hang on to power for so long and be able to cause the damage to and corrosive degeneration of every aspect of our society that they have done.

For an indepth analysis of the methods used to promote Labour see here.

The BBC has been turned into a campaigning organisation selling political messages and supporting specific politicians. This is not an acceptable role for the BBC.

We must ensure that never again can the immense power of broadcasting be prostituted for narrow party advantage – any party.

The BBC must be made completely INDEPENDENT from politicians, for the politicians really cannot be trusted.

The BBC has always looked to the government for all things, who consequently have had much influence over the BBC. This must change. We need the BBC to look now to the people who pay the TV Licence fee for their authority, instructions and entitlement to operate, not the government – we are their shareholders and they must obey us.

REASON 2
There should be a PLURALITY of views, not a monoculture.

The BBC is hugely influential and is pre-eminent in forming our culture. The moral and other values of society are being created every day by the BBC.

We should not allow this power to be in the unaccountable hands of a clique with unrepresentative and often extreme views. We should be sure that such immense power is in the hands of people worthy of the trust.

At present we have no influence or control at all.

The staff at the BBC seem to have developed the view that they are entitled to educate us. The problem is that they perceive this “educating” role as forcing their personal views on any subject and the discouragement of any alternate view.

These self-appointed “teachers” may consider that they are specially enlightened and above the vast majority of the public, but in reality they are human too – full of personal weaknesses and prejudices based on their upbringing and the hurts that life has inflicted on them. This causes them to filter out facts which do not fit the view they WANT to hold, giving them an imperfect and incomplete understanding of issues. They may have strong intellects but that does not guarantee wisdom. The frequent result of all this is that they display marked intolerance and impatience of the views of others if they differ from their own; they consider that their views should prevail on “their” programmes and that views differing from their own should not be given the oxygen of publicity. This does not make them bad people, merely human – but we certainly do not want these people to have total power over what we are told about and (almost as important) HOW we are told.

The limited and imperfect opinions of the “teacher” should not be passed on to the “taught” as unquestionable TRUTH. The dividing line between that and indoctrination (and even brainwashing) becomes uncomfortably narrow.

This Moses Complex of the staff at the BBC can lead to the enforcement of cast iron orthodoxies. The trouble with orthodoxies, is that they can be wrong. But these BBC people would try to stop us finding out they were wrong. This is particularly so in the field of politics and current affairs.

The point here is that no small group should have a permanent virtual stranglehold over information available to us – such power will ALWAYS be abused.

The best way to avoid this disagreeable monoculture is to ensure we have many sources of information equally available – and so get the benefits of best practice obtained through benign competition.

REASON 3
Politicians should not be able to appoint, or influence the appointment of, the BBC Director General or members of the BBC Trust – for they will abuse that power.

Armed with total power, Labour ensured that its party donors and close allies were appointed to the key jobs of Director General and Chairman.

(For a detailed listing of the many unhealthy links between the state broadcaster and Labour see here)

REASON 4
The appointment of staff, particularly to key positions, should not be secret.

It is not reasonable in a modern democracy that the immense and unprecedented power of broadcasting is controlled by people who are appointed in secret. Why should these people be appointed in secret? Secrecy inevitably means corruption and abuse. After our experience of the BBC under Labour, we no longer assume integrity.

This secrecy enables the BBC to recruit only fellow “believers” and this perpetuates the BBC as a ghetto. Other excellent people with a great amount to offer are not given the opportunity to give their services, and the public lose the benefit of their contribution.

REASON 5
The viewer is entitled to full, unbiased and truthful information from a broadcast news programme.

News is not entertainment. Broadcast news programmes are a service to the public provided as part of a broadcaster’s obligations under their Licence or Charter, not another entertainment show. The use of the Political Correspondent (presented as totally honest and a friend of the anchor) and other sources of “expert opinion” is being abused to give the BBC the final word on a political story in order to influence the viewer into adopting the BBC’s view on it; that is not the BBC’s function.

REASON 6
Professional standards of behaviour and personal integrity are required from all staff working in broadcasting.

