Category Archives: Uncategorized

In an article headlined Lib Dems accused of Tory alliance, concerning an email from a Labour candidate to his supporters (helpfully “released officially by the Labour Party” – no journalistic derring-do required) with the usual sort of leftie ferrets-in-a-sack by-election smears (although this time, for once, The Liberal Democrats are receiving rather than giving – and, to quote Corporal Jones of Dad’s Army, “they don’t like it up ’em”!), there was a funny bit near the end that read:

‘Running scared’

And, regarding the forthcoming by-election, [Matthew Taylor, Lib Dem Chairman] added: “This is developing into a clear two-horse race between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, with the Conservatives giving up before it has begun – and this e-mail proves Labour are running scared.”

These sentiments were echoed by the Tories, who accused Labour of paranoia.

Ah yes – that would be right – of course ‘the Tories’* would echo the Lib Dems sentiments and their hoary old two-horse race chestnut. No doubt about that at all.

It’s nonsense of course – but the funny bit is that the original article was posted at 14:45 last Saturday. The latest version, without the obvious canard, is dated Monday at 11.27 – so it took the BBC nearly two whole days to spot and correct such an obvious error.

Don’t these people read what they’ve written before they publish it? Doesn’t anyone else at the BBC read it (within minutes or hours, rather than days)? Or does it take until Monday morning when some poor bloody telly-taxpayer writes in for them to finally notice it and fix it? Or did they think they could get away with such nonsense?

I suppose we should be thankful that this one wasn’t given the full stealth-editing treatment. I still look forward to the day when News Online are professional and honest enough to include a log of authors and amendments as part of each story – it’s the only way they’ll be properly and fully accountable to us, their adoring captive market.

* I presume the BBC (in common with everyone else on the left) almost always refer to the Conservative Party and its members as ‘Tories’ because a) it’s easier to sneer the word Tory; and b) it’s a historical insult from a few centuries back.

Perhaps now that the BBC politely refers to terrorists as ‘militants’, lest the sensibilities of terrorists and their supporters are offended, the time has finally come for the BBC, in the interests of their famed balance and impartiality, to drop the term Tory, pejorative connotations and all, too!

* – Dyke to denounce ‘traitor’ governors. Apparently:

The former director-general, who will present a Channel 4 documentary next month to accompany his memoirs, claims his offer of resignation was a token move that he thought would not be accepted.

And:

Dyke believes that, had Davies been present at a second governors’ meeting the next day, he would have argued that there was no need for Dyke to resign.

At this meeting, Dyke was shocked when several governors — including Neville-Jones, Hogg and Ryder, a former Tory chief whip — argued that his resignation should be accepted.

Some believe Dyke may have been a victim of snobbery. He was the Labour supporter with traces of a Cockney accent who met with the disapproval of “establishment” governors.

At the meeting, Dyke’s resignation was accepted by eight votes to three. A week later, the governors met again.

And, get this:

Dyke wrote a letter asking for his job back, arguing there had in effect been a miscarriage of justice as he believed he had a deal that he would not be a second fall-guy after Davies. In the end, Dyke left the BBC with a severance package of £456,000.

Oh, the inhumanity of it all, the snobbery, the poor lamb. Let’s get this straight, Dyke offers his resignation, the Governors accept, Dyke then claims he is a victim of a miscarriage of justice!

Nothing to do with a monumental cock-up, nothing to do with not checking the facts first, nothing to do with backing a dubious story to the hilt, and nothing to do with getting in such a deep hole that there was no alternative other than to keep digging.

What a pillock. If the governors weren’t sure of their decision to ditch Dyke before then they certainly should have been after such a petulant performance. That and the oh-so-rapturous reception of the BBC staff when the People’s Greg walked among them! Bosses should command respect – not hysterical mass-adulation – particularly bosses of large public institutions spending billions of telly-taxpayers money.

Poor old Greg, he just doesn’t get it, does he?

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

The BBC anti-Bush sniffer dogs were quick to uncover the story of Iraqi Olympic footballers criticising Bush, and swift to publish. The story was based on a Sports Illustrated interview with team members, and their coach.

The BBC reported:

‘Midfielder Salih Sadir said the team – which won its group stage in Greece – was angry it had been used in Mr Bush’s re-election campaign ads.’ This would have been a good opportunity for the BBC to have used their famous ‘scare-quotes’, but for some reason they missed it.

They also fail to point out that the Iraqi football team are not mentioned in the ad., titled ‘victory’.

It would be clearer to point out, as S.I. pointed out, that Bush ‘is using the Iraqi Olympic team in his latest re-election campaign advertisements.’- even though the Olympic teams of Iraq and Afghanistan are neither obviously pictured or directly mentioned in the ad. Even while sourcing their report with S.I. the BBC manage to make it less clear.

When midfielder Sadir says “Iraq as a team does not want Mr Bush to use us for the presidential campaign,” the BBC fail to make clear that he cannot be speaking for the Iraq Olympic team as a whole- even though he might like to.

