Category Archives: Uncategorized

In the Technology section of the UK version of BBC News Online last Tuesday there was a story headlined Howard in vote ‘spamming’ row. I expected, reasonably enough, that the headline referred to Michael Howard, leader of the UK’s Conservative Party.

It turns out, for those with time to click on the link and read beyond the headlines, that it’s about John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, and some political froth, presumably of some interest in Australia.

Given the utterly obvious scope for confusion between the Leader of the Opposition here and the Australian Prime Minister there, why was the headline so ambiguous? It would have been much clearer to say, for instance, Aussie PM in vote ‘spamming’ row. That would fit in the same space, and while Aussie might be informal, it has certainly been used to make plenty of other News Online headlines fit.

While we’re on the subject of Michael Howard, take a look at the News Online

MPs database. The montage of Kennedy, Blair and Howard shows Kennedy portrayed from beneath, looking statesmanlike, Blair looking a little distant, but not overly so, yet Howard is portrayed looking away from the others, mouth agape, face creased, clearly in the middle of a speech. This is in such contrast to the portrayals of Kennedy and Blair that it begs the question:

Were the people responsible for the montage (illustrator and editor):

    a) Incompetent, inexperienced and/or stupid? or,

    b) Slyly portraying Howard as badly as could be got away with?

Compare also with the photos of Howard, Kennedy and Blair on their pages in the self-same MPs database – it wouldn’t have been difficult for an organisation with the resources of the BBC to portray these much photographed politicians on reasonably equal terms if they wanted to.

Perhaps both of these cases are just unfortunate coincidences (among all the other ‘coincidences’ recorded on this blog). The question is, how many ‘coincidences’ does it take before the childish lefties who engage in such tricks realise that the game is up? Why can’t they just do what they’re paid (by every telly-taxpayer in the land) to do, namely record and report the news objectively and impartially, without taking every passing half chance to sneakily indulge their own prejudices?

from Jeffrey Archer’s

* A bargain £9.99 (RRP £18.99) from Sussex Stationers/British Bookshops in the South East. They’re much smaller than Amazon and have the overhead of running a retail chain, yet are cheaper year in and year out across a range of recent books.

Whilst reading this Guardian story (“Republicans bring out the knives”, indeed) that mysteriously appeared on BBC News Online I noticed the Related Internet Links list reads:

– 2004 Republican Convention

– Counter Convention

– George Bush

– John Kerry

Who or what is Counter Convention I wondered? A quick look later, and lo, it’s a website set up by a ‘collective’ of ‘protestors’ and ‘activists’ who are ‘dedicated to helping New York City’s diverse social justice movement oppose the Republican National Committee’s Presidential Nominating Convention’ on which ‘People of color, LGBTQ, women, poor people, immigrants, and their allies are encouraged to list counter convention organizing and events’. Right on!

But why is the collective’s website listed there? A quick Google later and it turns out that Counter Convention is listed all over (52 pages) the BBC’s coverage of the Republican Convention. How subtle.

Studying a selection of pages covering July’s Democrat Convention I found, in the main, that they linked to Kerry, Bush and sometimes something else directly relevant to the story at hand – e.g. Boston Police, Barack Obama, etc. – but little, if anything, to third-party opponents.

One page, Democratic convention: First day in quotes, links to International ANSWER – Act Now to Stop War & End Racism. Google shows forty-five News Online pages contain the term ‘international answer’.

And who are International ANSWER? Unsurprisingly, it turns out, according to an article in LA Weekly (and many others) that they are a front for the World Workers Party – an offshoot of our old friends the SWP (a schism dating back to the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary, apparently).

None of this is a huge surprise to seasoned News Online watchers – leftie groups are often favoured with links, more so than seems to be the case with groups that aren’t so right on. What is shocking is that the leftie sympathisers at News Online who indulge in such petty favouritism day in and day out think that it’s acceptable. It’s not. They’re a bit like young children – they know they shouldn’t do it, they know Mum and Dad (the telly-taxpayers) are watching, and yet they strain so much to mutter the last word, to do what they know is right, to go to the limit of what they can get away with, that they just can’t help themselves.

Any one of these instances of favouritism could, of course, be ignored – but a long term pattern of small digs, sly nuances, subtle references and selective omissions reveals an awful lot about the motivations of those who compile News Online.

Note: In consideration of feedback I have deleted the original paragraph six – it compared occurrences of ‘Kerry & MoveOn’ vs. ‘swift boat’. This comparison was erroneous and shouldn’t have been included. It was irrelevant to the points – that: 1) News Online have listed a leftie protest group on many stories about the RNC (a lot of free publicity on pages that aren’t even about protests); 2) International ANSWER, linked from many News Online stories, is a front for hard-left anti-democratic Marxists. The original paragraph six was online from ~4.00am to ~11.45am UK time.

