Category Archives: Uncategorized

Private Eye magazine’s regular Lookalikes feature this fortnight highlight’s the striking resemblance between Vladimir Putin and Andrew Marr of the BBC, rather in line with the observations of BBBC aficionados:

Sir,

Have you noticed the sinister similarities between these two?

I have heard that one has his roots in a subversive organisation involved in the dissemination of enemy propaganda. The other is a former head of the KGB.

Should we be warned about these double agent doubles?

Yours,

TOM HOYLE,

Leeds.

I think we know all about Andrew Marr, but was Vladimir Putin really head of the KGBBC? I think we should be told…

is a featured article in BBC News Online’s Magazine section, concerning the disturbing oppression of gay people in Jamaica. Taking this as inspiration for a new BBC News Online Magazine ‘Growing up in’ series, here are some suggestions for future instalments:

Growing up female in Iran – exposing the feudal oppression of girls and women, including cases like that of Atefeh Rajabi;

Growing up agnostic in Saudi Arabia – the problems faced by Saudi youngsters as they explore issues of faith;

Growing up unmutilated in Africa – investigating the problems and consequences of female genital mutilation common in some African societies;

Growing up malnourished in North Korea – a review of the widespread malnourishment and lack of basic necessities facing most North Koreans;

And so on. I’m sure BBBC readers will be able to supply many further examples of injustice and oppression of groups that could do with having the trusty News Online spotlight shone upon their plight. News Online – please feel free to adopt these suggestions without further ado!

How awful if we were to become distracted from concentrating our attention on the contents of fake documents! Here it is at last – the Beeb reports on those Bush memos.

A short excerpt to whet your appetite:

Later in the programme (8.31) there was an item about why John Kerry’s presidential campaign has gone pear-shaped. The assumption here was that, since no sentient individual could possibly support President Bush, and since therefore it was inconceivable that Kerry would not win the election, there had to be some extraordinary reason why Kerry was mysteriously doing so badly. The fact that he is a rubbish candidate who has demonstrated over and over again his flakiness, inconsistency, flip-floppery, lack of principle and general untrustworthiness was unsayable.

– or so it seems. On 25AUG04 (the week before the last bank holiday), News Online published a story with the needlessly emotive headline Refugee ‘robbed’ of Oxford place.

The story is about a Kosovan refugee, Vildane Berani. She came to the UK five or six years ago with her parents, went to school here and managed to gain an impressive six grade A results at A level. Not surprisingly, she was offered a much sought after place to study medicine at Oxford.

And where, then, is the ‘robbery’ therein? Oh yes, it’s that UK/EU citizens fees for Oxford are “around £1,125 a year”, whereas for non-UK/EU citizens the fees are “up to £30,000 for the first three years alone” and “The final three clinical years of her course could cost even more” and that “Ms Berani told the BBC there was “no way” her family could afford this”. Note the misleading comparison of one year’s UK/EU fees with three years of international fees.

This was the first and last story about Ms. Berani on BBC News Online, at least from my observation, and according to Google and News Online’s own search engine too.

And the good news, not covered by News Online? That was in The Times a few days later on 01SEP04, in a story entitled Girl forced out of Kosovo at gunpoint wins Oxford place*.

The Times reports that “her application to the Home Office for indefinite leave to remain in Britain had been granted” and that this “means that she effectively becomes a home student, with fees of £1,125”.

The Times also informs us that “Living on benefits, her family could not afford the fees” and that “her siblings applied to study at British universities but were told that they would have to repeat several years of study, so they returned to Kosovo”.

Thankfully, with such an expensive and privileged education in prospect, Ms. Berani is apparently “determined to give back something to the country which has effectively given her her freedom”. I’m pleased to hear it, I wish her well in her studies and, if her studies go well, success in serving the cause of medicine in the UK.

I wonder, though, 1) why News Online used such an emotive headline – clearly there was no ‘robbery’ involved – bureaucratic footdragging isn’t unusual when it comes to asylum applications; 2) why News Online missed out various details underscoring how well the UK has looked after Ms. Berani’s family since their arrival here; and 3) why News Online failed to report the happy resolution of Ms. Berani’s predicament.

Could it be that News Online’s version of the story reflects their world view, and that the full background and ultimately happy ending of the story doesn’t? Or are News Online just not very good at following and reporting the news?

* registration required – see www.bugmenot.com for login info.

is unfolding at another media outlet (as this blog has noted here and here), the once respected CBS News. Andrew Sullivan explains how the curtain of ‘big media’ has been yanked by the many Totos of the blogosphere.

I have a feeling that the biggest news of last week had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the media. We are in the middle of an insurgency against the occupation of the airwaves by that amorphous group called–in blogspeak–MSM, or mainstream media. And the latest direct hit has exploded in the illustrious offices of Dan Rather and CBS News.

Sullivan notes the kneejerk defensiveness of a media not used to having its facts under scrutiny, especially by rank amateurs!

What’s riveting has been the reaction of CBS. Like Howell Raines and the directors of the BBC before him, Dan Rather seems to believe that journalism is some kind of caste profession, a calling that no amateur blogger can aspire to….

Blogging’s comparative advantage has nothing to do with the alleged superior skills of bloggers or their higher intelligence, quicker wit, or more fabulous physiques. The blogosphere is a media improvement because the sheer number of blogs, and the speed of response, make errors hard to sustain for very long. The collective mind is also a corrective mind. Transparency is all. And the essence of journalistic trust is not simply the ability to get things right and to present views or ideas or facts clearly and entertainingly. It is also the capacity to admit error, suck it up, and correct what you’ve gotten wrong. Take it from me. I’ve both corrected and been corrected. When you screw up, it hurts. But in the long run, it’s a good hurt, because it takes you down a peg or two and reminds you what you’re supposed to be doing in the first place. Any journalist who starts mistaking himself for an oracle needs to be reminded who he is from time to time.

CBS News has failed on all these counts. It did shoddy reporting and then self-interestedly dug in against an avalanche of evidence against it. Rather can blather all he wants about the political motivation of some in the blogosphere–but what matters is not bias but accuracy. His attitude, moreover, has bordered on the contemptuous; and the blogosphere has chewed him up and spat him out. He has acted as if journalism is a privilege rather than a process; as if his long career makes his critics illegitimate; as if his good motives can make up for bad material. The original mistake was not a firable offense. But the digging in surely is. It seems to me that when a news anchor presents false information and then tries to cover up and deny his errors, he has ceased to be a journalist. I’d like to say that Dan Rather needs to resign from his profession. But, judging from the last few days, he already has.

It seems like we’ve been here before.

is a typically incisive posting by Laban Tall, concerning a namby-pamby Radio 4 Today programme report on (failures in) youth justice. Well worth a read, especially for the ‘happy’ ending.

– Martin Stanford was interviewing today’s guest, dear Polly Toynbee.

Referring to Polly’s switch from print journalism to the seven years she spent reporting ‘social affairs’ for the BBC and her subsequent return to print journalism at The Guardian, Polly said that she enjoyed the extra space afforded in the newspaper and the freedom to express opinions therein. Polly then added:

“And of course, on television, we never express opinions.”

This was with a wry smile – Martin Stanford responded to the effect that ‘Ah, I can see from the smile on your face that that isn’t always the case’.

It may not be possible for BBC broadcast journalists to avoid expressing opinions, even indirectly, but surely, therefore, in the name of balance, there should an equal balance of views among journalists, rather than the apparent preponderance in favour of the left.

On Friday Ed Thomas observed in this post that the BBC had reported Dan Rather’s very much disputed allegations as undisputed fact. In one of the comments to that post Laban Tall says:

Stealth edits have arrived as of Monday morning. Save your old copies before viewing again.

Half way down we have “Some experts have questioned the authenticity of the latest documents, released after they were obtained by CBS television. ”

and nearer the end “Some forensic experts were quoted by news organizations, including The Associated Press, saying the memos appeared to have been computer-generated with characteristics that weren’t available three decades ago.

But CBS News said in a statement: “The documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but sources familiar with their content.” ”

Last updated ?

“Thursday, 9 September, 2004, 16:20 GMT 17:20 UK”

On how many occasions has that ‘last updated’ field been shown to be false? Ten? Twenty?

Later “dave t” comments:

And you have to go to Americas – Vote 2004- Bush memos to get at the freshly minted ‘amended’ version. So anyone who has not read the Beeb for a few days will not be any the wiser….damm them damm them all (cried that bloke in Planet of the Apes…)

As usual, I observe that even stealth editing is better than no editing. But it’s still not good enough. This is a question of elementary fairness: if evidence is presented against someone and then new evidence arrives suggesting that the first evidence is doubtful then the second exculpatory evidence deserves equal prominence with the initial accusation.

, entitled The School Siege – Survivors’

Stories, was a film about the tragic events at Beslan in the week

before last, with contributions from survivors and participants. I

recorded the programme to observe the BBC’s language – particularly

their apparent trouble in recognising that those who murder and

terrorise unarmed civilians in the name of politics/religion/ideology

are terrorists rather than merely militants. The following are

chronological excerpts:

00’00” Presenter: In Beslan’s School Number One there were no

limits, no rules of war, children were the terrorists’ new weapons.

01’00” Salimat Suleymanova (mother with five month old girl, both

released, and a seven year old boy who was killed): I personally

told him, “let at least the babies be released”, this is what I told

him, what else could I tell him, and the militant said “Pray to Allah,

pray to Allah”.

02’00” Presenter: Now everyone knows about Beslan, it is

the place where terrorists put children on the front line.

04’09” Presenter: As the children had prepared for school

about thirty members of a pro-Chechen terrorist group assembled in some

woods nearby, then they set off for Beslan

10’10” Presenter: What was happening inside the school

gymnasium was worse than anybody could have imagined, not only were the

children hostages, but the terrorists who had captured them were

deliberately filming a video of their actions

11’40” Salimat Suleymanova: There was an explosion, I’m

not sure what happened, but probably the two women suicide bombers blew

themselves up, I didn’t see what blew up, but we were told that the two

young women had blown themselves up. The militants themselves told us.

Maybe they lied

12’28” Presenter: There are reports that two women

hostage-takers were unhappy that they were targetting children, they

protested, and their own leader then blew them up.

13’40” Presenter: The hostage-takers began to make their

demands, the withdrawal of Russian troops from Chechnya and the release

of fighters seized in June in the neighbouring Russian republic of

Ingushetia

15’00” Presenter: As parents waited for news, and

terrorists fired on the surrounding security forces

19’00” Salimat Suleymanova: I got down on my knees and

begged them, please let me take my son with me. They said “don’t be

afraid, come on, nothing will happen, babies only”. I said, may I come

back after I pass my baby to somebody, he said “No, come on, get out,

thank Allah for being released with your baby

20’15” Khazbek Dzarasov: One of the terrorists brought

some water over for a little girl, she took a sip, but another

terrorist started yelling at him, “Why did you give her that?”, so he

had to take the water away from her.

39’05” Khazbek Dzarasov: All those militants must be shot,

we must get rid of them, if you put them in jail they will escape

somehow and continue to commit acts of terror. They must be caught and

shot. They are brainwashed to kill, and that’s all they’re good

for.

42’00” Presenter: So this was Beslan. Terrorism in the

21st century. Its weapons the emotions and the lives of children and

their parents.

The presenter uses the term terrorist extensively, although often

uses ‘hostage takers’ (which is debatable – desperadoes who deny

children water, food, etc. are hardly mere hostage-takers), but,

nonetheless, this is a big improvement over the deception of calling

terrorists ‘militants’.

However, what is surprising are the voiced-over translations of the

Russian participants – are we really to believe that Salimat

Suleymanova (whose 7 year old son was killed) referred to one of the

terrorists as a ‘militant’ and to the group of terrorists as

‘militants’? Or that Khazbek Dzarasov said “All those militants must

be shot”? I doubt it – and if indeed they didn’t use the term

‘militant’ I’d like to know who translated their words thus and why

they did so.