Category Archives: Uncategorized

Of all the BBC programmes on a poor (cheap) Radio 4 daytime schedule, You and Yours is the most openly and regularly biased. It expresses its BBC soft left bias in a number of ways – in the way it approaches subjects, and the subjects that it chooses to cover. Here is You and Yours in a nutshell:

– People are never responsible for their own actions, people are various types of victim

– Companies are bad

– Government intervention is always good

– ‘Something must be done’

Today’s programme was a classic.

‘Why don’t black and ethnic minority people visit rural places like the Peak District?’

First of all, let me tell you about visiting the Peak District – I did this on a weekly basis not so long ago.

1. Get up at 6:00 am

2. Buy train ticket to Matlock, Derbyshire

3. Take train to Matlock

4. Exit station

5. Start walking, ideally in a north or north-west direction

6. Avoid fields with bulls in them

7. Return when tired, wet or sunburnt (or all three together on some days)

8. Er, that’s it

Now, back to racism in the countryside.

Cue a lunatic from the ‘Black Environment Network’. Non-whites don’t access the countryside due to ‘blatant racism’. Apparently some lunatics are holding a conference somewhere on this subject.

Cue black BBC reporter sent to Hathersage. Hathersage is a pretty little village by the Derwent on the Manchester/Sheffield train line. Our reporter laments a ‘lack of black faces’, but admires the view and buys a cake from a cheerful young woman. I’ve obviously missed this, but I didn’t think that black people were now compulsory in every location – but evidently they are.

To be fair to the hapless reporter, I think he was rather embarrassed about this assignment. Even he said the reason he was not a regular rural visitor was because he preferred cities – ‘I prefer cinemas’.

Cue more lunatics, explaining it’s all about racism. The You and Yours presenter laps this up.

I’ve got news for You and Yours. Just because some nutters are holding a conference, it doesn’t mean you need to take them seriously, or devote 15 minutes of airtime. So long as people are free, and not impeded from spending their time as they choose, what is the problem? Although the BBC indoctrinates its staff to believe that race is the root of all evil, sometimes it just might not be true.

coverage continues over at NormBlog.

This is actually quite a funny BBCOnline article; intentionally so. I could vividly put myself into James Reynolds’ shoes as he described being asked by a University tutor to write his own reference for a summer job. First of all he was hesitant, and then he settled down and got on with it enthusiastically, making his case apparently invincible.
So far, so nostalgic for oddball academics; but that’s what Reynolds chooses to compare to George Bush’s statement supporting Ariel Sharon’s plans to withdraw Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank.

By now, of course, you’re thinking ‘come off it’, but then comes a punchline-
‘I have done a bit of checking. (ooh, scary…)

Ariel Sharon’s men … did help to write the president’s statement.

They are words which will now become the prime minister’s most useful reference.’
Uh oh. Reynolds has just said that the Sharon’s ‘men’ did ‘help to write’ Bush’s reference, er, statement. Unfortunately for the comparison, Reynolds wrote his own reference in its entirety, minus the approbation of his tutor and his tutor’s signature. Reynolds does not say to what degree the Israelis ‘helped’ Bush’s men craft that statement; we the readers do not know, and the suspicion is that neither does Reynolds. The er, BBC journalist, has gone and confessed his own dishonesty without proving Bush’s, or Bush’s men’s dishonesty, and he can’t know to what degree Bush and Sharon had on prior occasions agreed a common strategy (minus extra-judicial killings, naturally), let alone their staff members. Moreover, by his own account, Reynolds was completely unknown to his tutor when he fraudulently wrote his own reference.
It’s a humorous article, and when we discover that Reynolds didn’t get the job obviously he has taken a joke on himself, somewhat. But the deeper point is that Sharon is trying to pull a fast one via his puppet Bush, and that it is as unlikely to work as Reynolds’ own gambit (presumably because of the superior wisdom of the BBC in rumbling those evil Jewish conspirators in their champagne-filled private jets). Unfortunately the cap that Reynold’s wears himself- that of sneaky, unsuccessful conman- will not fit Sharon except by appealing to prejudice and unsupported hearsay, and, possibly, the merely circumstantial evidence of the controversy surrounding Sharon’s financial relationship with his son. How typical of the BBC to attack in this fashion.

