Category Archives: Uncategorized

LYNDA: “How come you don’t watch it?”

THE DOCTOR: “I didn’t pay my licence fee.”

LYNDA: “Wha-? You get executed for that!”

“Tory nuclear waste sites revealed”, says the BBC.

A list of 12 sites considered for storing nuclear waste by the last Tory government has been released under the Freedom of Information Act

I’m not one to say the Beeb must always accede to Conservative Central Office’s preference for the official name of their party, but count the number of times the word “Tory” occurs in this piece. Mention is made that “The current government is looking for a definite solution to nuclear waste storage, and will start from scratch” but we don’t discover what party the current government are. Here is more about that Tory list:

It was drawn up in the 1980s, but the plan to bury waste at the sites was abandoned following the landslide defeat of John Major’s government in 1997.

We might forget the size of Tony Blair’s majority in our excitement?

TORY POTENTIAL SITES

Means PLACES TO PUT NUCLEAR WASTE rather than marginal constituencies.

Nirex is emphasising that the released list is purely historical and when a decision is made on where to store nuclear waste, the Tory list would not become the starting point of a new exercise.

…

One of the Tory list sites in Essex, at the former Ministry of Defence facility at Potton island, is just a few kilometres from the centre of Southend.

…

And there has been speculation about Stanford in Norfolk, where the MoD owns land, which is also on the Tory list.

…

Bad Tories. Voting Tory makes you radioactive.

Hat tip – DumbJon.

UPDATE: Some poor innocents claim that the towns to be scorched by nuclear fire are selected by civil servants and scientists by criteria that are scarcely affected by what political party is in power.

No, no, it was Tories I tell you!

Fear them. They seek human women.

I have to respectfully disagree with my colleague Kerry Buttram over his last post. The BBC does some very good work on Zimbabwe, that does it proud. As I wrote last February on this blog

Plaudits to the BBC, though, for continuing to do good work on Zimbabwe. Another investigation is on News 24 at the moment.

I think some more focus on the latest developments in Zimbabwe would be in order, but as commentator Mark has pointed out in comments, BBC correspondents have done numerous reports at considerable risk to themselves to show what is happening in Zimbabwe. For that, I say (as before) well done.

Take a look at this new blog, The American Expatriate. The author, Scott Callahan, is what it says on the box. He says his primary aim “is to document and counter the misinformation about America that regularly flows forth from the British media.”

Of interest to Beeb-watchers is this post about how the BBC has changed its tune about the release of John Kerry’s military records.

But the one I really liked was this one, about the nomination of Christopher Cox to the Securities & Exchange Commission. I like it for its textual analysis:

Note the constant use of the passive tense. The SEC “is expected to…” Expected by who? The BBC doesn’t say. Doubts have been raised. Who has these doubts? The BBC doesn’t say. Mr. Cox is “seen as” close to the finance industry. Seen by who? The BBC doesn’t say. Even when the passive voice is abandoned, the actors are vague and unknown. Anonymous “experts” say this and “some commentators” say that. Hell, search the internet long enough and you can find “some commentator” saying virtually anything.

And I like it because it provides a comparator:

…compare this article with the Beeb’s piece on previous SEC head William Donaldson when he took over in 2003. Note how almost the entire piece is given over to Donaldson’s own words, while in this recent piece quotations from Cox are comprised of a single, 6 word sentence fragment.

Under Mugabe’s heel the people of Zimbabwe suffer with nary a peep from the BBC. Go to the Africa page [at time of posting] and you’ll find one tepid story. Admittedly, there are links to this [2June05], this [15Oct04], this [24June04] , this, [28Feb03] this [2July04] and this [27Nov04] on that page, but nothing ‘above the fold’. Why is this not considered a much bigger story than the extremely rare ‘Koran abuse’? I leave that to our informed commentariat to decide.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Update: B-BBC commenters Mark and Scott note that they have viewed and heard some tough BBC reporting on Zimbabwe. My focus here is the BBC website, but the Beeb deserves credit where it’s due. Indeed, the BBC has been banned by Robert Mugabe’s awful regime. I saw this victim’s story posted today [8June05]. That said, it is apparently still possible to get reports, banned or not. Let the BBC website put the Zimbabwean tragedy in the center of their crosshairs once more.

Update 2: Mark B notes that there is a new story today [9June05] covering the strike. It’s a story that needs to be told.

Last night on Newsnight, reader D. Burbage noticed that in a segment on the Euro (called “Shaking the Currency”), the presenter Paul Mason (subtitle: “Business correspondent”) was explaining some economics to us — which was presented as fact, not as opinion:

This graph shows the contribution public spending has made to GDP. While Gordon Brown has been able to use public money to help sustain economic growth, his counterparts in the Euro zone have been under pressure to cut public spending, hence the gap.

Thus creating the impression that the large amount of public spending in Britain in recent years has been a good thing for the economy, and also creating the bizarre impression that Europe doesn’t spend that much, that the supposed cutbacks in public spending are what has been harming its economy, and that it needs more public spending in order to do good by its economy. (Why not just spend everything we’ve got and make us all rich beyond our wildest dreams?)

(Video link here — Mason’s comments 27m 30secs in.)

P.S. The graph was titled “Boost to GDP from Public Spending”. I’d like to know where they get these figures from. (There’s nothing on the website about it – c’mon Beeb, it’s not the twentieth century any more, put up a few links). Any economists care to comment?

. I am happy to say that Scott Norvell’s article for the WSJ.com Opinion Journal, which mentioned this site and was discussed in this post, is now available to read online.

In other news, the BBC has completely reformed. All traces of bias have been swept away. In a spirit of sincere self-criticism for past errors the entire staff have all agreed to make over their worldly goods to Jeb Bush’s campaign fund and take up life as mendicant monks.

This may not be true. I haven’t been paying any attention to the news for the last few days so I wouldn’t know. If you have been paying attention, feel free to talk about it below.

As is typical for the Beeb, this BBC article about the Euro is notable for inventing history. Contra the report, ‘Is Europe’s passion for the euro fading?’, which states that
‘It was a idea that could barely be whispered inside Europe’s corridors of power – might the European Union lose its appetite for the euro?’,
there was never a time when Europe demonstrated a passion or appetite for the Euro, which has endured a very chequered history including a dramatic Danish ‘No’ when they were given a referendum to decide the issue. Hiding behind the idea that this is some tacit criticism of the EU’s ostrichism simply doesn’t cover the facts: Euro-enthusiasm is clearly suggested.

The BBC shows an amazing symbiosis with the EU powers in its ability to forget democratic votes which go against their chosen narrative. A few years ago they unaccountably found themselves reporting that ‘The poll result is a vote of no confidence in a euro which has declined so far that the world’s central banks felt it necessary to intervene on the markets and boost it.’

Now of course that’s been air-brushed away in time for the valiant ‘down but not out’ Euro to fight another day. Meanwhile the choice to lead with the Germans’ discontent rather than an Italian’s genuinely revolutionary (and quite popular) anti-Euro passion shows the BBC’s preference for Euro insiders rather than sceptics despite the fact that the Italian made the real splash, both in the hearts of Europeans and the pockets. The Beeb journalist dismisses this as ‘posturing’, yet I don’t think I’ve heard much about pro-Euro, or even pro-EU (amounting to the same thing) ‘posturing’ recently, despite the absurdities of Chirac and co.. Can it be that the Euro is too unpopular for supporting it to be populist? Seems like the Beeb have had enough of that nasty democratic nee-saying posturing for the time being.

Check out this juicy morsel in the mouth of the Rottweiler Puppy! Naturally the fellows at the R.P. fully deserve this link for assiduously linking this site and others supportive of Our Cause (and for invaluably antagonising the Enemy- see R.P.’s comments box). Well done chaps! Adda boy, Puppy!

or How the Children’s BBC Website Channels the Anti-Globalisation Lobby. Inspired by a comments debate here I typed in the word “trade” into the search box of the Children’s BBC Newsround site and took a look at what I got. Some of the results referred to illegal trade in animals or animal skins. I excluded these from consideration – perhaps prematurely.

My first significant result was “How fair is international trade?” – a lesson plan on the CBBC website provided by Christian Aid.

That’s three issues for debate before we even start. A lesson plan from Christian Aid on the BBC. A right little tranzi love-nest. Excuse me, why are the BBC doing lesson plans anyway? I must have missed the widespread public consultation that preceded the decision that a portion of your license fee was best spent giving a state-subsidised body market share in the lesson plan business. Tough luck on anyone in the private sector who thought that there might be an honest penny to be made providing resources for teachers. Never mind, anyone who wants to make a profit from education is obviously evil and best kept far from our little ones. Why, they might start saying “on the other hand” and contumaciously adding counter-arguments to the lesson plans that Christian Aid provides. At least we can trust the BBC not to do that. I’ll come to what changes the BBC does make to Christian Aid material later. For now, just bear in mind that the lesson plan includes this sentence:

Such companies can provide work and enrich a country’s economy – or they can exploit the workers with low pay and destroy the environment.

OK, so what else does this Christian Aid lesson stamped with the BBC imprimatur plan actually teach? It starts with an “icebreaker”:

Ask the class:

What do we know about the fairness of rules?
What are the risks if powerful people make up the rules for trade? Prompt: Rig them in their own favour, they behave unfairly.
How can we make sure the rules of trade are fair? Prompt: Let everyone get involved in making them, have a referee.

An exceptionally independent-minded child might wonder if the “powerful people” who rig the rules in their own favour might include governments or the referees their club appoints – but as any observer of playground dynamics knows, most children are not independent minded.

On to the next one. Fair Trade chocolate. It’s OK: an account of a cocoa-growers’ association. Two and a quarter centuries of economic theory make the reference in the opening sentence to a “fair price” controversial. Maybe one day the BBC will hire someone who is aware of this.

Could trade replace aid? Another lesson plan, this time from the Fairtrade foundation. I don’t have any blanket opposition to people using that wonderful capitalist spur to ethical behaviour, the brand name, to enable bodies like the Fairtrade foundation to get advantageous terms for producers and let consumers buy a feelgood factor with their coffee. But is there any good reason why the BBC always publishes (or perhaps commissions?) lesson plans written by bodies like the Fairtrade foundation and never by free-market think tanks, or indeed multi-national companies?

This plan is basically the same format as the Christian Aid one: get the little bleeders to prepare for a career as bureaucrats by writing some Rules. Do not get them to discuss why they or anyone else should assume the right to write Rules governing voluntary exchange between other people. After a diversion into Marx’s Labour Theory of Value (“The producers will get a price that reflects their effort”) the plan goes on to finish with that old teacher’s standby, the quotable number. We are told that someone from CAFOD says “Poor countries currently lose £500bn a year in unfair trade.” I was amused by the care taken to source the unimportant part of the quote (which fellow-tranzi said it to whom) compared to the blithe unconcern about the important part (how the figure was calculated and whether it is true).

My next result was “How Fair is International Trade?” Good heavens, a lesson plan from Christian Aid! So good they named it twice. The one I mentioned earlier dates from March 2005. This one carries the date September 2004. My energy ran out before I could establish whether there were any minor changes of wording but I can confirm that the background is white rather than blue and the incomprehensible picture of papier maché puppets is placed at the top rather than to the right.

What is Fair Trade? This tells you what its supporters think fair trade is and says famous people like it.

“Make Trade Fair has celebrity supporters such as Coldplay’s Chris Martin and U2’s Bono.”

Or, as the Daily Ablution described him, “the philosophe and future Nobel Laureate” Chris Martin. Why the BBC failed to mention the “theologian/ethicist Thom Yorke of Radiohead” is a matter between the Board of Governors and Mr Yorke’s publicist.

This article also features external links to Fairtrade and Make Trade Fair. Naturally there are no external links to any group failing to toe the party line. Internal links take you to the other BBC articles in the series, called “What is the World Trade Organisation?”, “What are transnational corporations?” etc. I had a go at them in my earlier Fair Trade 4 Kidz post. Back then I raged that in all the four articles I linked to there was literally half a sentence (from the transnational corporations one) saying that trade might be a good thing, and that was instantly quashed in the closing clause. The sentence I was referring to was:

Such companies can provide work and enrich a country’s economy – or some say they can exploit the workers with low pay and destroy the environment.

Yes, that’s right. It’s exactly the same wording as the sentence from the Christian Aid lesson plan except that the BBC, stern upholder of impartiality, added the words “some say.” I would like to know who copied whom. Did Christian Aid copy the Beeb, as the dates suggest? Or did the BBC lift a standard Approved Phrase from the Christian Aid website? Either way, the BBC is too close to a political organisation.