One further way in which S.I. outperforms the BBC is in describing the backgrounds of the players. Unlike S.I., the BBC fail to mention that Sadir hails from Najaf- a fact that in current circumstances might seem significant. I don’t think ‘Sadir- from Najaf-‘ would have cluttered their page too much.

: Arthur Notices.

about the omission of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre from some BBC coverage of China’s Deng Xiaoping centenary celebrations, I had the same thought yesterday, reading an article headlined China celebrates Deng centenary.

The article does mention Tiananmen Square:

[Mr. Hu] praised Deng’s determination to maintain a tight grip on the country despite what he referred to as “political upheavals”.

The BBC’s Francis Markus in Beijing says the argument used during the time of the Tiananmen protests and which is repeated often by Chinese leaders now is that the need for stability is paramount in such a vast country.

But, as you can see, only in a half-hearted way, spouting the Chinese government line, describing what is popularly known as The Tiananmen Square Massacre as the “Tiananmen protests” – with no dates, no background, no details, no mention of who was in charge at the time.

Curious. And yet another area of unbiased, impartial telly-tax funded news coverage worth our scrutiny.

. Last week the mother and sister of Private Gordon Gentle, a 19 year British soldier who was sadly killed in Iraq on the day that the Iraqi interim government took control, walked out of a meeting with John Prescott. Here is an excerpt from Minette Marrin’s Sunday Times column* yesterday on the BBC Today programme’s coverage of their trip to London:

Mother and daughter went to Downing Street where they were received not by the prime minister, who is busy on his lamentable holiday jaunts, but by our deputy prime minister — he of the white-water rescue that wasn’t — to express their anger at Gordon’s death and their demand that Blair should resign. They made various other angry accusations and in the end walked out on Prescott in contempt.

That seems to me entirely reasonable in itself. The Gentles are and ought to be free to make their feelings known like any other citizen. But when they were interviewed on the BBC’s Today programme on Friday in the prime political slot at 8.10am, demanding that our troops should be pulled out of Iraq, I found that I was angry.

This was a classic example of the contemporary infantilisation of public debate — a deliberate emphasis on personal feelings rather than on rational, dispassionate adult argument, on the assumption that, like infants, we the public are not mature enough to respond beyond personal feeling and can’t be expected to. This is convenient commercially since the infantile corresponds so closely to the sensational, and there are megabucks to be made out of all that sensational emoting.

There is probably little that one can or should do to stop the independent media capitalising on this or splashing such personal, emotional responses, and it would be a bad day for Britain if protests like the Gentles’ were not aired widely.

But for a public service broadcaster and an influential, reputable political programme such as Today to splash such personal emotion across the airwaves as if it amounted to serious debate is another matter. The BBC should not be taking part in this infantilisation of the listener, least of all when exploiting the bereaved at the same time. It should be a bulwark against the trivialisation of public discourse.

The terrible grief of the Gentles and their understandable anger have no bearing on the rights and the wrongs of the invasion of Iraq or the deployment of troops.

Their dreadful personal loss does not give them any special insight into what is going on in Iraq and certainly no insight that they did not have before Gordon died or that families of surviving soldiers in his regiment do not have. They are entitled to their views but you can be absolutely sure that if Gordon had not died, his mother and sister would have been of no public interest whatsoever. As it is, they teach us nothing.

The death of even one soldier is, of course, terrible. Everyone thinks so. But it can make no difference to my view or yours about the current complexities in Iraq or about the invasion.

The BBC should have had nothing to do with the Gentles, especially as it seems that they may have links with anti-war lobbyists, who may perhaps be exploiting them as well.

The last bit refers, I think, to Tommy Sheridan, apparently a family friend, and a notable Militant (of the traditional non-terrorist variety) from the days of the Anti Poll Tax Union (a Militant front organisation), who has progressed from being a latterday folk-hero/rabble-rouser to the respectability of election as an MSP for the Scottish Socialist Party.

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

but not much. A BBC Online visitor unfamiliar with B-BBC and the blogoshere could (with the exception of precious few big media outlets) be forgiven for thinking this controversy is breaking news. The NY Times (registration required) has just done a hit piece on the Swift Boat Vets. (Will the Beeb follow?) The BBC has been forced, at least, to acknowledge that Swift Boat Vets who fought alongside Kerry, but don’t support his presidential bid and accuse him of falsehood, do exist. The story, at least online, is played as a typical election-year controversy between Democrats and Republicans. Still no attempt to investigate the facts of the book behind the ad and the 264 Swift Boat Veterans who have publicly signed on to its basis in fact. (Kerry is backed by 13 Swift Boat Vets.)

Note to the BBC: You are obligated (both morally and under the terms of your charter) to investigate and report this story just like you did with the ‘Bush was AWOL’ hype you were so quick to recycle from that paragon of investigative journalism, Michael Moore. Hugh Hewitt has done you the service of compiling a list of questions for John Kerry (and if not him, his campaign). And, by the way, though we’re all probably tired of hearing about Vietnam, Kerry’s insistance on making it the centrepiece of his campaign has given you no credible option but to check this out. This assumes, of course, that you really are the serious news organisation you claim to be. Or is your credibility beyond repair?

