Category Archives: Uncategorized

: several posts on this blog have remarked the BBC use of what some of my colleagues call ‘scare’ quotes to distinguish between left-wing experts and right-wing ‘experts’, right-wing terrorists and islamic ‘terrorists’ and so on (see examples here and here). An amusing story on BBC Ceefax yesterday (it may in time be less amusing for the baby girl involved, of course :-/) gave a classic example of not using quotes.

US Man gives birth to daughter

The story was that a woman who had had a ‘sex change’ operation (arguably a rather unsuccessful one even by the low standards of these things :-)) had acquired sperm from a sperm bank / anonymous donor and so given birth. The story seemed to give the facts clearly enough (I certainly have no criticism on that score): the woman was stated to have had her breasts amputated (and perhaps other cosmetic assistance towards presenting herself as a man in society) but had not been neutered, so her still being able to give birth was no surprise.

Now, I can quite see that from a professional journalist’s point of view, the headline

Woman gives birth to daughter

lacks something, but I found myself musing on why the headline was not

‘Man’ gives birth to daughter

and why the story used male pronouns throughout, always he, never ‘he’.

The story did indicate that she had, after the operation, managed to get herself legally registered as a man. ‘The law is an ass’ is a well-known quote and I should in fairness raise the abstract possibility whether the BBC might actually credit her with the ability to sue if not referred to as he, or (not quite so unlikely) be colourably able to pretend such concern. However it seems more likely that there were no quotes for the usual reason: if it suits the agenda, report it straight (or should I say ‘straight’ in this case :-)); if it does not, report it in quotes.

Whatever the reason, next time any of my colleagues wish to question the BBC’s use of quotes, this non-use will give them a demanding standard to judge by: most right wing ‘experts’ and islamic ‘terrorists’ are less deserving of quotes than was this ‘man’.

! Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.

This letter was recently sent to the BBC by my friend Andrew McCann and I thought it might be worth sharing with you. He has not had a reply.

FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE BBC COMPLAINTS DEPARTMENT

Has the American presidential election already reached its conclusion? I have to ask since the evaporation of coverage on the BBC news since the confirmation of Barack Obama as Democrat nominee has been noted by many. The British Broadcasting Corporation was quite happy to flood news bulletins with ‘Presidential’ campaign happenings during the ‘beauty’ contest between Clinton and Obama. However, now that the BBC might just have to turn its attention to a more balanced coverage of the campaign by including Republican candidate, John McCain (remember him?), it suddenly has lost all interest.

Oh, what a beauty contest the Democrat race proved to be: both candidates filled every ‘tick-box’ on the social profiling sheet of the average Guardianista. One was a woman; the other was black. ‘Whoopee’ cried the anti-Israeli, anti-American, tree hugging news teams at the BBC. What did it matter that a potential leader of the free world should have more suitably meritocratic attributes such as intelligence, political nous, first-hand experience of America’s military engagements, an appreciation of realpolitik, and integrity? The sum total of the BBC’s analysis was preoccupied with the gender of one and the ethnicity of the other. As for the Grand Old Party, they might as well have shuffled off stage-left. The BBC, like the other Left-leaning, liberal ‘luvvies’ which dominate the European media scene, want a Democrat in the White House. Why don’t you just be honest and admit it?

I am a BBC licence payer (for my sins). I want to see a Republican returned to power in the United States. I certainly do not want to see someone whose paternal ancestry shares the same religion as the evil-doers who killed 3,000 people in New York City seven years ago: a man who is prepared to ‘combat’ the rise of evil terrorist Islamism by sitting down and having cosy little chats with some of its principal protagonists. When are my preferences going to be incorporated in the so-called impartial coverage your organisation is (dubiously) renowned for?

If and, as I expect, when John McCain is voted the 44th President of the United States will we be offered the sort of ethno-centric spite-laden coverage I expect? The sort which will feebly attempt to portray the American electorate as bunch of subliminal Alabamaesque red-necks who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for poor old Barack because he was black? I am prepared to bet money on it. For in the final analysis it is those of the Left who lionise on the basis of sociological labels, and it is those of us on the Right who prefer to view people on their genuine merits.

Yours truly

ANDREW MCCANN

I haven’t time now to listen to Che lives! but when even the (admittedly idiosyncratic) left-wingers at Harry’s Place say, “It’s as bad as it sounds” the portents do not look good.

Meanwhile here is one the links provided to that programme, namely BBC History’s presumably considered and careful view of the great icon of cool: Historic Figures: Che Guevara.

Che Guevara was an Argentinean-born, Cuban revolutionary leader who became a left-wing hero … The widespread poverty and oppression he witnessed, fused with his interest in Marxism, convinced him that the only solution to South and Central America’s problems was armed revolution … From 1959-1961, Guevara was president of the National Bank of Cuba, and then minister of industry. In this position, he travelled the world as an ambassador for Cuba. At home, he carried out plans for land redistribution and the nationalisation of industry.

Alas, the author seems to have neglected to mention another aspect of Comrade Guevara’s revolutionary service during this period, namely his stint in 1959 as “Supreme Prosecutor” and commander of La Cabana prison. During this time he enthusiastically fulfilled his proletarian responsibility by disposing of several hundred reactionary elements by means of the traditional bullet in the head. For the BBC to present a historical view of Guevara that blandly says, ‘From 1959-1961, Guevara was president of the National Bank of Cuba, and then minister of industry’ is actively dishonest.

A strong opponent of the United States, he guided the Castro regime towards alignment with the Soviet Union. The Cuban economy faltered as a result of American trade sanctions and unsuccessful reforms.

Sometimes all one can do is repeat a certain phrase incredulously. “Unsuccessful reforms.”

During this difficult time…

See my comment above. “Difficult time.”

