BBC blows millions on Alan Yentob follies

BBC blows millions on Alan Yentob follies: "One critic said it made him feel sick, but for BBC licence fee-payers it is more likely to provoke feelings of fury.

"

BBC brought to book

BBC brought to book: "Telegraph View: Many listeners would have cheered on Baroness James of
Holland Park as she argued that too much money was lavished on bureaucrats
and not enough on quality programmes."

PD James attacks BBC's 'overwhelming burden of bureaucracy'

PD James attacks BBC's 'overwhelming burden of bureaucracy': "PD James, the crime author, has accused the BBC of sinking under an
'overwhelming burden of bureaucracy' in an astonishing interview with Mark
Thompson, its director-general."

Some of the BBC's most embarrassing programmes

Some of the BBC's most embarrassing programmes: "PD James highlighted a number of BBC programmes that she dismissed as unworthy
of the corporation during a tenacious interview with Mark Thompson, its
Director General."

PD James accuses 'unwieldy, bureaucratic' and wasteful BBC of losing its way

PD James accuses 'unwieldy, bureaucratic' and wasteful BBC of losing its way: "Crime author accuses the BBC of ageism and says it can't justify the huge
salaries it pays to managers."

Jonathan Ross attacks BBC programmes on Twitter

Jonathan Ross attacks BBC programmes on Twitter: "Jonathan Ross has risked the wrath of BBC bosses by describing some of its
programmes as 'sh***'."

David Tennant to make 75 appearances on BBC over Christmas and New Year

David Tennant to make 75 appearances on BBC over Christmas and New Year: "David Tennant, the actor who plays Doctor Who, will have made 75 appearances
in three weeks on BBC TV channels and radio stations by the end of the
Christmas period."

How PD James skewered the BBC's Mark Thompson

How PD James skewered the BBC's Mark Thompson: "Author PD James takes director general Mark Thompson to task in memorable
fashion over the BBC's failings."

PD James and the BBC: Here at last was someone saying what so many people feel

PD James and the BBC: Here at last was someone saying what so many people feel: "PD James is not just an outstanding novelist, she is a remarkable person - and
not least for her skewering of the BBC's director general, writes Sarah
Crompton."

BBC axes Jam & Jerusalem despite rising ratings

BBC axes Jam & Jerusalem despite rising ratings: "The BBC has axed the comedy drama Jam & Jerusalem by Jennifer Saunders."

Bravo, PD James, for bringing the BBC to book

Bravo, PD James, for bringing the BBC to book: "How I admire Baroness James for kicking the director-general of the BBC in the
way she did on the Today programme, writes Simon Heffer."

Thompson defends BBC's top salaries

Thompson defends BBC's top salaries: "BBC director general Mark Thompson has defended the six-figure pay packets of some of the corporation's managers, after the broadcaster's former governor PD James said that the 'extraordinarily large salaries' were 'very difficult indeed to justify'.

"

Lynda La Plante: 'The BBC would take a Muslim boy's script over mine'

Lynda La Plante: 'The BBC would take a Muslim boy's script over mine': "
Prime Suspect creator Linda La Plante has lambasted the BBC's commissioning policy, claiming the Corporation would take a Muslim boy's script over hers."

Time for Al Het from Naughtie?

Time for Al Het from Naughtie?: "Remember James Naughtie’s disgraceful interview with the Israeli Ambassador Ron Proser on Today 22nd December? I commented that Naughtie seemed unaware of ex President Jimmy Carter’s reputation as the most anti Israel US President ever.

To further a point, Naughtie produced one of Mr. Carter’s notoriously disparaging statements, saying:
“I take it you don’t regard him [Carter] as somebody who is anti-Israel in his bones!”

“Does Naughtie know nothing about this subject?” I wondered.
Well, it’s high time someone tells Naughtie all about it if he doesn’t know already, because now Jimmeh is offering a kind of apology, which, of course, is a tacit admission of guilt.

People are speculating as to whether it’s because his grandson is running for office in an area with Jewish voters, or for some other reason.
The peanut president has written an open letter to the Jewish community, and concludes:
' we must not permit criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel. As I would have noted at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but which is appropriate at any time of the year, I offer an Al Het for any words or deeds of mine that may have done so.'

