PDA

View Full Version : BBC


BAforever
23rd Sep 2006, 15:29
Well, just anything about the BBC, its good/bad, whatever:ok:

Tuned In
23rd Sep 2006, 15:49
Is their spreading of lies, misrepresentation and misinterpretation that nicely fits their world view a good or a bad thing? I guess that since people die as a result it's a bad thing, except in the BBC it doesn't seem a very bad thing if muslims kill people in foreign lands, so they try to avoid reporting it.

Two's in
23rd Sep 2006, 16:17
Here's a funny thing - I am fairly neutral toward the Beeb and regard it as a reasonable organisation for presenting the news. That said, I work with a lot of US Military guys who have been, are in , or are going to, Iraq/Afghanistan. Almost without exception, those who have been in theatre and been "forced" to listen to it, regard the BBC World Service as an extension of the Communist Party whose sole agenda is to present the USA, and George Bush in particular, in a bad light.

I'm not sure if this is (a) because they have never really been subjected to a news organisation that is not simply a mouth piece of the current administration, or (b) whether a Nation with the attention span of a fruit fly when it comes to world events can not cope with joined up thinking, or (c)the BBC World Service really is an extension of the Communist Party.

Tuned In
23rd Sep 2006, 16:31
Did you see the BBC's rose-tinted view of Cuba? The communist propoganda it spread about the great health-care system (forgetting to mention that the people get a far inferior system)? The convenient forgetting of the number of people imprisoned, torturted and killed by Castro's regime (it is said that Che Guevara himself executed nearly 2,000, as many as the Pinochet's regime in Chile)?

tony draper
23rd Sep 2006, 16:38
If this were the 1940's most of the BBC news editors would be blindfolded, backs to a wall sucking on a last woodbine and listening to the sound of Lee Enfield bolts being worked.
Treasonable bastards.
:suspect:

IB4138
23rd Sep 2006, 16:49
and the same would be happening at ITN!

Farmer 1
23rd Sep 2006, 17:02
I feel compelled to stand up against all those are vociferous in their views against the BBC, and register my wholehearted support for that august organisation, which was the voice of the free world in those dark dark days of World War II.

Mind you, that was when they had standards.

Krystal n chips
23rd Sep 2006, 17:21
For all it's sins, the Beeb overall is pretty good as a broadcaster. True, the standard of reporting is now poor---in comparison to the past---but still ahead of ITV which is little more than a cartoon view of the news at times, Shame really as the ITN News was once a very good outlet.

The World Service is probably one of the ( gets ready to duck---but doesn't give a rats anyway :E ) most neutral and unbiased sources of news available. And presented in such a way, a brain is required to understand the content. Likewise Radio 4.
Where the Beeb fails, is in the area of light entertainment----get rid of the :mad: called Eastenders, Holby City and Casualty etc----to name but three---anything with Bruce Fortsyth in---not funny, never was or will be--and get away from their seemingly incestutous cartel of Islington "luvvies".

And for f$$k's sake, please put N Kaplinski somewhere she can either prove she is a competent reporter----unlikely---or somewhere more suited to her talents ( nil ) like the door marked "EXIT" from Shepherds Bush !.

Tuned In
23rd Sep 2006, 17:25
Sorry, Kristal, but I think you have your head in the sand. Recently they have been shown especially deeply biased, over events in the Middle East. The World Service and internet services are as bad as or worse than the rest of the Beeb. They have been shown to be spreading Hezbollah propoganda and lies, yet still not corrected it. They criticise Israel with misrepresentations and lies, they fail to criticise Hezbollah when they are actually responsible, or the UN where they fail massively. On the other hand they are biased in favour of the political left, even nasty extremists. The BBC is riddled with bias.

Gingerbread Man
23rd Sep 2006, 17:26
Well said KnC :D
Whether it is biased or not is difficult to tell, but I think it tries hard to be neutral and, as has already been said, reports the news in a professional and intelligent way.
They still shouldn't have got rid of the Radio 4 anthem though :( .
As far as the reports on the Israel-Hezbollah conflict go, maybe I haven't been watching hard enough, but I don't feel I am being influenced to care more for either side.

Ginger ;)

P.S Anyone know the BBC's motto? (Question not open to ORAC)

Farmer 1
23rd Sep 2006, 17:30
Anyone know the BBC's motto? (Question not open to ORAC)Yes, I do.

Gingerbread Man
23rd Sep 2006, 17:37
I'll be PMing you your prize shortly :ok:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
23rd Sep 2006, 17:49
My bvrother had BBC America and I used to hang out at his place to watch stuff like Cracker and Blood in the Wire. The problem was that I just couldn't stand the commercials - and not the minute long infomercials which rated a :yuk: :yuk: , I'm talking about the constant barrage of promos for their own upcoming shows. That easily rated a :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:


and wtf was that thing with the guy bouncing on the ball thing and then that girl with the Union Jack tongue? :confused:

:=

jammydonut
23rd Sep 2006, 18:04
So if there are saddos who pan the BBC do they think CNN and Fox are any better

FormerFlake
23rd Sep 2006, 18:48
The main problem with the BBC is they hide their good, honest reporting away. Tune into BBC News 24 at 0300 in the morning and you can see some good stuff. During the day it's full of tabloid style rubbish.

The website is the same, tabloid garbage. Yet, if you do a search you can find some good stuff. However, you have to know about a story in order to search for it which defeats the point.

The coverage of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been bad beyond all proportion. I find it hard to believe they are incapable of writing accurate reports, so it must be deliberately rubbish.



I get BBC World over here in Portugal, which is generally quite good. Nice to see the people who don't pay for the BBC getting the best service.