Working in broadcasting is a privilege not a right. It gives a person immense power and opportunity for mischief, manipulation, abuse and personal financial gain – just as working as a solicitor, doctor, midwife or accountant does. Such work should be recognised as important and be elevated to the level of a profession.

**********************************************************************


SPECIFIC PROPOSALS FOR REFORM OF BBC NEWS

**********************************************************************

PROPOSAL 1
OPEN UP THE DIGITAL BROADCASTING INFRASTRUCTURE TO COMPETITION

The digital broadcasting infrastructure should be opened up to many other independent news providers – as the BT infrastructure was opened up.

The technology is there to transmit many simultaneous programmes at any one time. A sufficient sum should be allocated out of the TV Licence money received by the BBC from us to make any necessary adjustments to the broadcasting infrastructure to enable the broadcasting of many independent news programmes at the same time as BBC News programmes. We choose which news programme we want to watch by way of a remote. It is a better use for the Licence money than chauffeur-driven cars or air trips for the senior staff.

Since the BBC is owned by the nation and we pay the running costs by means of the TV Licence, the BBC must use its broadcasting infrastructure in accordance with our requirements. And we require that it is used in this way.

PROPOSAL 2
THE BBC TRUST AND THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SHOULD BE ELECTED, NOT APPOINTED

The BBC Trust and the Director General should be elected, not appointed – just as Chief Constables are now to be elected.

The term of office should not exceed two years in length.

Procedures should be set up to allow and enable people from outside the BBC to stand for election.

We should have the right to see the manifestos of the candidates wishing to be the new Director General or a Trustee. We should then have the ability to ask the candidates what their policy and view was on specific matters.

PROPOSAL 3
MAKE THE PROCEDURE FOR APPOINTING STAFF OPEN TO SCRUTINY

The BBC’s procedures for appointing staff to key posts should be opened up to public gaze and scrutiny and made more accountable to the electorate.

For key and sensitive jobs in the news and current affairs department, it should be possible for the public to add candidates to the short list. We do not accept that “only insiders know best” – it is the insiders who have abused the system.

Advertisements for ALL posts should also be on the web. The people who compile the shortlists and members of the appointing panel should be named and their own posts disclosed together with any financial or personal interests. Reasons should be given for the inclusion of any applicant on the shortlist for any senior post and this should be published on the web.

Full reasons for any appointment should be disclosed in writing.

Procedures should be set up to allow and enable people from outside the BBC to apply for any post with provision for redress for any such person if treated unfairly compared to an existing BBC employee.

PROPOSAL 4


NEWS PROGRAMMES SHOULD CONTAIN ONLY INFORMATION, NOT OPINION

Opinion should not be confused with information. Broadcast news programmes should not contain opinion from BBC journalists or from “experts” or “random” members of the public or from anyone; merely the facts. We are able to form our own opinions. There should be specific Comment programmes with safeguards as to balance, and then specific news information programmes.

PROPOSAL 5
ANYONE WORKING IN NEWS BROADCASTING SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND DISCIPLINE

Each individual member of staff is, by contract of employment or engagement, to be made PERSONALLY responsible for the truthfulness, fairness, honesty and accuracy of what they write, do and say – with sanctions imposed against them PERSONALLY for any breach.

These professional standards should provide, inter alia, for the following:

1. All staff are to comply with a CODE OF STANDARDS; this will cover such things as-

(1) Personal ethics and behaviour

(2) Professional competence

(3) A legal duty requiring fairness, honesty and openness

2. A REGISTER OF INTERESTS (published in real time on the web) where all financial benefits received or given and membership of or affiliation to or association with or assistance given to any political organisation (such as a political party, pressure group, trade union, campaigning charity or indeed Common Purpose) have to be disclosed.

3. DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES for dealing with any breach with powers of imposing monetary fines and/or dismissal and/or subsequent prohibition (temporarily or permanently) from being employed by or being a contractor for, any broadcaster broadcasting to this country.

The disciplinary procedures of the Law Society and the Institute of Chartered Accountants give an excellent precedent or template. The members of the disciplinary tribunal should not be employees of the BBC.

Any member of the public should be able to initiate a complaint.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.