In Hebrew 'Al Het’ means plea for forgiveness.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

The Elephant in the University

The Elephant in the University: "In yesterday’s mini round-up I began with the BBC interview with cherubic Qasim Rafiq, who appeared to be baffled by the behaviour of his best friend the baby-faced underpants bomber.
The BBC’s apparent assumption that the twosome's association with the UCL’s Islamic Society was as good as a character reference was baffling too. They accepted it as a kind of alibi and seemed to be satisfied that for this reason alone he couldn’t have been radicalised while he was in the UK.

Robin Shepherd nails it again.

Con Coughlin has:
“even though Abdulmutallab is not even a British citizen, he was still allowed to be elected president of the Islamic Society at University College London (UCL), where he was then allowed to arrange debates on subjects such as Guantanamo Bay and “Jihad v Terrorism”. No points for guessing which side Abdulmutallab was on.”

It seems though, that the BBC is not alone in its refusal to confront the elephant in the uni. The events of Christmas day came as a complete shock to Malcolm Grant of UCL.
It’s freedom of speech innit?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Yesterday, Today and (probably) Tomorrow.

Yesterday, Today and (probably) Tomorrow.: "You know the annual round-ups we get in the media at every New Year? This round-up is of items from the last couple of days, just to indicate the direction the BBC is taking.

The interview with bushy-bearded Qasim Rafiq, the former best friend of the underpants bomber who swears that nice Mr. Abdulmutallab couldn’t possibly have been radicalized in the UK, or at the UCL, or in the Islamic Society or while he was president of the Islamic Society. So that’s alright then. That’s proof enough for the BBC. “The BBC has learned that the underpants bomber wasn’t radicalized here, and that’s official.”

I’ve read countless articles about University Islamic Societies that describe them as highly radicalizing, and saying that some are actively recruiting, preying on and pressurizing Muslim undergraduates to turn towards extremism. The BBC must have heard about these because they have to know everything. The BBC is always learning this or that, but it evidently hasn’t learned to challenge something that everybody else in the entire world must be wondering why on earth they unquestioningly accept.

Next, the Today guest editor chose some right-on items for us to wake up to. One of them was an alternative Thought for the Day, as though one wasn’t enough-already. This thought was a poem written by revered Palestinian poet, the late Mahmoud Darwish. I’d have preferred something from Nonie Darwish myself, but I won't be holding my breath.
I’ve nothing against Palestinian poetry especially as this particular poet kindly says he doesn’t hate Jews, just Zionists and Israel. His poetry is rather political as one might expect, but apparently that was not his intention, so I wonder if he would have been comfortable with the intro by guest editor Robert Wyatt’s favourite writer John Berger.
“For 60 years now the Palestinian people have been forcibly separated and exiled from their land, and Darwish’s poetry is about their struggle to keep faith and not to lose hope. It’s a poetry of resistance but at the same time it’s a poetry that admits loss and vulnerability, and absolutely refuses political rhetoric.”
Good. Pity John Berger doesn’t refuse political rhetoric too though. After an ominous period of rustling, he commenced reading the poem. About the mirage; about hope; about the slight difficulty with pronouncing r. And about the wose.
The poem was okay, but John Berger I could have done without.

I was going to comment about the Media Show on Wednesday but they took ages to put it on the website I so gave up. There’s an interesting thread on CiFWatch by Israelinurse about Mehdi Hasan. Here’s what Adloyada says in her comment:
“Mehdi Hasan is increasingly being given a “voice of Muslim opinion” and a “let’s show we’re inclusive by fielding a media man who happens to be Muslim” slot on BBC talk shows, thanks to the position he now holds on the “New Statesman”.
He was on BBC R4 “The Media Show’ just a couple of days ago, on Wednesday 30th, in the latter capacity, part of a panel chaired by Steve Hewlett (Guardian writer), consisting of Simon Jenkins (Guardian columnist), Emily Bell (The Guardian), senior media person who happens to be a woman) and Trevor Kavanagh (ex the Sun and so presumably a Tory just for balance).
All highly balanced–if you happen to think the BBC/Guardian world view is the core median balanced position from which all other views deviate.”