Last Wednesday, 25AUG04, News Online featured a story headlined Gay group protests over Mobo list about the nominations of artists whose songs include allegedly* homophobic lyrics, as highlighted by the gay rights group Outrage! When I went back to look at the story after the weekend it had changed:

– the first paragraph used to end ‘allegedly include homophobic lyrics’, – the word ‘allegedly’ has now been deleted – so it has changed from being an allegation to an unarguable fact.

– the paragraphs after Police investigation used to read:

The BBC’s Julian Payne, who is organising the coverage, said: “The BBC will not broadcast any homophobic lyrics. A reggae artist is unlikely to perform such a track at the Mobos anyway.”

The BBC will use delayed broadcast to show the awards, rather than live coverage.

They now read:

A spokesman for the BBC said: “The BBC will not broadcast any homophobic lyrics.”

The BBC will broadcast the event on 6 October.

Curious. Why the changes? Why the sudden anonymity of Julian Payne? Why the excision of the bit about the BBC using a delayed broadcast? (maybe they feel guilty after all those jibes and sniggers about American prudishness after the Janet Jackson ‘wardrobe malfunction’). Why the change of heart about the probability of a reggae artist performing ‘such a track at the Mobos’? (as if a reggae artist would ever perform such a track!).

But, the main point here is, why the stealth? Why aren’t BBC News Online professional and honest enough to admit they’ve changed the article? The timestamp even says “Last updated: Wednesday, 25 August, 2004, 11:54 GMT 12:54 UK” – yet clearly the article has been updated since then.

As the BBC has seen fit to spend our forcibly acquired tellytax pounds on acquiring the rights to this event I hope that it goes off better than last year’s did, and that the various interested parties don’t fall out with one another.

* I’m unfamiliar with the repertoires of Messrs. Elephant Man and the Vybz Cartel ensemble, hence my use of the term ‘allegedly’. Perhaps the BBC did some research to confirm whether the lyrics are homophobic – although one wonders who the BBC are to judge such things when they’re so loathe to ascribe the term ‘terrorist’ to those who are clearly terrorists – e.g. the ‘militants’ (BBC One O’Clock News today) who’ve taken their armed struggle to a schoolful of children and their parents on the first day of term in Beslan, North Ossetia.

Miller time at the Convention.

Naturally I’m not going to say the BBC is worse in some of its US political coverage than other media- after all, they have less at stake than the US networks. Also, today I watched an appallingly cut report on ITV that gave the only articulate lines to Michael Moore- the rest was frenzied Repugnican ‘whooping’. Furthermore, the only reason I am led to make comments about the BBC’s US coverage here is that the BBC clearly make it an important part of their output- and that makes it of concern to B-BBC.

However, and I think it’s a big ‘however’, there were two major speeches last night- Cheney and Zell Miller, Georgia Democratic Senator- and Miller’s amazing performance was cut down to two quotes in a BBC report focussing on Cheney, both ones that I had marked out as contentious from Miller’s speech (and which other media outlets have since criticised):

‘ “Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations,” Mr Miller said.”Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.” ‘

In fact Miller’s speech was an indictment of the record of the kind of Democrat who is running affairs in that party today. It included a point by point analysis of Kerry’s voting record, comparing the attitude such voting projected with a traditional Democratic attitude that underpinned the likes of Truman and Kennedy, and which assisted Reagan in strengthening the US military to face down the USSR. In other words it was a ‘why I’m a Democrat who can’t support Kerry speech’.

Naturally this was a controversial argument, but that is what conventions are about. I am relating the controversy that was in evidence last night- talking about its nature and quality- because that is what the BBC are failing to do, despite being ideally placed as apparently and self-proclaimed impartial, external observers. The points they highlight would be among my top tips for places to start in trying to refute Miller’s speech, which says a lot, I think.

Miller fares even worse in this opinion piece from John Shields (which again makes its focus the Cheney speech- which was fairly predictable fare, although effective and in keeping with conventions).

Talk about the BBC’s belief in the Right being the ‘nasty party’!

You might have thought that as a traditional Southern Democrat who gave the keynote address endorsing Bill Clinton in 1992 (takes me to point this kind of thing out, see?), and no longer seeking office, Zell Miller’s performance might have been accorded some respect. Not a chance.

According to Shields,

‘Mr Cheney and Mr Miller are the only major speakers at the convention who have no presidential ambitions of their own, so they were able to turn nasty without fear of the consequences.’

What a way to smear Miller- and inaccurate about Cheney (and what about Arnold, technically ineligible?). Why should Cheney aspire any higher than pulling the strings for GWB (if we are to believe the caricature)? Won’t it damage Cheney if ‘negativism’ rebounds against the Republicans this time ’round?