Krystal n chips
23rd Sep 2006, 18:48
The BBC is riddled with bias.

As one is about to depart for Aberdeen--back Tuesday---and as one is not averse to starting a war --so to speak ;) :E . may one suggest your own perspective if the Beeb is hardly neutral. However, I respect your opinions of course, albeit they are wholly inaccurate . Despite it's sins, the Beeb does try and present a balanced view of events which is more than can be said for other channels of course. No news organisation is ever going to be wholly impartial is it ? But with the Beeb, if they ever got really biased, then they would be a sitting duck--and they ain't that daft !

BahrainLad
23rd Sep 2006, 19:41
Actually, what you see on News 24 at 0300 is just generic "BBC News" which is simulcast onto BBC World - hence a more cerebral, internationalist outlook. During the day, 24 has to compete with Sky News which is essentially The Sun on television...

Light entertainment is crap. Current Affairs is mixed - Newsnight, Question Time, Hard Talk, BBC World good, the 6 o'clock news, The One Show and UK regional news bad. But the Beeb is still the largest and most effective news gathering and broadcasting operation on the planet.

Documentaries are still world beaters, more so when they are done with American partners such as HBO / Discovery etc. ('Planet Earth'). In tems of interaction with the population - Radio 1 Roadshow, BBC Proms and other 'public service remits' there is no other broadcaster that does this so much, in such a varied way and with such effectiveness....

In new media terms, they lead the world - web, mobile, user interaction, digital television, HD, widescreen, digital radio, podcasting etc. etc. but then again, they have the licence fee to blow on all of this stuff...

All in all, I challenge anyone who thinks that there is a better alternative to rent an apartment in NYC with Time Warner cable, watch it for a week and then report back...:E

Two's in
23rd Sep 2006, 20:35
I did see on the World Stupidity Award thread that Fox News won an award for "Furthering Ignorance everywhere''. Hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
24th Sep 2006, 02:06
It's a bit pointless to say a news service is biased if you don't also give a definition of an unbiased news service :8

frostbite
24th Sep 2006, 13:10
Amongst the several things about the BBC which make me annoyed is their tendency to keep renewing series which were either not much good to begin with, or so long past their best before date they have become a tired imitation of what was once good.

Two recent examples:

BBC1 Countryfile - used to be tightly-focussed and interesting. Now the remit has been ridiculously expanded, e.g. today we had 15mins of some bloke stuffing his face at our expense.

R4 Quote, Unquote - the first couple of series were entertaining and amusing. Now it's just pretentious and boring (and has been for some time).

brain fade
24th Sep 2006, 13:19
Frostbite
Inclined to agree. I always switch off when 'quote unquote' comes on. Pretentious pish. Womans hour is a bit of a pain in the arse also.
But..... I think the hourly news, World at One, Today prog, Politics hour and The world at night or whatever they call the 10 o'clock news are well worth a listen. Question time is also excellent. The TV is a pain tho' and I hardly ever watch now. R4 is the best newsy channel worldwide, imho.:ok:

Two's in
24th Sep 2006, 13:53
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

I think an unbiased news service would be the one that agrees with your own personal view point on everything. That's why the BBC is such an easy target. It doesn't have to be wrong, it just has to be different.

Tuned In
24th Sep 2006, 16:34
Jammydonut

I don't pay for CNN or Fox. Fox doesn't claim to be unbiased as far as I am aware (if it does then I disapprove of thei accepted bias), and I equally disapprove of the CNN's bias, simply because it does claim to be unbiased.

Two's In

I don't want the BBC to simply agree with my viewpoint either. I would also complain if they did, even though I would not so easily see examples. Unlike them I am quite aware that some people have legitimate arguments against my views, and legitimate points of view with which I would disagree. I simply wish they could be presented fairly.

If Fox spreads so much ignorrance, then why is it the left-wing US media who lie, time and again? They have been caught out literally dozens of times in the last few years, with straight lies, fabricated stories and altered images. Some of these lies have triggered deadly violence - spreading ignorrance?

Kristal

It is nothing to do with my perspective. Some of the judgement is subjective, but it is very strong and has been backed up by statistics. Some is lies that the BBC has been caught out with, and the lies of others that they have spread simply because it fits with their own prejudices. These are left-wing and supporting of our ill-named Liberal Democrats, supportive of the EU and Islamist dictatorships and terrorists as well as communist dictatorships abroad, opposed to the US when run by Republicans.

I cannot see how you can say that this is anything other than bias.

Examples:

UK politics:

A Today (I mistyped Toady then, and am still not sure wether that was more appropriate, remembering the incident) agreeing with a Labour politician that the Conservative Party was a selfish party unlike Labour, but adding that the Lib Dems were unselfish. When I complained I didn't even get a response.

Every time they mention tax cuts on Today they make out it is negative. Every time they mention increases in public spending they make it sound positive.

Clear favouring of one side in certain controversial policies, such as a ban on fox hunting and freedom of abortion (note my lack of bias here - I agree broadly with them on one of those issues. I still think they are wrong to show bias).

A BBC presenter refering to the Labour party with the term "we" during an election campaign.

Pro-Islamist:

The refusal to mention the term Muslim or Islam in any story with negative connotations where appropriate, and sycophantic use of the term "the Prophet Mohammed" every time he is mentioned (can you imagine them saying "the Lord Jesus Christ"?).

The criticism of anti-gay or patriarchist Christians, while rarely mentioning anti-gay, and anti-woman policy in muslims, despite this being far more common and far more damaging.

The labelling of Islamic fascist terrorists as "misguided criminals"; refusal to use the word "terrorist".

A woman who is still a BBC Middle-East reporter despite reporting (apparently proudly) that she cried at the imminent death of a Palestinian terrorist leader.

Never accepted the possibility that the muslims might have been wrong wrt the Danish cartoons, or that the worst ones were actually produced by Muslims to spread violence. The BBC themselves worsened the fuss over the Pope's words, by consistently misrepresenting them in World Service broadcasts. Might have been deliberate, but it was a subtle issue and the BBC journalists' grammar is now so crap I am not sure.

Anti-Israeli:

The Jenin "massacre", that never happened. You ever hear that it was a lie on the Beeb? After all the fuss they made of the story.

Their news sites still claimed Israel fired on Ambulances even after conclusive proof that the story was a lie was pointed out to them. Of course had they journalistic standards, and had the story not fit their prejudices, they would have seen this very obvious evidence themselves. On the subject of staged events, the reported killing of the child that sparked off the intefada, even though there is no evidence that it happened at all, and nothing the BBC used to support the story suggested he was killed by Israelis even if it was not staged.

Their reporter lying that a town in the Lebanon had been flattened with no buildings intact, when a Sky reporter walked up the same street, the same day, and showed pictures of the residential areas completely intact, with only the centre destroyed.

The denying that they had been giving out the Hezbollah side when other news agencies made a story of the fact that they were completely controlled by Hezbollah.

Pro EU:

Overall lack of information that is politically damaging to the EU. Many stories I find out from other media just are not covered in the BBC, despite their importance.

Statistical analysis before the 2001 election showed that of EU-related commentary from outside sources between 90 and 95% of time was given to anti-EU. The BBC admitted this eventually, having been effectively forced to, and apologised. I saw one "debate" where all 4 people involved were pro-EU, and I include the presenter who made it perfectly plain.

A woman who is apparently still a senior news editor claiming that anyone opposed to further EU integration was "mad".

Anti-Republican US:

Assumption that the US is the worst poluter in the world. Of course not only is anthropogenic climate change still subject of a debate teh BBC suppresses by assuming one side has won, but they fail to note that the only reason the US has the highest output is high population. Did you know that Canada puts out more greenhouse gases per capita than the USA? Or that the US is a net carbon sink, unlike Europe?

Reporting US or Republican "sins", but failing to report when they prove to be lies (the desecrated Korans? The Plame affair? Bush's war records? Did you ever realise that those turned out to be lies, or hear stories of the scandals of those that told them? Do you know who Dan Rather is?).

Misrepresenting the views of senior Republicans - such as the astonishment when Bush "admitted" that Iraq was not involved in the WTC attack. Bush never said Iraq was, just that Iraq was involved with al-Quaida, something that turned out to be true (you thought it turned out false? Another misrepresentation far enough to be a lie, taking the fact that they were not involved in 11 Septmber 2001 and extending it).

Misrepresenting Bush's business links - e.g. pointing out that he used to be involved with an investment group, without pointing out that so had many senior and influential Democrats who the Beeb sucks up to.

Misrepresenting Republican policy issues, such as their misinterpretation of Roe vs Wade.

Misrepresenting the issues around New Orleans so Bush was solely to blame, despite the (Democrat) Mayor being more responsible, and to suggest that poor blacks were the victims when people in the poor areas were not more likely to have died, and nor were blacks (in fact proportionally fewer blacks died).

Misrepresenting Castro - they said with pride that he had outlasted x number of US Presidents (I think it was 7, but don't quote me) as if it was a positive thing that he is a dictator and that the US limits its Presidents' terms, and that Presidents can lose elections there. They whitewash his thuggish regime - not something they did for Pinochet, eh?

etc., etc.

This got a bit long. I kept thinking of more examples, sorry. Have to limit it somewhere, but if you want more I can give 'em to you, and these are primarily the sins of commission, the sins of omission we all know they make are much harder to identify. The BBC is biased. Not intentionally, I don't believe. I think they believe themselves to be in the centre of the plot. It is just that their views are ingrained, they assume that these views are simple truths, when they are really political opinions.

Note that the same has been said by serving and former BBC employees.

Unwell_Raptor
24th Sep 2006, 16:41
Anyone who can be bothered (as I am not) to go through the archives of this and other sites would see that the BBC is attacked as often from the Right as from the Left, which is encouraging.

The BBC has to be the most respected news source across the world. That doesn't make it perfect, but it means that it is first the place I turn to for news whwn something is going on.

BAforever
24th Sep 2006, 16:43
I Fox doesn't claim to be unbiased as far as I am aware (if it does then I disapprove of thei accepted bias

What????????:=

Live and unbiased on FOX NEWS

Quote from THEIR BROADCASTS!

Tuned In
24th Sep 2006, 16:46
As I said, "as far as I am aware". Was that particular piece unbiased? If it was not, or if they were refering to the entire output, then I would criticise them for their bias after making that claim. I don't watch Fox, only seen small amounts through third parties - as I said I don't pay for it and it is a paid channel here.

Unwell Raptor

Where? Can you name a single complaint - I named a few? That is simply not true, in my experience (and I have looked in a lot of places, some of them left of centre). Every claim I have seen against the BBC from the Labour view has been from times where the BBC criticised New Labour from a further-left viewpoint, i.e. the Beeb was complaining that Labour was not left-wing enough, or else from seriously hard left wingers.

Tuned In
24th Sep 2006, 17:11
I'd say that is fair and correct comment. Then The BBC is aligned on many issues ... Well they shouldn't be. That is bias. I disagree that they align with the majority on most issues, they certainly don't on the EU and on Islamist fascism. However regardless of who they are aligning with they should not be aligning. If they do so then they will affect mainstream opinion, and then of course they will often agree with the majority, as they are the largest news organisation in the UK, if not in the world.

brain fade
24th Sep 2006, 17:57
Tuned
Please don't get into the habit of parrotting the chimp you have as POTUS. That 'Islamic fascist' stuff is pure BS.:mad:

As for attaching credence to Fox news.:rolleyes: Only the Gullible or naive would swallow their stuff whole.:ugh:

Tuned In
24th Sep 2006, 18:05
Brain Fade

You are saying that there are no Islamic fascists? That confuses me. How would you describe the current leadership of Iran or Syria? They are nationalistic, suppressive with violence, racist, anti-democratic with some sense of personality cult. This seems to me to be the common features of fascist dictatorships. I would describe their supporters and supporters of their ideals as fascists, and am happy to defend it as a description as I believe it is accurate.

Who "...attach[ed] credence to Fox..."? I didn't read that in anyone's post, and I would like to look before commenting on it.

con-pilot
24th Sep 2006, 18:31
Like I have said in the past, take what you see and hear from the BBC and from FOX and just maybe somewhere in the middle is what really happened.

The media is the media. As the old fable goes about the horse and the snake crossing the river. They are what they are.

FormerFlake
24th Sep 2006, 22:23
The point I was trying to make was that the BBC has been quite adept in its reporting of Iraq, WMDs, the Lebanese conflict, Guantanamo, prisoner abuses, the Palestine issue etc etc and in doing so has tapped into mainstream public opinion. To say Blair has not been popular on these issues is an understatement.


The BBC has reported a lot in these cases, but to often the reports are not accurate. Or, when accurate do not give proper context. A perfect example was whn some squaddies were caught on camera beating up some Iraqis. They were caught red handed, the camera does not lie. However, they only showed the part of the video clip that showed the beatings, they did not show the riot that had happened before that. Beating civilians up is wrong, but the BBC did nothing to show the pressure these people are under, or the lead up to that specific incident.

During Gulf War 2 the BBC coverage was awful, I mainly watched ITV. However, I do remember a BBC healdine of an Apache being shot down. They interviewed a iraqi civilian who stated he had seen a parachute in the distance. The next thing was them showing the parachute by a river, it was bright white, not the 4 colour material used by the military. From what I could make out it was an Alarm missile that had no aquired a target. So the families and friends of the all the Apache crews would have been frantic and on the phone to the DOD for nothing.

That was not the only time the BBC have done something like this, there miss reporting has been seen on every incident/crash involving RAF and AAC assets. They rush to be first to release the story, but never get the facts right. There is no excuse for this, none at all.


On the plus side, BBC comedy is a world leader.

frostbite
24th Sep 2006, 22:37
I heard a bit of unintended comedy on the 10am R4 news on Friday.

They were quoting a statement from a highly placed Islamic leader with regard to suicide bombings, and the newsreader managed to read, without a hint of a giggle, "you can only push people so far, and then they explode".

Not often I get a laugh out of the news!

The item was not carried on subsequent news broadcasts, so perhaps someone spotted the unfortunate phraseology.

TURIN
25th Sep 2006, 00:32
F/Flake,
That footage of the squadies beating up civies was released by the Daily Mirror to bolster thier own story which used fabricated photos of UK soldiers beating up Iraqis. When the full video was susequently shown to them they completly altered their point of view firmly behind the soldiers actions.

Tuned in
Where do you get your news from? I only ask because if the BBC (and others) are clearly biased then your own information must be factual with absolutely no bias at all. Come on, who's your source?

FormerFlake
25th Sep 2006, 02:25
F/Flake,
That footage of the squadies beating up civies was released by the Daily Mirror to bolster thier own story which used fabricated photos of UK soldiers beating up Iraqis. When the full video was susequently shown to them they completly altered their point of view firmly behind the soldiers actions.


Evidence? How much air time/webspace was given to the short version of the video? How much air time/webspace was given to the full video?

They just package stuff in bite sized chunks as it suites them. It would be unfair to say other news channels are all better. However, most other news channels do not have the coverage the BBC has, the garunteed funding or the resources (despite this a recent BBC report showed images of a Hercules and the reporter talked about "a Nimrod, like the aircraft shown here" etc etc).

Edit:

Right on cue, breaking news from BBCi

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5376676.stm

Well researched speculation. The Chinook crews are familiar with rescueing people from minefields. There is an Op Order and procedures for doing such even in such a low risk place as the Falklands, yet they do not have them in Iraq? Again the BBC fail to show "2 sides to every story" or put any context into the story. So people yet again think the RAF are "useless" etc etc.

Two's in
25th Sep 2006, 02:32
Fox's byline here in the US is "Fair and balanced" and "We report, you decide", which strangely always makes me giggle. To be fair (that word again), when it first started in 1996, someone behind Fox was asked what the target audience was; to which he replied "the other half of the electorate". Hate it or not, that's what a lot of people are turning to for their "News" here. If it works for Liberals with CNN etc, why wouldn't it work for conservatives? The only thing that genuinely disturbs me about Fox is it's ownership. All the Orwellian predictions about globalization and a world run by huge corporations could never in their wildest fantasies have visualized "the Dirty Digger" running it all. Now that's a nightmare.

Con-pilot mentioned in another thread, an interesting parallel with all this, where some numbnuts with way too much much time on his hand didn't agree with his (Con-pilots) view (not a rare event Con) but actually started a whole thread on another site to share his angst and bitterness at Con-pilot's views. Very much in the mold of "I disagree with you, therefore I will personally attack you" loon job, and similar to the criticisms against BBC/Fox News Reporting. You don't have to agree with it, you don't have to like it, but a well reasoned and logical rebuttal makes more sense than recreating the Krystal Nacht. At least the BBC is doing what the Conservative part has singularly failed to do in 10 years, by providing an alternaitve view of events, from that which the Government provides. It might be a touch of biting the hand that feeds, but it's right up there with the First Amendment and Voltaire in that "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

People gave and give their lives every day for free speech, remember the principle, not the words.

West Coast
25th Sep 2006, 06:30
LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK


Its easy to like news when its packaged attractively isn't it?
The BBC is just the same as FOX, it caters to the philosophical appetite of its viewers built around the issues of the day.


www.bbcwatch.com

Tuned In
25th Sep 2006, 12:35
Lima

No, I think the word aligned was perfectly accurate, and you indicate strongly in your last post that that is what you meant. You also mention the prevailing opinions, which are irrelevant in impartial reporting. Popularity of view is no defence, and you are making it obvious that you do think that the BBC is impartial despite following some popular views, which is contradictory. You are showing clearly that the only reason you like the BBC is that it agrees with your views, and you think this is impartial. That is not impartial though, just partial in a way you like. Two's In accused those that criticise the BBC of that error, when actually it is those defending the BBC that make it.

A third issue on which the BBC is partial against the prevailing view is the death penalty. I think it should change its line to be impartial, despite my agreement with the BBC view on this. Do you see the real meaning of impartial yet?

Two's In

While "Fair and Balanced" is not justified, the "We report, you decide" line is actually very good. Look at the bulk of the media and they decide before reporting, so giving a left-wing view. If Fox gives the missing portion, which would naturally often follow the right-wing view, then you can collect a fuller picture and make a better judgement.

The problem with the BBC's alternate view of events is part of the cause of the Conservative problem with presenting one. Unless the view aligns with left-wing ideas, much of the media including the largest, the BBC, is unwilling to present it with any attemnpt at objectivity. They make the assumption that these ideas are correct, and any disagreement is purely selfish. There alternate view is always left-wing. That is not impartial, and you're now admitting it along with Lima!

Capt.KAOS
25th Sep 2006, 14:28
The Jenin "massacre", that never happened. You ever hear that it was a lie on the Beeb? After all the fuss they made of the story.Because the IDF didn't allowed any reporters into Jenin for 2 weeks, speculations were high and a stream of horrible accounts coming from Palestinian witnesses who escaped the refugee camp and even from Israelian papers came horror stories:

"Officers of the IDF expressed their shock" about what happened in Jenin: "When the world will see the pictures of what we have done there, it will cause us enormous damage." (Ha'aretz Hebrew edition, Amos Har'el and Amira Hass, April 9, 2002). Peres even slipped and mentioned the taboo word "massacre" (which he immediately denied of course).

Only 2 weeks later, bits by bits news came out. I believe "only" 52 people died? (although IDF own first counts were 200).

As for BBC not rectifying, yeah, right.

AerBabe
25th Sep 2006, 15:48
My boss is being interviewed on BBC South regional news tonight, following a press release I wrote last week. :ok:

West Coast
25th Sep 2006, 16:50
"unsubstantiated claim"

Did FOX news say they as an organization believe this or did they simply report about it. I heard the same report. I don't watch FOX news so it was out there from other news sources as well.

West Coast
25th Sep 2006, 17:17
Guess what? Other news sources reported the same story. I would be willing to bet even the beeb did

West Coast
25th Sep 2006, 20:12
"Until they are found in Syria, the claim IS unsubstantiated"

Reports over the past few days of OBL being dead are also unsubstantiated but still news worthy. The BBC believed it important enough to report it.

frostbite
27th Sep 2006, 13:17
Fans (any?) of the various 'gyrating idiots' shown on BBC1 in between programmes will be devastated to hear that they are shortly all to be scrapped.

Before rejoicing at the disappearance of this pointless nonsense, be aware that they are being replaced by a new 'themed' set which has cost £1.2m of your licence money.

Tuned In
27th Sep 2006, 14:24
Anyone looking for more bias only needed to see John Simpson last night. Not only blatantly making an opinion piece from a very anti-US perspective in a current-affairs programme that should show some objectivity, but being incredibly dishonest. To all intents and purposes he was telling lies, although they were old BBC lies so probably went largely without notice.

Lima

You really should pay attention. I have said more than once on this thread that I don't watch Fox. You are therefore very dishonest in your snide reference to your own arrogant assumption that I do.

Why should I comment on coverage of the Lib Dem leadership?

Why should I care whom you vote for? It doesn't alter the fact that you have said in two posts that the BBC is biased, but that you approve as long as the bias is in favour of a popular opinion. You didn't bother to address my point that some of the opinions the Beeb supports are not popular, nor that this is still bias. Two's In is wrong: I don't oppose BBC bias because I disagree with the opinion, but because I think the BBC should be as unbiased as possible.

TURIN

Surely anyone who wants to have a serious opinion has many sources of news. Of course I listen to Radio 4 sometimes, occasionally watch TV news of different stations. I read various newspapers or their websites, and use the internet, again a variety of sources. In fact, contrary to what Lima might try to say when he is struggling to find a real argument, Fox is one of the few sources I never use.

Kaos

The BBC did seem rather to make a lot of the Jenin "massacre", a lot more than any other news source I use. Unlike the rest I never once saw a story on the BBC news when it was proved never to have happened, so they obviously did not treat this very seriously. They also never pointed out that the only reason civilians were killed despite Israeli warnings in good time was that Palestinian terrorists forced them to stay; only the BBC won't call them terrorists, despite this.

What do you make of their coverage of other staged stories, either obviously staged or having the only source being known to be anti-Israeli? Leaving the news on their website even when they know it's a lie?

Since there seems to be as many people arguing against the Beeb as for it, it probably means the Beeb is striking the right noteThat doesn't follow at all. That's like suggesting that since as many people argue against the Labour party as in its favour, the Labour party must be politically neutral! It just makes no sense.

Have you actually read the points I have made? I point out that I disagree with BBC bias even when I agree with their views, including a specific case. I also pointed out many cases of bias, most of them indefensible and some based on lies, you make a random assertion that I just think they are bias because I cannot read a lack of bias. Look at them. Justify any significant number of them.

Or new ones - how about a chief political editor who donated money to one political party? Or a DG who did the same? How about lies to lessen US help to stricken countries after the tsunami and to over-emphasise the UN role? Or hiring people to jeer at one party leader's speech during an election-campaign meeting? A BBC reporter telling a Hamas rally that the media were "... waging the campaign [of resistance/terror against Israel] shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people..."? That is the Beeb proudly claiming to be biased!

Notice even those that approve, such as Lima, say it is biased, as do BBC insiders.

This is not a lack of ability to recognise neutrality. I can see it fine, thanks, when it is occasionally offered. I have shown you proof of a lack of neutrality.

ferd
27th Sep 2006, 15:52
£1.2 million for a troupe of trained hippos? A bargain at half the price, perhaps they can increase the licence fee and get us some dancing gophers.

Curious Pax
27th Sep 2006, 17:17
Anyone looking for more bias only needed to see John Simpson last night. Not only blatantly making an opinion piece from a very anti-US perspective in a current-affairs programme that should show some objectivity, but being incredibly dishonest. To all intents and purposes he was telling lies, although they were old BBC lies so probably went largely without notice.



Care to elaborate for those of who didn't see it? It's easy to throw the accusation without describing how you came to that conclusion.

Tuned In
27th Sep 2006, 17:30
Well, can't remember the exact words, but he was doing an opion piece on Iraq (banned by the BBC charter - they are not allowed to make current-affairs programming based on the views of reporters). The clearest, most objective dishonesty was perhaps at one point when he suggested that no generals or dioplomats outside the US and UK would say that the Iraq war was a good idea. This strongly implied the old BBC lie that we had no other allies, despite the many nations that supported the action, either diplomatically or materially. For a start they would be easy to find in Iraq itself, or in Israel and their embassies. How about Australia, which is still involved, or in the many European allies?

The rest was really rather non-descript, but definitely anti-American, down-beat opinion of Iraq now. No mention of Iraq under the Ba'ath party for comparrison, no realistic assesment. No mention of the previous Iraqi threat to the region. Just Simpson's normal editorial line - Iraq the failure. This man's bias is well-documented.

Krystal n chips
27th Sep 2006, 17:36
Tuned in

Pardon me for asking, but may we all be privy please as to what has generated your wrath about the Beeb ?---I don't mean in the exemplifications you have offered, but what lies at the core of your disdain for the Beeb---and why ?

Erm, you haven't been done for not paying the licence fee have you ? :p :E

Tuned In
27th Sep 2006, 17:45
Pardon me for asking, but may we all be privy please as to what has generated your wrath about the Beeb ?---I don't mean in the exemplifications you have offered...Then no, you may not be so privy I am afraid.

Among many other similar examples, these are the reasons for my "wrath", so your post contains an essential contradiction. Are they not enough to bring out disdain? Might I be privy to the reason you think I must have some other reason for my anger?

I have never been accused of not paying my licence fee, and in fact if the BBC followed its charter then I would not disapprove of the system, though I would be suspiscious. There is too much room for the corruption we are seeing, the BBC needs closer watching.

Krystal n chips
27th Sep 2006, 18:03
Might I be privy to the reason you think I must have some other reason for my anger?

Yep, have been reading my Penguin Book of Psychology for Beginners again ;) --so I thought I would ask---that and the fact that I have spent a lifetime asking daft questions of course---or rather asking questions that can be awkward as I never take anything--or anyone--at face value.


I have never been accused of not paying my licence fee.

Never for one minute said or suggested you have. Hence the smilies after the sardonic question :p :E

Tuned In
27th Sep 2006, 18:11
Ah, well, I am a fairly simple person :p . If I am annoyed, then it is for the reason given. I do not rail at the offender for something else entirely!

Tuned In
27th Sep 2006, 18:44
They are still the media pack, and will go fo any wounded celebrity. Notice they didn't go for "Champagne Charlie" until others did, despite later admissions that they knew for a long time he was an aloholic. That doesn't stop them openly supporting the policies. I should have made teh separation, but the illiberal nature of many of the policies makes the language of discussion convoluted.

Please read what I said. It makes it perfectly plain that I knew nothing about Fox except their reputed bias. You are in fact stating a direct lie in saying I knew about their slogans, as it is obvious from what I wrote that I didn't. Rather a cheap shot in any discussion.

No I wouldn't say it is accurate. It appears that as far as polls can find the Iraqi population is with me on that one, not the BBC and you. However since it seems your news source is limited to the BBC you wouldn't be aware of the improvements that they always seem to ignore*.

*I think you'll get more on this comment in my next post

bigfatsweatysock
28th Sep 2006, 08:46
Tuned In,

Are you Send Clowns in drag? You sound just like him and accusing people of being liars.

From what I read of your posts, you are only pissed at the BBC because they do not present a right biased viewpoint. In other words they don't see the world as you see it, therefore they are biased.

I may have missed it, but please give us an example of, in your opinion, an un-biased news source.

Kalium Chloride sums it up well;
In my experience, people seldom recognise neutrality when it's presented to them because their own inherent bias and opinions make them poor judges of impartiality.

Since there seems to be as many people arguing against the Beeb as for it, it probably means the Beeb is striking the right note. There's a good rule of thumb in journalism - if you're not p!ssing half the population off at any one time, you're not being neutral enough.

The SSK
28th Sep 2006, 09:07
I don’t give a toss about the BBC’s politics, but last night they were at it again with what really p1sses me off – creating their own news. The story of Chinese organ transplants was no doubt a good piece of investigative journalism, well worth a Panorama programme, but did it really need to take up half the six o’clock news? This just a week after the same thing happened with the football bungs.

Curious Pax
28th Sep 2006, 09:42
Thanks for the additional info TI - I was also going to accuse you of being Mr Clowns in disguise, but bfss got there first. How is Southend these days?

I had a read of the BBC Charter (not an easy task as it is written in legalise), and noted clause 3j with interest:

(j) To perform services in any part of the world for and on behalf of any Department of Our Government in Our United Kingdom

But I digress. I think that your interpretation of the charter is a little suspect, as it sounds as if Simpson was doing what all the different subject editors do, which is to add a commentary to the news report by way of explanation for viewers.

I won't start arguing about the topic he was commenting on, but suffice to say that the US military yesterday described suicide attacks in Iraq as being at the highest level ever. As this thread is about the BBC and not Iraq I'll leave the debate about whether the fear of being hit by a suicide attack is worse than the fear of alling foul of Saddam and his thugs to one side.

Tuned In
28th Sep 2006, 15:06
Bigfatsweatysocks

Where did I say there are unbiased news sources? Can you give examples of other news sources which force you either to pay for them, forego all television viewing or risk a large fine? Can you give another news source that is required by its government charter to be unbiased? Can you tell me another news source that has such a deep, unique role in the life of a democratic country?

If people are being dishonest about my expressed views, then why should I not point it out? In fact you are now being dishonest (and it doesn't surprise me that you have been accused of it before) in saying "From what I read of your posts, you are only pissed at the BBC because they do not present a right biased viewpoint". I specifically stated the contrary, giving a specific example of a view I hold in common with the BBC that I think they should not show bias on. The reason I don't complain of right-wing bias in the BBC is I cannot find any. Can you?

Interesting that you don't anywhere try to challenge my examples. An attack on my style and on my assumed views is all you can manage.

Pax

You might leave the debate aside, but you have admitted there is a debate. However the BBC's article did not; it assumed that the view it was presenting was the only one. Simpson was not giving a commentary to a news report, but a comment piece. It was not attached to any news.

At the moment I cannot find the clause without going through the whole charter, I can't find where I origanally saw the extract of the charter, but the following interpretation I think comes from the BBC's own producer guidlines is that they should "...treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality… and…not contain any material expressing the opinion of the corporation". This was not complied with, as it was not impartial and did contain the opinion of the BBC.

The clause you mention is an interesting one in its scope. In practice the only thing I know of that results is that the BBC listen to (or used to, not sure if they still do) every in-plain (i.e. unencrypted) broadcast they possibly can. They are or were in effect reducing the workload of GCHQ and its associated listening posts.

What do you think of the many other examples I have given of bias?

I don't know Southend very well, I'm afraid.

So to an insider view:

From an Observer article (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1686504,00.html) the first ever BBC Business editor, appointed after they failed to even cover the world's largest takeover, even though it was by a British company: (emphasis mine)

Many at the BBC eyed him with suspicion, but that was to be expected, he says. 'On the whole, they treated business as if it was a criminal activity. I was there to rattle cages and, if necessary, make myself unpopular to force business up the news agenda. When I started, Greg Dyke warned me, "don't go native; be an agent of change".'

...

Randall ... is at pains to point out that he holds the BBC in high regard. Even so, he was always going to clash spectacularly with what he regards as the corporation's liberal-left consensus.

'I never really felt like a BBC person. I was always an outsider looking in. I challenged a lot of values. There are certain issues the BBC regards as basic truths.'

The NHS is one example, he says. 'Most people at the BBC would think it's a good thing for the government to spend more money on the NHS and it goes unchallenged. There's a section of opinion out there who think it's throwing money down the drain.' But surely the BBC's journalists give the government a hard time? 'They attack Labour ministers, but usually for not being sufficiently left-wing.'

Immigration is another bugbear for Randall. 'At the risk of sounding immodest, I think I changed the terms of the debate. Whenever we had an anti-immigration interviewee, it was a Nazi with a tattoo on his face who looked like he'd just bitten the head off a cat. I pointed out that it's the white working class who have to make immigration work. Immigrants don't move to Hampstead, mate.'

The suggestion is that this man helped change some things, but that the culture was well-ingrained. Those people with the left-wing views are still there.

BAforever
29th Sep 2006, 20:46
I Fox doesn't claim to be unbiased as far as I am aware (if it does then I disapprove of thei accepted bias

What!


Fox's byline here in the US is "Fair and balanced" and "We report, you decide", which strangely always makes me giggle. To be fair (that word again), when it first started in 1996, someone behind Fox was asked what the target audience was; to which he replied "the other half of the electorate". Hate it or not, that's what a lot of people are turning to for their "News" here. If it works for Liberals with CNN etc, why wouldn't it work for conservatives? The only thing that genuinely disturbs me about Fox is it's ownership. All the Orwellian predictions about globalization and a world run by huge corporations could never in their wildest fantasies have visualized "the Dirty Digger" running it all. Now that's a nightmare.

Con-pilot mentioned in another thread, an interesting parallel with all this, where some numbnuts with way too much much time on his hand didn't agree with his (Con-pilots) view (not a rare event Con) but actually started a whole thread on another site to share his angst and bitterness at Con-pilot's views. Very much in the mold of "I disagree with you, therefore I will personally attack you" loon job, and similar to the criticisms against BBC/Fox News Reporting. You don't have to agree with it, you don't have to like it, but a well reasoned and logical rebuttal makes more sense than recreating the Krystal Nacht. At least the BBC is doing what the Conservative part has singularly failed to do in 10 years, by providing an alternaitve view of events, from that which the Government provides. It might be a touch of biting the hand that feeds, but it's right up there with the First Amendment and Voltaire in that "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

People gave and give their lives every day for free speech, remember the principle, not the words.


Live and unbiased on FOX NEWS

Thats from their brodcasts, well thats here in the UK we get the same version on Sky (sattelite) as you so why the differance?:confused:

BillHicksRules
30th Sep 2006, 10:14
Dear all,

Since this is not the first time the issue of the BBC has come up I am surprised to see that this statement has not come up;

"The BBC is biased towards the other side"

Whomever that maybe

Christians/Jews think it is biased towards Muslims
Muslims think it is biased towards Jews/Christians
Tories think it is Labour biased
Labour think it is Tory biase
Lib Dems think it is simply biased against them
Man U fans think it is Arsenal/Chelsea/Liverpool biased
Arsenal fans think it is Man U/Chelsea/Liverpool biased


The one thing that is true though is that it is biased against the Scottish National Football team!! :p :p :p

Cheers

BHR

joe2812
30th Sep 2006, 17:17
Lot of negative stuff about the Beeb on here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/5392476.stm

Well done BBC. :ok:

Mr Lexx
2nd Oct 2006, 11:33
[
Pro-Islamist:
The refusal to mention the term Muslim or Islam in any story with negative connotations where appropriate, and sycophantic use of the term "the Prophet Mohammed" every time he is mentioned (can you imagine them saying "the Lord Jesus Christ"?).

Yes! And I am more surprised than you! (Maybe they have been reading this thread?:p
From an article today :
A church at Malki, in Meghalaya's capital Shillong, has been receiving a steady stream of devotees ever since word spread that a cross here has been glowing and radiating the image of Lord Jesus.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5381394.stm

BillHicksRules
6th Oct 2006, 08:21
Dear all,

For those complaining about the reporting accuracy of the Beeb, you might want to take a look at the reporting of the Mark Foley “scandal” on the Beeb and on Fox News.

BBC news outlets continue to refer to him as a Republican congressman from Florida.

Fox News on the other hand spent most of yesterday referring to him as Mark Foley (D-FL).

Now I can understand if this was a minor story with no real impact on the news cycle either in the US or abroad. However, this is not the case. It was the main topic on Hannity and Colmes (Hannity laying the blame at the Democrats for not doing something sooner to stop him). It has been covered on almost every news show/channel, yet the beacon of the right still cannot get a simple graphic correct several days after the story broke.

Keep up the good work BBC, as always you are the envy of the world.

Cheers

BHR

Mr Lexx
6th Oct 2006, 09:58
Lot of negative stuff about the Beeb on here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/5392476.stm
Well done BBC. :ok:

Nice as it may be, it is hardly an efficient use of license fee payers money, is it?

Spinflight
6th Oct 2006, 12:18
The BBC isn't biassed.

If it were we'd have lots of gibbering chimps who would use every opportunity to espouse BBC propaganda...

Imagine how awful it would be if every thread was hijacked by a pitiful handful of activists who had been brainwashed into repeating Bush is thick, Blair is dishonest, Israel is evil, Fox news is crap ad infinitum.

Luckily the world's best and least biassed news service is doing the EU proud with its wonderful reporting.

Polikarpov
13th Jan 2007, 18:12
So why would the BBC swap this scary picture on their front page...

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42060000/jpg/_42060458_brown_conf03_bbc203.jpg

...for this, more cuddly one, about an hour later (same story).

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42447000/jpg/_42447227_brown_pa203bod.jpg

A rhetorical question for an old cynic like me who thinks they've just been lent on by a Brown image manager (or a Brownite in the news editorial team).

The Gordon steam-roller gathers momentum...

AMF
14th Jan 2007, 00:11
Well, just anything about the BBC, its good/bad, whatever:ok:

What passes for "news" at BBC is just a pathetic form of America Obsession. Sadly, they merely regurgitate the latest snippets of info coming from the American networks, although they sometimes add their own spin and try and dress it up with a phoney accent to make it sound.....um...."authoritative".

If they couldn't burn up an hour talking about American politics, American events, or American celebrities, what would they do? Maybe go out in the world and actually find some news? I mean, there's only so much mileage you can get out of Ooohing about the royal family, Beckham, or the latest little roller skate car that runs on bio-fuel.

I can always tell when I come across a foreign BBC news junkie; he'll be the one trying to tell me how the political process of my own country works, or some other rubbish parrotted straight off the TV. But he won't be able to explain how we elect the local dog-catcher, let alone what a congressional sub-committee does.

BBC bores me, like the people who watch it.

BillHicksRules
14th Jan 2007, 13:51
AMF,

Let me take a WAG here, you are talking about BBC World or even BBC America?

Cheers

BHR

Krystal n chips
14th Jan 2007, 21:47
I think it says it all, sadly, when Darts is featured on the main evening news and subsequently on BBC2 as some form of "sport". Darts is a game we have all played in a pub. It's good fun, but could never be taken seriously as a "sport"---although the shots of the audience tonight would suggest the organisers cleary identified the er, target audience who perceive it as such;) :E ---must have been a slow sports news day then----or simply clutching at straws by the Islington luvvie chattering classes of course.

They could though, if they really wished to save money, start by revising the contracts and salaries paid to the various oxygen thieves like Wright and Ross-to name but two overpaid examples--and er, develop those who actually have some talent. This may even enhance the viewing and listening ratings as well---strangely !.