Next. The repeated coverage on BBC news 24 yesterday of award winning footage of Israel attacking Palestinians sheltering in a UN school. It was one of the finalists in the 2009 Rory Peck Awards. Not the winner. The incomplete picture Frank Gardner gave us in his narration somehow brought to mind another iconic bit of film, that of Mohammed Al Durah.

Now here’s something I didn’t see at all. Mahmoud Abbas’s glorification of Dalal Mughrabi, perpetrator of a bus hijacking in Israel that ended with the deaths of civilians and children. As Robin Shepherd points out “There is nothing on the BBC – though there is plenty about Gaza, one anniversary they do seem to be taking notice of.”

If this represents some of what we get from the BBC over a couple of days, no wonder fings aint what they used to be.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

MORE ON PETER THOMSON....

MORE ON PETER THOMSON....: "On Monday, I posted about BBC The World editor Peter Thomson, who it turns out, is secretary of the fervent climate change group the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ). What actually does this mean? Well for starters, according to the SEJ website, he's very keen on pushing, as well as his own organisation's climate change guide, another publication that seeks to influence and underpin journalists everywhere. It's called the CRED Guide: The Psychology of Climate Change Communication, published by the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions at Columbia University. CRED was established back in 2004 with a grant from the US National Science Foundation (another fervent warmist institution). Its master work is a truly terrifying document in terms of its ambitions in brainwashing and the patronising way it regards the public and - especially - non-believers in their religion.

For example, let's start with how CRED suggests dealing with non-believers. It found that, stubbornly, despite the barrage of AGW publicity, people in the US are not convinced that it is something that affects them. So here's what to do:

To counteract this problem, an effective communicator should highlight the current impacts of climate change on regions within the US. Research suggests that it may be more effective to frame climate change with local examples in addition to national examples. For example, references to droughts in the Southwest may resonate more with US audiences than talking about droughts in Africa. Similarly, climate change becomes a more personal threat to a New Yorker when hearing how New York City’s subway system will suffer as the result of a rise in sea level compared to hearing about the effect of a sea level rise in Bangladesh.

In effect, let's make it up, never let the facts get in the way of a good story, and let's scare them all to death. Note, especially, the scientific nonsense: the chance of the New York subway being inundated on current evidence of sea level rises is next to zero.

CRED's pearls of wisdom continue:

Because such extreme weather events are vivid, dramatic,and easily understood, especially to the locals who suffer through them, they provide effective frames for the potential impacts of future climate change. The numerous examples of extreme events that may occur in a given year provide recurring “teachable moments” communicators can use to relate climate change to the experience of a local audience.

I'd love to go on. The whole publication is shot through with such alarmist, non-scientific nonsense. It truly is a textbook in propaganda. But this is a platform where brevity counts, so I will leave it there and recommend you to read it.

So what does that tell us about Peter Thomson? Presumably, as SEJ secretary, he practises what he preaches and is engaged in a crusade within the BBC and on a wider stage to implement what CRED suggests. That's why people in general take office in such organisations. In so doing, Mr Thomson, I would submit, is acting well outside the normal accepted rules of conflict of interest. There is no consensus on 'climate change' yet he is pushing very hard that there is, and not only that, actively conspiring to persuade journalists throughout the world to say that there is.

The evidence of his campaign is not hard to find, it's there in the deluge of 'climate change' claptrap that pours out of the BBC every single hour. Such as this New Year's Eve propaganda-fest from our friend Richard Black in which he assesses (or rather, reflects gloomily about) the way forward after Copenhagen.

We know from the Harmless Sky blog that the BBC long since took a high-level decision to support the ideas of the kind advocated by CRED. Is that the result of the work of Mr Thomson and his ilk?

On that rather sobering note, I wish all Biased-BBC readers who wade through our postings a Happy New Year!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

HOLD THE FRONT PAGE: GREEN VICAR SHOCK

HOLD THE FRONT PAGE: GREEN VICAR SHOCK: "It's pretty darn unusual for the BBC website to cover the death of a local Church of England vicar; in fact, pretty much their only interest in Christianity and our established religion these days is in gay bishops. When I was in BBC local radio, it was only when a local bishop popped his clogs that we reached for our microphones.

Unless, that is, he's a revered green camapigner. Such, apparently, was the Reverend Hereward Cooke, a vicar in the Norwich area, who cycled the 150 miles to Copenhagen to attend the UN summit in December, and there, tragically, died in his sleep. I've nothing against Mr Cooke, I am sure he was a god-fearing chap, though it is a pity that he thought 'climate change' so important.

But to the BBC, of course, he's a saint. Any mention of 'green' and 'climate change' - no matter how inconsequential - is front page news.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Pathos in Gaza

Pathos in Gaza: "Who commissioned Katya Adler’s pathos extravaganza that BBC News24 has aired several times today?
What news value does it have, apart from being a gratuitous reminder of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, just in case we forget about all that for a second?
Now that there aren’t any juicy war crimes to salivate over, did the BBC’s Middle East Editor brief Katya to seek out a cute enormous-eyed child to tug at the heartstrings merely to rekindle dying embers of indignation over Israel’s brutality, fearing the public might be beginning to lose interest?

If the BBC ever commissioned a proper and a thorough examination of how the Palestinians’ suffering came about, and who is responsible for prolonging it, the BBC might begin to claim some credibility.

Or if they stopped implying that children governed by ‘democratically elected’ Islamist Hamas would have a normal childhood if only Israel would stop preventing it. But they insinuate that Israeli oppression is the only thing stopping Gazan children from having a normal childhood when they must know very well indeed that indoctrinating them with hatred of Jews, glorifying child martyrdom and engulfing them in a repressive Islamist medieval straightjacket is a million miles away from any Western perception of normality.

So Katya and Jeremy, you’re pretending. You’re selecting. You’re projecting. You’re using sentimentality and half-truths to twist and poison. For what? Do you think it will bring peace? I don’t even think you do.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

BBC MOMENT OF THE YEAR...

BBC MOMENT OF THE YEAR...: "Well folks, we are almost at year end and I thought you would like to share your moment of the year for BBC bias. It's so target-rich. Remember the hatred shown towards Israel when it sought to cleanse Hamastan? Remember the outrageous enthusiasm with which the BBC embraced the coronation of Obama? Let's not forget the kindness shown towards poor useless Mr Brown, even as he bankrupted the Nation! Then there was the mockery of Sarah Palin, the hostility towards the Conservatives, the endless apologies for Islam, the relentless assault on Christianity, the propagandising for the gay lobby, the love-in with the AGW cultists.....the list goes on. So, your outstanding moment of BBC bias in 2009....??

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

The Murder of Self-Awareness – Hamas’ abuse of the Palestinian People

The Murder of Self-Awareness – Hamas’ abuse of the Palestinian People: "

This is a guest post by Mitnaged

It is impossible for a journalist not to have biases, but the mark of an ethical journalist is to be sufficiently aware and not to let them enter what he/she reports. If this cannot be avoided then the journalist should state those biases openly so that the reader can make up his/her mind as to the extent they influence what is written.

The Guardian’s journalists, and CiF’s anti-Israel stable in particular, appear not to notice the extent to which their biases influence what they write. Indeed, in many cases it seems that they deliberately allow their biases to influence their work. I have written elsewhere about cognitive dissonance, which I believe is the reason for the persistence of Jew- and Israel-hatred on CiF regardless of the objective and verifiable evidence which refutes all haters’ arguments for holding onto it. However that article merely scratched the surface – there is much much more.

For example, another strand of this rigid and persisting hatred of Israel and its population, and often of Jews generally, might be the over identification by the haters with those who they perceive to be the underdogs, to the extent that the haters adopt the attributions of those underdogs about the causes of their distress.

The perennial belligerent self-pity of successive Palestinian governments has undoubtedly rubbed off on their people, in spite of the fact that Palestinians received in the order of $550 million for 2008 in humanitarian aid from the rest of the world (see also here and here) . Accompanying this, and no doubt carefully stoked by Hamas’ propaganda machine or the fear of Hamas, is the exaggerated sense of entitlement we see exhibited so often by Islamists.

Hamas and Fatah before it, as well as the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank, believe that they are entitled to such aid because they are who they are. There is no indication from them that they recognise that they are at least partly (some would argue mostly) responsible for the parlous state of their economy and could do much to improve it. Worse, they seem to be incapable of realising that their current course of action – terror against Israel – not only is not working, but is making matters much, much worse for their people.