– due to family events over Easter I’m behind on the mail at the moment. At the moment the comments boxes will get you on this page quicker.

Yet another reason to take a look at the comments lies in the fact that, over the last few weeks, some indefatigable defenders of the BBC have engaged in debate with the equally indefatigable anti-beebniks that make up our regular audience.

UPDATE: I have a very busy period coming up. So don’t expect to hear much from me either as posts or as replies to email until around the end of April.

comparing the grilling of the acting Israeli ambassador to the UK to the slight warming of the Palestinian chief negotiator when both appeared on Today this morning.

Also, check out the two posts below about the methodology of the BBC poll that put “the power of the US and large corporations” as the biggest threat to the world.

In particular, I questioned the methodology – which wasn’t revealed in the web article – and the fact that ” the power of the US and large corporations” were concatenated as a single issue. The latter would obviously skew the results, combining as it does the response of someone concerned with, say, US military power with that of a respondent worried about globalised agriculture.

In my view, this virtually guaranteed the result – and the leap from that to the headline seems immoderate, to say the least.

UPDATE: more on this story from Scott Burgess here. PJF, whose regular comments here anyone who follows this blog will have seen, spotted some changes to the wording of the headline.

Come back, Lord Reith, all is forgiven.

sez Beeb. It is good of the BBC to call attention to the obvious, but they did manage to miss Bush’s apology.

UPDATE: Fred Barnes and T. Bevan explain why Bush has self-important media elites climbing the walls.

writes:

One story prominently featured over the Easter holiday weekend was the leftie march to Aldermaston, including various puff-pieces in advance (i.e. advertising for fellow-travellers).

Monday’s ‘News front page’ featured two links to stories about this relative non-event. The same story is highlighted a day later on the UK news page:

Joy as nuclear marchers hit base

Deep joy indeed. The story, by Hannah Bayman, features interviews with various protestors, Giulia Giglioggi, 11-year old Leela Levitt (from Southampton “pleading with parents Malcolm and Latha”, Daniel Franceschini and Reverend Hazel Barkham.

Knowing the BBC’s rigourous and honest approach, I did a little Googling for these people.

Giulia Giglioggi returns nothing. Google helpfully suggests “Giulia Gigliotti”, from Southampton, who it turns out is a major organiser of such protests (inc. a letter in the Grauniad signed ‘Giulia Gigliotti, Nuclear Information Service’) – all omitted (or simply unseen) by our scrupulous BBC inquisitor. (‘Nuclear Information Service’ turns out to be www.nukeinfo.co.uk – also based in Southampton).

Reverend Hazel Barkham (Google alternative ‘Barking’!) is also, unsurprisingly, a prominent anti-nuclear activist, popping up around the web and around the world.

So, how could our rigourous BBC reporter omit to mention the prominence of these anti-nuclear organisers whilst writing such a happy, nay joyous, report of this traditional outing?

Another spot of Googling, this time for ‘Hannah Bayman’, reveals a number of interesting Hannah Bayman coincidences:

– Revolutionary Communists “Rock around the Blockade at Guantanamo” (in April 2000 no less), inc. Hannah Bayman “I am really interested in the Pioneers and the UJC (Union of Young Communists)” (Link);

– “Operation Desert Rescue – 9.6m children in danger” – list of supporters includes “Hannah Bayman, Southampton, BBC journalist” (Link);

– Socialist Worker 26Apr03 letters page – an angry rant about Iraqi freedom, from Hannah Bayman, Southampton (Link);

– Globalise Resistance “free Nicola and Richard” petition – signed by Hannah Bayman, freelance journalist (Link);

– The Observer 21Jul02 letters page – Hannah Bayman of London N1 writes “People across the world have marched against Israel’s war in Palestine, including 80,000 in London in May, largely ignored by the mainstream British press. In September thousands more are expected to rally in London against the threat of a bloody war in Iraq. In November thousands of activists will converge in Florence for the European Social Forum, a weekend of demonstrations and debate on the future of the anti-capitalist movement.” (Link)

It seems I’m not alone in doubting the objectivity of Ms. Bayman – Robert Hinkley has posted details of his dealings with her here and here. Note also the picture here which is remarkably like the BBC picture here.