Not content with a smear job, and under-reporting Miller’s credentials, Shields then misrepresents his message (tying neatly with the quotes they latched on in their main report):

‘Mr Kerry’s respect for the United Nations was derided with loud boos’.

Beeb-brains! It wasn’t Kerry’s ‘respect’ for the UN that was on the agenda, it was his subservience to it (which, ok, is a matter of debate, except that Shields doesn’t debate, he imposes).

Then, we get this classic dismissal of a very proud record (good enough for Bill Clinton 12 years ago):

‘His political acrobatics have earned him the nickname Zig Zag Zell among Georgia Democrats.’

Hence, opines, Shields, nothing to worry about (for the Democrats).

Something tells me that Miller’s speech, condemning Kerry while proudly and carefully steering clear of Republicanism, would be very bad news indeed for Senator Kerry’s election chances if fate decreed it to be widely known and published- but then such matters of ‘fate’ are largely decreed by the big media, aren’t they?

B.T.W. Powerline’s comments demonstrate that the BBC and the New York Times have much in common in their view of US politics- and I assume we know what that means.

Also by the way, the text of Senator Zell Miller’s speech to the convention can’t be found on the BBC site (it also expired on Yahoo news). Zell’s so yesterday he’s practically out of sight.

Meanwhile, Michael Barone thought Zell was ‘electrifying‘

I’d say the BBC has been quite muted. Obviously there’s a lot of politicking involved- you are not getting a glimpse into anyone’s soul- but from the BBC you would think that the whole thing was hollow as an easter egg.

Take what were generally regarded as quite powerful speeches on the opening night. Rob Watson had his own way of presenting them.

On John McCain, he said ‘what John McCain has done, when faced with a choice, is stick with his party.’

No cynicism there then.

On the generally rapturously received Rudi Guiliani, he had another formula ready,

‘The Republican Party faithful did not come to New York to hear nice things about John Kerry.

They came here to see the other side get bashed, and tonight John Kerry got a good bashing.

And he got that bashing from a man seen as a moderate Republican, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani.’

You have to notice that phrase ‘seen as a moderate Republican’ to appreciate what Watson is about here. It’d be wrong to suggest that there really was such a thing as a moderate Republican.

For a real, though partial, take on the Guiliani speech I thought Powerline did very well.

If you’re going to talk about a moderate Republican, you have to say first of all how weird and extreme the unmoderate ones are. For that we can turn to Michael Buchanan, who gives some helpful hints:

‘The written platform of the party remains solidly conservative, but the moderates have been on display during the convention. Some moderates, such as the gay Log Cabin Republicans, have spoken out against positions against same-sex marriage and gays in the military.’

On the subject of ‘bashing’, referred to above, I am brought to reflect on the oddity of the BBC’s notion of impartiality (which is not impartially applied, I ought to add). It seems that because Bush-bashing, involving Bush-Hitler type mudslinging, undeniably exists (and has for ages), the anti-Kerry stuff must be de facto ‘bashing’ Kerry. The fact that most Bush-bashing has been for years been practically worthy of an asylum, but criticism of Kerry is relatively recent and based in undeniable facts about his voting record- and his boasting record- seems to go over the BBC’s head.

Below I asked What’s the difference between an interview and a sketch?, as helpfully demonstrated by Brian Wheeler of BBC News Online. By way of a related follow-up: What’s the difference between new news and old news?

Unfortunately, News Online don’t provide an answer this time. Surprisingly, the same Gorgeous George Galloway puff piece, last updated on Friday 13AUG04 (allegedly!) is still featured on the main BBC News Online Politics page – over two and a half-weeks later – in a nice highlighted box near the bottom, with a picture of George (in full flight, “Sir, I salute your courage, your indefatiguability” etc., etc.) and the words “Due Respect? George Galloway says he is building a new labour party”, along with, it seems from this undue exposure, the tacit support of BBC News Online!

In the interests of thoroughness, I’ve looked at the timestamps of all the pages featured on the News Online Politics page. The Galloway puff-piece is dated August 13th. The next oldest article is an anodyne piece about the size of the civil service, dated August 19th. After that, everything else is dated from the 25th to the 31st of August (with two exceptions – they being ‘see also’ type links to the lead story about Tony Blair).

So, how much longer is Gorgeous George’s puff-piece going to stay in the BBC spotlight? The only thing we can be sure of is that someone at the BBC likes seeing George’s mug sitting there on that page.

Update: Within twenty to thirty minutes of this post going live the News Online Politics page to which it refers was updated, replacing the George Galloway feature with a link to another Brian Wheeler article, this time about fox hunting. Just shows we’re not alone – don’tcha just love ’em!