What makes such people persist in a view of the world which actually does them harm? Part of their rigidity may well be because they cannot bear the discomfort of having to deal with cognitive dissonance caused by argument and proof that such a world view is wrong, but a good deal of it arises, I believe, from the fact that such people are stuck at the egocentrism stage of their psychological and emotional development.

Egocentrism which endures beyond early childhood may be defined both a moral limitation and a cognitive one. Morally egocentric people are fixed only on their own thoughts and needs and consistently fail to take into account for the needs and intentions of others in making their decisions about how to act. Different from this is egocentrism as a cognitive limitation: people with cognitive egocentrism have neurologically-based difficulty ”reading” others’ mental states and considering events from another person’s perspective. They also lack empathy.

Toddlers and young preschoolers are egocentric because they are not developed enough and lack the cognitive resources to see the world from alternative perspectives. However, successive Palestinian governments have exhibited both moral and cognitive egocentrism as evidenced in their decision-making and their treatment of their own people as well as the cause and effect attributions they make in public about the mess into which they have got their people.

Richard Landes highlights this handicap of the Arab/Muslim mindset. The second link on his page is to an interview with a UN representative of the Arab League whose reply to a perfectly apposite question about why Hamas does not stop shelling southern Israel, looks at first as if it evidences the reaction to the cognitive dissonance I have referred to elsewhere, but of which he appears not to be aware. I also believe that the UN representative could resort to the excuse he gave because he is stuck in the moral and cognitive egocentrism I refer to above, and which, in an adult, is a handicap.

More recently, cognitive egocentrism has been placed within another paradigm, that of Theory of Mind. A person has a fully developed theory of mind when s/he is able to evidence at least the following:

1. That s/he knows that she and other people have minds, ie that they have thoughts, beliefs, feelings, desires, intentions, and the like.

1. That s/he is able to understand her/his own thoughts and feelings, and infer other people’s thoughts, beliefs, feelings, desires, and intentions from their behaviour (including what they say) with reasonable accuracy.

1. That s/he is disposed to use this information about other people’s thoughts, beliefs, feelings, desires, and intentions in making decisions about how to act in social contexts. In particular, s/he is able to see the world from the perspective of other people.

It may be that Islamists and their fellow travellers are developmentally stuck and lack theory of mind. This is certainly evidenced in the video excerpt above of the interview with the Arab League representative to the UN, where he assumed that his excuse for the continued shelling of southern Israel from Gaza would be accepted unquestioningly, although he is not a jihadi.

The failure to develop a theory of mind comes about from stuckness at the egocentrism phase of development. People can become stuck there because of neurological factors, such as brain injury, or because of gross abuse in their formative years. Here one has to ask about the motivation for and the effects of programming children to accept such abuse, a state of affairs adopted wholesale by Hamas in its kindergartens and schools (see here ).

There is a growing body of evidence, which shows that emotional and other abuse can also affect the physiology of the brain and its capability to lay down the synaptic connections which will result in successful cognitive development, including the capability to move beyond the cognitive egocentrism phase. According to Seigel, 1995 and 1996, the child’s sense of the self in interaction with others will be severely impaired in cases, for example, of familial child abuse. For these reasons, the deepest sense of self awareness, of core consciousness, may be profoundly influenced by early experiences in infancy and childhood. (Author’s note: Given this and other research it is reasonable to suggest that this “deepest sense of self-awareness” – from which develops empathy and a theory of mind – are seriously compromised in those Palestinian children exposed to Hamas “death games” and cartoon videos praising martyrdom in Gaza and the West Bank,).

It is almost a given that the abusers themselves lack any theory of mind or capability for empathy and doubtless for the same reasons, otherwise they could not do what they do. They have an instrumental approach to these children and to anyone else they believe they can use to pursue a course which, to them, is self-evidently the right one. That being the case they have no hesitation in deliberately compromising the mental health and cognitive development of future generations of Palestinians, the better to transmit their legacy of Israel- and Jew-hatred, and, because they are unable to locate the source of the abuse to be within themselves, and they lack the self-control to prevent themselves from acting it out, they will invariably blame Israel/Jews for “forcing” them to do that.

Tagged: Cognitive Dissonance, Egocentrism

"

ANOTHER WEDDING PARTY?