…Guevara began to fall out with the other Cuban leaders …

Poor lamb, poor lamb.

“To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary…These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the The Wall!” – Ernesto “Che” Guevara.

BBC History’s pedagogy is so much more sensitive.

Adloyada talks about what the BBC didn’t talk about regarding what happened at Beit Lahiya. There was a vast explosion, killing a four month old baby amongst others. This was claimed by Hamas to be an Israeli strike. Since then Hamas has admitted that no, this was another Palestinian “work accident”.

Two of the BBC stories can be found here and here. The former story did get round to mentioning a “senior aide”. To see how much is not said, read Adloyada’s post.

Note also how the latter story sticks closely to stating the relevant facts, with no extraneous commentary about how Hamas must have been lying in its original statement. Sticking to facts is an admirable principle, if applied equally to all. The BBC doesn’t. For instance, the BBC is very keen to “add the context” and talk about war crimes when Israel blows up Lebanese bridges, but it’s “just the facts, ma’am” when Hamas launches attacks from among civilians, as in this case, although that is undoubtedly a war crime.

Following links here and there, I came across another comment on this from a blog new to me called “The Useful Idiot”. It’s about one of those odd “balancing” insertions that the BBC rarely fails to include in any report of Israelis being killed by Palestians though not vice versa. This time mention was made of a six year old Palestinian girl being killed by the Israelis. Presumably that refers to this incident. But what does this have to do with Syrian policy, the alleged subject of the article? Just enough information is given so that you know that the Israelis Kill People Too, and of course the BBC must add that it was a child. But no more. Not the time, or the place or the crucial fact that the Israelis didn’t just kill her because they fancied it, didn’t want to kill her at all, and only hit her because they were retaliating to attacks deliberately launched on them from areas where children live. (A further issue I don’t have the energy to discuss is that although I have no doubt that innocent civilians including children are killed in Israeli strikes I also have no doubt that many such reports are lies – unfortunately I don’t know which ones.)

Heavy stuff. A little light relief in order? What about some cutting edge humour by the BBC? Again, this one was found by Adloyada:

“I’m quite interested in the Middle East, I’m actually studying that Israeli Army martial arts. And I know sixteen ways to kick a Palestinian woman in the back.

“It’s a difficult situation to understand. I’ve got an analogy which explains the whole thing quite well:

“If you imagine that Palestine is a cake. Well, that cake is being punched to pieces by a very angry Jew.”

A seventeen-minute prime time euthanasia promotion, courtesy of Tuesday’s Today programme.

One pro-euthanasia campaigner given the easiest of breathless interviews by reporter Jon Manel, no anti-euthanasia campaigners, an interview with euthanasia sceptic and hospice doctor Sheila Cassidy featuring John Humphrys trying (not very hard) and failing completely to keep on the right side of the line that divides reporter from advocate. The interview was actually Humphrys arguing with Dr Cassidy in favour of euthanasia.

“My father … ghastly few years … enormously distressing …why couldn’t he have been given a bit of help ?”

“I suppose it’s because it’s against the law”

“Couldn’t the law be changed ?”

John Humphrys, as an outspoken advocate of euthanasia, should never have been chosen to present this piece. The editor, whoever he or she was, has made a dreadful – and disgraceful – decision.

(Declaration of personal interest – I find it objectionable that my taxes are used to give a platform to an already wealthy journalist’s campaign to allow the killing of the sick (but not murderers)).

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.

. When I blog these posts here, sometimes my critics accuse me of seeing bias where none exists. I do always try to write truthfully and call it as I see it, but acknowledge that like everyone else I am quite capable of error. That said, many of you who come here tend to see many of the same things I do, which is both re-assuring for me and evidence that there is no shortage of people very unhappy with how the BBC produces “news”. This Bank Holiday Monday morning, in an endurance exercise I managed to listen to almost one hour of the BBC’s prime news “Today” programme – and frankly it was an abomination. There were three items that really caught my attention;

Hillary Benn and George Monbiot participated in a debate on green taxation. Monbiot, who is an extreme environmentalist was there to criticise Benn for not agreeing to IMPOSE individual carbon footprint taxes on us all – to “save the planet” naturally – whilst Benn argued back that since the UK has been the first country in the world to shortly impose a mandatory legally bind Climate Change bill, we were still leading the way. I agree, the way to hell and back. The point is this; the debate here was between the uber moonbat left (Monbiot) and the barking left (Benn). Why was there no voice for those who challenge the entire AGW lunacy? The BBC has clearly adopted the Al Gore “the debate is over” mindset and merely now seeks out new and exciting ways to tax us in order that the Polar bears may swim free. On a lighter note, it was amusing to hear Hillary Benn say that “the time is not right” to punish us with individual carbon footprint allowances when WE all know that the only reason he says this is because Labour electoral fortunes are diminishing faster than the Arctic ice shelf!

Following on from this, there was a remarkable item celebrating 20 years of rap band Public Enemy and an interview with lead singer Chuck D. Now Chucky boy is a great admirer of the renowned anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and was allowed to have a go at Bush, Thatcher, the Queen et al. Apparently such has been the significance of Public Enemy that such mere details can be skimmed over in prime time interviews with but the most cursory reference. Chuck is a huge fan of Obama and can’t wait for “the changes” that President Obama will bring. I bet.

Finally, I listened to an interview with veteran Clinton bagman, Sidney Blumenthal being given free rein to shill for Hill! Blumenthal was allowed to attack the GOP whilst making the most outrageous claims for Hillary Clinton’s increasingly redundant Presidential campaign. How is it that the BBC could not find a US Republican to counter Blumenthal’s black propaganda?

After one hour of this dismal left-wing US bashing gangsta loving environmentalist drivel, I did the most important thing possible – and turned it off

! Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely!