Category Archives: Uncategorized

Further to this post of Andrew’s concerning a notorious BBC graphic, Ralph writes:

I thought you might be interested in the rather naff defence the BBC have sent me regarding the Ascent of Tory Man graphic during their local election coverage:

“As broadcasters we face a challenge in making politics accessible. We need fresh and creative ways of telling the political story. We’re sorry you found the comparison offensive – it was not meant to be. David Cameron did say himself he found the item a bit unfair on John Major and we were happy for him to state this on air.

The ascent of man example was one small part of three hours of coverage on the programme. We had live interviews with David Cameron and William Hague. We spoke three times to our correspondent at Conservative headquarters. The story of Conservative Party’s night was comprehensively told.”

The only real defence of the item is that they didn’t mean it to be offensive, and the rest is off topic spin as if giving Cameron a right to respond was a privilege.

Ralph

Fresh from her ‘could do better report’ concerning bias in coverage of Israel and the Palestians (naturally the report found bias both ways, as you’d expect from a bunch of panjandrums), the Beeb has found it convenient again to slant against Israel. It must be so tempting for Aunty, when EU and Arab opinion knows exactly what it wants to hear, while elsewhere ambivalence reigns so that people just might not notice.

Fortunate then that ambivalence isn’t everywhere.

Melanie Phillips comments on this Jeremy Bowen report, which seems crafted to avoid blaming the Palestinians for their own actions:

‘Israeli military actions in these areas have been necessitated solely by the terrorism inflicted upon Israelis by their inhabitants and Israel’s need to defend its citizens against mass murder. (The other Israeli activity has been routinely treating Palestinians from Gaza in Israeli hospitals, about which the BBC is silent).’

Er, not quite. Bowen says ‘I was shown a cancer patient who can no longer be treated in Israel, who lay in the hospital surrounded by his family waiting to die.’

An unduly negative way of looking at the broader situation, perhaps.

Meanwhile Stephen Pollard catches a new girl on the block crafting similar barriers to understanding. Our old favourite Caroline Hawley is on the beat again, in Jerusalem:

‘BBC correspondent Caroline Hawley in Jerusalem says it is not clear why the army moved against Hamad.’ (nb: perhaps a stealth edit was made which added ‘now’ following this sentence, because it seems unlikely that Stephen Pollard just left the word off, and it’s certainly there now. Even so, the sentence implies that the Israelis could have captured the terror leader at will, anytime. What fiendishly clever fellows they must be!)

Such bias may play well in the EU and Arabia, and pass under the radar of most elsewhere, but it certainly hinders an objective view ot the situation. Business as usual it seems.

Please use this thread, and this thread alone, for off-topic comments, preferably BBC related. Please keep comments on other threads on the topic of that particular post. N.B. this is not an invitation for off-topic comments – the idea is to maintain order and clarity. Thank you.

, why, oh why is the BBC unable find space on its well-funded website to report this? For a government monopoly, the Beeb ought to be able to cobble together something.

Thanks to Hugh Hewitt.

Update 20th May:
As our B-BBC commentariat observe, there are doubts about this story. Amir Taheri, the Iranian-born scholar whose detailed report of new laws pushing an Islamic dress code has not been disproven, though the story based on Taheri’s report has been removed from the National Post website.

It’s not unheard of in recent memory for non-Muslim minorities to be given yellow ribbons, but I see why the BBC would be careful not to repeat an unsubstantiated report.

Could they not at least report the actual concerns governments have about this issue and others. Could they not at least report the undisputed debate by the Iranian parliament to strongly encourage (if not impose) more strict Islamic dress requirements on the populace?

Like a good nanny, the Beeb seems unwilling to report menacing signs from Iran lest those in her charge become overwhelmed.

Update 25th May: The Knowns: The National Post story has been withdrawn with an apology due to its lack of sourcing. Amir Taheri, a highly respected journalist of Iranian extraction stands by his original column, the basis of the National Post story. A law requiring distinctive dress conforming to Islamic practices AND identification of people by their ethnicity has been drafted and is under consideration. The Iranian Jewish community and the Jewish community at large express thanks for the public outcry against the apparent anti-semitic thrust of this proposal. The reaction to the story, even if the story turns out to be unfounded, is chillingly believable, and newsworthy of its own accord. History gives plenty of warrant for paying attention to this. The BBC is unable or unwilling to report on any of these knowns.

“Mystery over India freedom hero” says the BBCs Mike Thomson, reporting that “Indian independence fighter Subhash Chandra Bose did not die in a Taiwanese plane crash, an inquiry has found. The report into one of the great mysteries of India’s freedom struggle concluded that Mr Bose had died but not in the 1945 crash as widely thought.”

Chandra Bose may be considered by some Indians as a hero and freedom fighter (indeed the Forward Bloc movement he founded still exists as an Indian political party) – but I wasn’t previously aware that the BBC were given to describing him as such. Did the BBCs wartime bulletins use the phrase ?

The description is especially incongruous given the link from the story to this – “Hitler’s Secret Indian Army“, which describes Bose’s recruitment efforts among Indian prisoners of war in Germany (the Indian soldiers ended up in the SS, where they were to be accused of war crimes in their retreat through France).

” … by August 1942, Bose’s recruitment drive got fully into swing. Mass ceremonies were held in which dozens of Indian POWs joined in mass oaths of allegiance to Adolf Hitler.
These are the words that were used by men that had formally sworn an oath to the British king: “I swear by God this holy oath that I will obey the leader of the German race and state, Adolf Hitler, as the commander of the German armed forces in the fight for India, whose leader is Subhas Chandra Bose”

Bose was obviously one of those who, like the IRA in 1916, considered that England’s difficulty was India’s opportunity.

Thomson bends over backwards to offer extenuation. “In all 3,000 Indian prisoners of war signed up for the Free India Legion. But instead of being delighted, Bose was worried. A left-wing admirer of Russia, he was devastated when Hitler’s tanks rolled across the Soviet border. Matters were made even worse by the fact that after Stalingrad it became clear that the now-retreating German army would be in no position to offer Bose help in driving the British from faraway India. When the Indian revolutionary met Hitler in May 1942 his suspicions were confirmed …”

But by August 1942, when the recruitment drive was getting ‘into swing’, the Wehrmacht had been driving into Russia for fourteen months. According to Bose’s Wikipedia entry, “He was also, however, prepared to envisage an invasion of India via the U.S.S.R. by Nazi troops, spearheaded by the Azad Hind Legion; many have questioned his judgment here, as it seems unlikely that the Germans could have been easily persuaded to leave after such an invasion, which would also have resulted in an Axis victory in the War.”

One might have expected the British Broadcasting Corporation’s view of Bose to include the terms ‘rebel’ and perhaps even ‘traitor’. I shall ask my children to take a look in forty or fifty years and see if this “notorious insurgent” has become a “freedom hero”.

a couple of interesting links: Media groups unite against BBC:

“The government is handing the BBC an unfair advantage in the digital revolution that is changing the face of the media,” the submission says.

“The government is handing the BBC a prime public policy task that should not be the preserve of any media organisation. At the same time, it will allow the corporation to indulge in wide cross-promotion of an increasing range of digital products.

“There cannot be a ‘balanced media ecology’ where the BBC is given such strong public policy direction and support in the development of digital products. That remit needs to be curtailed.”

and ‘Prancing’ BBC News hosts berated:

Mr Mullin said: “Can we find time to debate the extent to which the tabloid virus is beginning to infect BBC television news?

“Have you noticed that newscasters increasingly no longer read news to camera, but they walk around the studio like a couple of ham actors emoting?

“I think it is called news with attitude.”

I wonder if the Beeboids will deign to have a (Don’t) Have Your Say on this topic – I’m sure the great British public will have plenty of views on the BBC (and other) prancing presenters. Don’t hold your breath waiting for a BBC (D)HYS though – tell us (and them) what you think in the comments here.

, writes Tom Mangold in Wednesday’s Independent. Formerly a senior BBC News correspondent and longstanding journalist on Panorama, I’ve always thought of Mangold as one of the better old-school guys at the BBC. Here are a couple of excerpts, laying in to the ratings chasing dolts that run the BBC nowadays:

What you are not seeing on Panorama generally are reporters of reputation, chutzpah and experience telling you what the hell Iran is up to; what on earth is going on at the CIA; whether the Labour Party really is sawing at its own throat with rusty razor-blades; how Israel and Hamas intend to co-exist; just who is the 17-year-old wunderkind chosen for England’s World Cup squad; how much longer can the Iraq imbroglio last before meltdown; and can anyone anywhere explain why our boys are in Afghanistan?

The appointment of a new editor will be BBC1’s last chance to salvage the wreckage of its current affairs commitment. One more mistake and surely the game will be up. But the omens are not good. My former boss Mark Thompson in his BBC “state of the union” message devoted exactly eight words out of 4,000 – that’s 0.2 per cent – to the subject of BBC TV current affairs. Here’s what he said: “[We are going to] find new ways of shaping our current affairs.” That’s it. Mind-blowing stuff, eh? Big commitment by Britain’s boss of public service broadcasting.

and:

Peter Fincham also promised his demoralised staff “hour-long, week-night special editions at 9pm”. Oh yeah? So what happened last Wednesday? A Panorama “special” (on yet another poor person close to death) was first kicked out of its usual Sunday night slot because it got in the way of a major feature film; next the producer was told he could have a slot on Wednesday but would he cut 10 minutes out of the film first. (Imagine Van Gogh’s agent: “Too many sunflowers there, Van old boy, take a few out, big canvases don’t sell any more.”) Then, what was left of the film was not run, as promised, at 9pm, but the truncated version appeared at 7pm (reaching a dismally small audience of 2.3 million). Why? Well, BBC2 was running The Apprentice at 9pm, ITV had the Uefa Cup Final, and Fincham could only fight back with a blockbuster film starting at 9pm. That’s the commitment to current affairs now on the channel. Cinderella was treated like Madonna in comparison.

Indeed. Lowest common denominator ratings chasing with ITV and Sky isn’t my idea of public service television either. I fondly recall, from the age of about 12 upwards, being increasingly interested, informed and piqued by BBC programmes like Panorama and ITV programmes like World in Action, TV Eye (This Week) and First Tuesday – the first of which is often but a shadow of its former self, whilst the latter are long since finished on ITV (pleasingly though, the news junkies among us can get classic World in Action programmes on DVD now – it’s worth it just for the nostalgia trip of the theme music, let alone film of things like Idi Amin on his rise to infamy. Do stop me if I ever start to reminisce about Richard Stilgoe’s piano playing on Nationwide though!).

Channel 4’s contribution to this area of TV is much appreciated. Series like Dispatches and one-offs by independent minded people of varying political hues (for instance Peter Oborne, William Shawcross, Martin Bell, Rod Liddle, Kenan Malik etc.) are to be commended, but there is so much more current affairs coverage that could and should be done, in particular by the BBC.

There are exceptions to this state of affairs at the BBC: Andrew Neil’s resurgence is a welcome nod in the direction of no nonsense inquisition (though Diane Abbott and Michael Portillo could do with a change now and again). Even Jeremy Paxman, and, to a lesser degree, Newsnight as a whole, have gone up in my estimation in recent times. Their section the other day on illegal immigration, including a packaged report by Steve Moxon, the IND whistleblower, and a studio discussion with Sir Andrew Green and Nick Clegg was very good – although Tony McNulty, the Labour minister could have done with a thorough mauling, including Green and Clegg, rather than being dealt with separately. If only Newsnight (and the BBC) could lose the awful (and thoroughly compromised) Kirsty Nark and ditch the right-on twaddle that masquerades as Newsnight Review.