Update 2: For those who require proof beyond my word for this, take a look at Google’s cache of the News Online Politics page. Google’s version is dated Sunday, August 29th, 23:52GMT 00:52UK (i.e. Midnight Sunday/Monday) – and look, there’s George’s mug jutting out at the bottom (until the cache is updated or the BBC nobble Google!).

I was saddened very much by a letter in yesterday’s Sunday Times*, concerning the horrific judicial murder in Iran of a sixteen year old girl, Atefeh Rajabi, because, it appears, she annoyed the so-called judge at her so-called trial for the so-called crime of “acts incompatible with chastity”.

Googling for the story produced a number of supporting accounts, including this one at Iran Focus. Reports of the case were also highlighted by Amnesty International UK last Tuesday, 24AUG04. Later I read an article about it in The Sunday Telegraph, Death and the maiden in Iran*, by Alasdair Palmer.

As Palmer says, “can you imagine the response if a 16-year-old girl was executed for having sex in Texas?”, or for that matter in any number of countries around the world?

Which begs the question, given that the BBC’s much-vaunted Monitoring Unit at Caversham brings us news round-ups from radio, television and press around the world, such as this one from the Middle East, Press relief at Najaf deal, why haven’t they apparently picked up on the tragic case of Atefeh Rajabi? And if they have, why hasn’t it been investigated and reported by the BBC yet?

They can hardly claim they don’t have time to cover Atefeh Rajabi’s story when they find time to cover stories like, to pick an example from Sunday evening, Thai capital elects new governor.

Last year, the case of Amina Lawal, sentenced to death by stoning for adultery, under Nigeria’s Sharia law, was covered extensively by the media, including the BBC. I wonder why that case was different? Perhaps it was because her story caught on, so for any major broadcaster to ignore it would have looked rather obvious. Perhaps it was because her sentence was yet to be carried out (mercifully she was acquitted after her second appeal). Perhaps it was because there was more hope of sanity prevailing in Nigeria than in Iran.

I look forward to the BBC proving me wrong in this instance – the more light that is shone into dark corners, whoever those corners belong to, and however uncomfortable it is for them, the better.

Update: Iran Focus has a lengthy update to this tragic story, with more background material and a photograph of Atefeh Rajabi. Still no noticeable coverage at the BBC though – disappointing, especially since they were so quick off the mark to cover up their extended George Galloway promotion when that was highlighted on this blog.

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

here are a few repeats of a classic BBC News Online error – this one being one of my all-time favourite examples of the ignorance, laziness and inability of BBC News Online journos and their editors (who should know better – assuming they actually read what they edit)!

10SEP2002

Rock stages show of strength

[Peter Caruana, Gibraltar’s Chief Minister,] had earlier declared that Gibraltar was “at a crossroads in its future” and called for a future for the island that would be “free of threats, harassment and cajolement”.

12JUL2002

Gibraltar deal in offing

The government has admitted what was widely suspected by the people of Gibraltar, sovereignty could be shared with Spain.

There have already been demonstrations this year, bringing most of the island out onto the streets to protest any move to change the status of the island.

07MAY2002

‘Killer link’ in missing sailor inquiry

British detectives are in Gibraltar investigating the case of a Royal Navy sailor who disappeared while serving on the same ship as a convicted “serial killer”.

Simon Parkes from South Gloucestershire was a radio operator on HMS Illustrious when he disappeared in December 1986, after visiting bars on the island.

09NOV2001

Blair accused of Gibraltar ‘stitch up’

The British and Spanish prime ministers meet to discuss a possible deal on Gibraltar. But the local population is deeply suspicious of plans for the island’s future.

Did you spot it? Yes, of course – Gibraltar is not an island – it’s joined on to the Spanish mainland – hence the border that was closed for many years until it was reopened in 1985 (not uncoincidental with Spain’s desire to join the EEC, as it then was, at least in name), hence the border over which there are still complaints of unnecessary delays and so on.

It’s a very basic, very obvious error – yet BBC News Online journalists make it time and time again. These examples are from a couple of years ago – but there are more in their archive – and other examples that have been fixed (usually after being spotted by telly-taxpayers who write in and complain). But still they do it – they seem to lack a) an interest in general knowledge about the world; and, b) the ability to fact-check their presumptions about the world.

And still we’re forced to pay for this tosh and are expected to believe that the rest of it is accurate!

Don’t know? Here’s the answer, as demonstrated by News Online’s Brian Wheeler, a political reporter, oh yes:

One’s a magisterial puff-piece for

Gorgeous George Galloway.

The other’s a comedy piece poking fun at those

UKIP buffoons!

Of course this could just be an unfortunate juxtaposition – Brian has bylined a mere

eleven articles over two and a half years, according to the News Online search tool, so collecting a reasonable sample with which to assess his impartiality might take some time!