. But I must make time to draw your attention to the BBC’s Israeli-Palestian impartiality review. the Panel invites written submissions from any individual who would like to comment on the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and will take account of these contributions as part of its process. You can write to the following address: Israeli-Palestinian Impartiality Review BBC Governance UnitRoom 211, 35 Marylebone High StreetLondon, W1U 4AA Or … Continue reading →

This is not an example of bias. But the BBC do like to display their multicultural virtues and awareness of diverse faiths. So this cricket report is rather unfortunate. “Flintoff capitalised two overs later, with a delivery typical of former Pakistan captain Waqar Younis, utilising reverse-swing to beat new batsman Mohammad Yousuf.” New batsman, eh ? Most people would think 59 Tests, over 4,000 runs and 13 centuries made Mohammad … Continue reading →

Here is a BBC account of excavations in Gaza. These were the bones of the ancient Greek city of Antidon. And they were testimony to the extraordinary richness of Gaza’s past. Not only the Greeks passed this way. The Pharaohs of ancient Egypt, the Persians, the Romans, the Crusaders, the Turks, the British and many others left their mark on Gaza. Missing anyone? Now I don’t pretend to know whether … Continue reading →

Villepin “seemed to strike the right note” says the BBC. Suckups. Can anyone confirm the impression I got from a commenter that for a while the link text leading to this story actually said, minus the “seemed”, “Villepin strikes the right note”? The American Expatriate analyses the evolution of the BBC’s coverage of Wilson’s trip to Niger. This post is extremely detailed and supplies copious links. [UPDATE: There’s a follow … Continue reading →

Hey, Natalie and I cross-posted- and I’d just like to note that, concerning Scott’s posting, we’re both right! Nanny Beeb wipes Indie’s posterior. I mention this story- largely (for us) concerning a BBC headline- not just because regular commenter PJF noticed it, as did I, obliquely, and not just because Scott Burgess, following his excellent analysis of a fallacy, included in his subsequent analysis the BBC, but because it’s typical … Continue reading →

has a sequel to our earlier post about the attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt – attacks which were reported on Al Qaeda sites before they made the BBC site. It’s worth quoting in full: Only last month, the port city of Alexandria saw some of the worst sectarian disturbances the country has ever seen. This is from the BBC’s ‘Arab affairs analyst’ Magdi Abdelhadi, comenting on the Egyptian government’s … Continue reading →

John Simpson makes understanding the BBC’s position (which has been mixed enough to create confusion) nice and clear. The BBC’s World Affairs editor says ‘Nicolas Sarkozy, the Interior Minister, now seems to be playing politics with the situation by appealing to the most basic and resentful attitudes of conservative France.’ Simpson also blames the French system for its neglect of the immigrant ‘burbs, yet- correct me if I’m wrong, but- … Continue reading →

This “personal view” by historian David Cannadine is a strange mishmash of an article. To start with, I’ve never heard of this “Guy Fawkes Day”. Bonfire Night is presumably what he means. It is explicitly stated to be the personal view of the author, so it can be held to a somewhat less stringent standard of impartiality than the BBC’s main output. Somewhat. (Although see this comment by PaulC, who … Continue reading →

. Here, shorn of the odd rude word, is commenter Ritter’s view on this BBC story by Hugh Schofield: Sarkozy’s tough talk misses mark His analysis is summarized thus: Sarkozy is a right winger. Therefore he is wrong or in Hugh’s words “out of kilter” with public opinion. Chirac & de Villepin are to the left of Sarkozy. Therefore they have got it right. Hugh’s analysis is contradictory. He asserts … Continue reading →

is posting away merrily. Like it says on the can, this blog is by an American expatriate, and he is particularly strong on American affairs. One Step Forward, Two Steps Back is not the pamphlet of that name written by Lenin but a careful critique of an amended piece by the BBC’s Paul Reynolds on the Wilson / Plame / Libby affair. Scott Callahan argues that the amendments were not … Continue reading →