For those with long memories, I wonder if the Chris Blake in the first picture is the same as the one interviewed by Hannah for the BBC here. If so, Hannah seems to have a remarkably intimate interviewing technique – too intimate one might think to ensure the impartiality and objectivity that a Beeb-taxpayer might expect from the “World’s premier news broadcaster”, as they term themselves.

Just to be clear, BBC reporters, like everyone else, are entitled to their personal opinions. However, in the interests of transparency, when a reporter interviews a personal acquaintance (in this case Chris Blake, a former comrade on a political magazine “Resist”), it is, at best, a discourtesy to his or her readers not to mention it.

– it’s like the normal missionary position, except you approach it from the left.

When the corporation that spent a reported £2M on Popetown (an everyday story about corrupt Catholic cardinals and a mad Pope ) and the presenter Gavin Esler (author and presenter of The New Jerusalem, a hymn to the welfare state in Britain) decide to discuss the subject of Christian missionaries, the outcome is decidedly predictable.

So it was during yesterdays edition of ‘Four Corners’ on Radio 4 (sadly not available online) – one of a large number of cheap ‘talking head’ programmes that typify the Radio 4 schedule. Hosted by Esler, one of the subjects was the decline of Christian belief in Britain contrasting with the strength of Christian belief overseas. This is a subject worthy of discussion.

The focus of discussion was primarily on the work of Christian missionaries overseas, where Christianity is a growing religion. To discuss this with Esler, they had a researcher and a Muslim cleric (I’m sorry I did not get the names – no pen to hand at the time). Needless to say, Christian missionaries are generally a Bad Thing because…

– They sell Christian beliefs on the basis of ‘this religion gets you a better job, and a nicer car’

– You can be as greedy as you want with these Christian beliefs

– They don’t respect local customs

– Christianity is the religion of computers and progress (presumably opposed to Islam)

The researcher and cleric did not bring differing points of view – just the opposite, they kept falling over themselves to say ‘how right you are with that point’.

So, what was wrong with this programme? Simply this – it’s one-sidedness. It would have been nice to hear from some of the recently converted – maybe from Africa or China. Many Africans I’ve met have had a compelling Christian belief. It would have been nice to hear from organisations involved in missionary work, such as the Catholic church. Most importantly, just some other point of view other than the BBC view – this was a good example of an inward-looking BBC talking to itself.

First we got the bomb, and that was good

‘Cause we love peace and motherhood

Then Russia got the bomb, but that’s okay

‘Cause the balance of power’s maintained that way

– so sung the American satirist Tom Lehrer.But the Beeb tells it differently.

Michael Gill writes:

I visited the following URL: “Still fighting the bomb, 50 years on.” (Typical output from the Beeb)

From that page, I followed the link to “RELATED BBCi LINKS: On This Day 1957: Britain drops its first H-bomb

Now this page did have an interesting bias.

Take a look at the “Timeline: Arms Race” box. Note how we are given dates when the US exploded H-bombs, when the UK exploded H-bombs, when the French exploded an A-bomb, even when the Chinese detonated an H-bomb.

But no dates for the Soviet Union! At all!

[Well, there are lots of dates for the Soviet union participating in talks to reduce nuclear weapons and several mentions of it having missiles and warheads. It just doesn’t say how it got them. I blame the tooth fairy. – NS]

Interesting arms race where one side doesn’t appear to be participating!

Even though the Soviet Union did detonate by far the biggest H-bomb of them all, the BBC can’t find room to mention it.

According to this website the first Soviet test H-bomb was exploded on 12 August 1953. I gather there is quite a difference in difficulty between making a static experimental bomb and one capable of being launched from an aircraft or missile. (Britain, unusually, went straight to this stage.) The first Soviet thermonuclear bomb to be dropped from an aircraft was exploded in Kazakhstan on 22 November 1955. The biggest H-bomb ever, as mentioned by Mr Gill in his e-mail, was exploded by the USSR over Novaya Zemlya on 30 October 1961. Given a very basic general knowledge of twentieth century history, these dates aren’t hard to find via Google. It’s downright odd that they weren’t mentioned in a timeline that includes such relatively obscure details as the date of France’s third H-bomb. And what the devil is the banning of landmines by the UK doing in a nuclear timeline?