There is still a place, a market and a need for decent, probing, investigative current affairs reporting in the UK. If the BBC could free itself from its prevailing anodine, politically correct pap, peddled by its self-selecting gang of Guardian subscribing drones (and the overpaid smiley, smiley ‘talent’ lounging on the corporation’s sofas) then we might get back to having decent current affairs programming that actually informs and serves the British public – the people who pay for it all – rather than pushing the right-on agenda of the Guardian’s metropolitan chattering classes.

Update: According to the Guardian Panorama jobs under threat, including, they speculate, John Ware:

Ware has produced some of Panorama’s biggest scoops over recent years, including the Who Bombed Omagh? special in which he named the Real IRA men thought to be responsible.

His loss would be a big blow to the corporation, which has repeatedly pledged not to downgrade its commitment to current affairs.

“There is a very small reporting pool within the current affairs area that is well and truly under threat,” said a source.

“They are all of a certain age and are investigative reporters who do what they do very well but can’t be fitted into other roles very easily. Ware is in a very vulnerable group.”

John Ware is another of the good guys at the BBC – if they’re stupid enough to get rid of reporters like him then they might as well axe Panorama in favour of more derivative crap like Lame Academy – paid for by voluntary subscription.

Hat tip to Ritter for The Independent link and dumbcisco for the Guardian link.

Martin Walker of United Press International had an interesting article in The Times a few days ago, beginning:

Despite a catalogue of examples to the contrary, the governors insist there is bias against the Palestinians

THE OFFICIAL REPORT for the governors of the BBC on its coverage of the Palestine-Israeli conflict found predictably that there was “was little to suggest systematic or deliberate bias” but then went on to list a series of measurements by which the BBC could be said to be biased in favour of Israel.

This produced mocking guffaws in my own newsroom, where some of the BBC’s greatest hits – or perhaps misses – remain fresh in the memory. There was the hagiographic send-off for Yassir Arafat by a BBC reporter with tears in her eyes and that half-hour profile of Arafat in 2002 which called him a “hero” and “an icon” and concluded that the corrupt old brute was “the stuff of legends”.

There was Orla Guerin’s unforgettably inventive spin on the story of a Palestinian child being deployed as a suicide bomber, which most journalists saw as a sickening example of child abuse in the pursuit of terrorism. Guerin had it as “Israel’s cynical manipulation of a Palestinian youngster for propaganda purposes”.

The rest of it is worth reading, though I’m not sure I’d go along with his conclusion entirely!

about an Old Bailey trial. So far there have been two reports, Men ‘stored 600kg bomb material’ covering Monday and ‘Terror cell bugged’ court hears covering Tuesday (there hasn’t been a report for Wednesday yet).

Both of these reports concern what is described in one as “a British terror cell” and in the other as “an alleged British terror cell”. Leaving aside the issue of whether the accused are British or just allegedly British (or do the Beeboids mean allegedly terrorists?), what I can’t figure out, from the BBC’s reports, is what was motivating these (allegedly) British alleged terrorists to behave in the manner alleged.

The only terror group mentioned is in the context of the gang’s “600kg of a fertiliser the IRA once used”, but I haven’t heard any news of Gerry Adams claiming that Messrs. Mahmood, Akbar, Khyam, Mahmood, Amin, Garcia (also known as Rahman Adam) and Hussain are victims of a British securocrat conspiracy.

So, I’m at a loss. Do you think they could be militant plumbers, like that chap back in December?

On another matter, Adloyada asks us to say: Egypt.

Please use this thread, and this thread alone, for off-topic comments, preferably BBC related. Please keep comments on other threads on the topic of that particular post. N.B. this is not an invitation for off-topic comments – the idea is to maintain order and clarity. Thank you.