UPDATE: My, oh my, it’s bright out here. The Beeb has finally acknowledged a story that would not go away. Maybe pro-Kerry stories are preferred but Kerry’s determination to make his 4 months in Vietnam his campaign theme leaves the BBC little option. Besides, the Swift Boat vets’ book is now # 1 on Amazon and a second ad attacking Kerry’s anti-war efforts has just come out. Kind of hard to ignore.

this picture on the BBC site (or on The World’s Rudest Home Videos). But I wonder if this is what the Beeb meant by ‘standing ovation’ for John Kerry? Here’s the accompanying caption:

War veterans Jere Hill, middle, from Warham, Mass., and Robert Gibson, right, from Lexington, Ky., stand with their backs turned during Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry (news – web sites)’s speech at the 105th Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in Cincinnati on Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2004. Man in foreground is unidentified. Kerry received a polite if not overwhelmingly positive reaction from the VFW. But there was a clear divide, with scores of veterans sittings with their arms folded while others clapped. (AP Photo/David Kohl)

Hat Tip: The Kerry Spot and B-BBC commenter PJF.

UPDATE: Interestingly, I just came across this as well. It doesn’t quite fit the BBC version of the event.

CAN’T BUY ME LOVE

Sen. John Kerry is said by several advance staffers to have been visibly upset at the reception he received at the VFW convention on Wednesday in Cincinnati. “He was upset after the speech, visibly upset when he was out of public view,” says a Kerry adviser, confirming the story.Kerry was greeted by polite applause in the large auditorium, with many VFW members sitting with their arms crossed and not applauding at all. A few VFW members stood in the rear of the room with their backs turned to the dais.

Kerry appeared thrown by the reception, giving a flat, sometimes-meandering speech that was intended to be a strong rebuttal of President Bush’s announced troop pullback in Europe and Korea. Two things apparently changed Kerry’s aggressive stance. First, before going onstage, Kerry was informed that NATO officials in Brussels had essentially backed the Bush proposal as being sound and in line with NATO’s own troop deployment plans. Second, according to an advance staffer, the candidate had been told that he would be received at the very least warmly, based on feedback the campaign had received from VFW officials.

“He’s not used to not getting a warm reception,” says the advance staffer. “He can handle the Bush hooligans we get, but when he’s told he’ll be greeted well, he expects that to be the case.” Apparently Terry Kerry’s money can’t buy the candidate that kind of love.

with a scathing denunciation of the way Jo Brand of course made political jokes about Bush and Howard but not about Kerry or Blair in The World’s Rudest Home Videos. Then I realised (a) it would involve admitting that I had watched The World’s Rudest Home Videos and (b) it’s on ITV. Drat. I shall retire for a week to consider my wicked ways.

:

Yesterday, there was a remarkable example of biased BBC reporting relating to the Hugo Chavez referendum.

BBC World Service’s radio program on August 15th reported correctly that Chavez had likely won the referendum. They followed with commentary about how this result would undoubtedly not please Washington. To educate their audience about why Chavez might be unpopular with the Bush administration, did they turn to a member of the administration itself to articluate its view of Chavez? No. Did they turn to someone from outside the administration who might sympathize with Chavez’s opponents and be in a good position to provide a defense of Washington’s perspective? No. Did they reach out to a neutral third-party academic who could illuminate the tension between Chavez and the Bush administration in a vigorously neutral way ? No. Instead, they turned to the Centre for Economic and Policy Research, an economically leftist non-profit, to give its view of Washington’s view of Chavez. Mark Weisbrot, a consistant backer of Chavez in Op-Eds and radio programs, provided the following quote:

“They don’t like him because he’s a populist, because he’s also against some of the things they want for Latin America, like the Free Trade Area of the Americas, because of the oil price question, and because of his relationship with Cuba,” said Mr Weisbrot. “They add all these things up and feel they shouldn’t have to tolerate such a government even if he’s won seven elections in the last five years.” – link

In the first sentence, Weisbrot purports that Washington’s opposition is based purely on Chavez’s populism, free-trade reluctance, something vague about oil, and the fact that he has a “relationship” with Cuba. Since populism, protectionism, and normal relations with Cuba have been commonplace among Latin American governments for the last few decades, (including with U.S. allied regimes) this explanation for Chavaz’s status as a semi-rogue is unconvincing. Absent is anything about the Chavez’s authoritarian tendencies and the possibility of the end of Venezuelan democracy – such as feared in this Human Rights Watch Story.

Absent also is any mention of Chavez’s support for other dictatorships such as Fidel’s Cuba, Saddam’s Iraq, and the mullah’s Iran and his dream of organizing and rallying opponents of the United States and the ideological opponents of liberalism. Absent finally is anything about reports that Chavez has been actively aiding Al Qaeda financially.

In the second sentence, dripping with rancor, Weisbrot slanderously implies that the United States feels no obligation whatsover to tolerate popularly elected democracies if it has policy difference with that regime.