ANOTHER WEDDING PARTY?: "BBC reports that 'western forces' have killed at least ten civilians, including eight schoolchildren, during an air strike in eastern part of Afghanistan. This can't be confirmed owing to the presence of Taliban in the area which, I suppose, might just explain the reason for the air strike in the first place. The BBC seems to glide past that minor point in its' desire to paint 'western forces' as bloodthirsty child-killers. Know your enemy.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

BBC EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST

BBC EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST: "I've become increasingly convinced that the BBC is part of an international conspiracy about 'climate change'. It isn't simply that the reporting is so biased; it's also because there seems to be a concerted effort to make sure that whatever so-called sceptics discover, for example over Climategate, the warmists bounce straight back with a new set of warped theories or bent facts to support their arguments. The feed of material is relentless, as if it is coming from an organised source. Over the holidays, I've been doing some digging on this, and I wanted to share one of my first findings.

A BBC journalist called Peter Thomson is not a household name in this country, but he's the environment editor of the BBC programme (made jointly with WGBH Boston and RPI) The World, which on a daily basis pushes out climate scare stories to millions of people. Mr Thomson, it turns out, is also the secretary of the Society of Environmental Journalists, a US organisation, the main purpose of which is to spread alarmism through a 'guide' about 'climate change'(masked of course, under the cloak of 'objectivity'). There can be no doubt that this is a campaigining organisation which wants to achieve political change because it believes that the world needs to reduce CO2 emissions.

Mr Thomson's activism does not stop there. He's also a member of the advisory board of the Metcalf Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting, yet another international organisation with alarmist goals. It, too, publishes a guide to how journalists should cover 'climate change'; in truly chilling McCarthyite terms, the introduction explains how anyone who disagrees with 'the consensus' should be ignored and that journalists should frantically pester editors to publish 'climate change' scare stories.

So, to recap. One of the BBC's most senior editors responsible for environmental reporting has formal roles at the epicentre of a worldwide coinspiracy among 'climate change' alarmists. Not only that, he is assisting in the international propagation of so-called science communication guides, the main purpose of which are to enlist other journalists to spread the same lies in which he also believes. I suspect there's a whole phalanx of Peter Thomsons, all feeding the BBC's insatiable appetite to feed us with moonshine.

Update: Richard North, of EU Referendum, has kindly provided further information about BBC propagandists. Nik Gowing, a prominent - and rather humourless - BBC World Service presenter, has a no-doubt lucrative sideline in chairing 'climate change' conferences convened by the alarmist-in-chief, IPCC head Dr Ravendra Pachauri.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

TRIFFID HORRORS

TRIFFID HORRORS: "Did anyone try watch, as I did, the BBC's new adaptation of John Wyndham's The Day of the Triffids? This was one of the favourite books of my childhood, a cracking yarn in the HG Wells disaster tradition, and - more fool me - I was looking forward to it. Guess what? The producers, i.e. the BBC international conspiracists who see AGW as a religion, had tampered with the plot so that it conformed to their worldview. According to these morons, the triffids developed and got out of control because of global warming and because the wicked fossil-fuel oil companies had modified their genes. So, an old-fashioned morality tale about the problems of human nature descended into a zealous brimstone-and-treacle homily about 'climate change' and the horrors of capitalist greed. Brainwashing? John Wyndham, I am sure, will be turning in his grave!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

DO YOU COME FROM A LAND DOWN UNDER?

DO YOU COME FROM A LAND DOWN UNDER?: "....Australia, in particular. Turned on the BBC evening news and caught an item suggesting that this horrendous Climate Change thingy that requires us to pay more tax and subsidise third world kleptocracies is also causing Australians to change their 'no worries' lifestyle and retreat from the ocean due to the coastal erosion! Just another little doom and gloom care of our AGW propagandists at the State Broadcaster. Meanwhile. I'm feeling their outrage of the death of 'cor blimey' true blue Brit Akmal Shaikh. It's just AWFUL when ...erm...heroin traffickers meet justice, just so bloomin' unfair? Mind you, he was 'mentally ill' apparently or so the BBC state as if it were a fact rather than an opinion.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

CHINESE WHISPERS

CHINESE WHISPERS: "So, cor blimey Brit - Akma Shaikh, faces execution by the Chinese for his conviction of 4kg of heroin being found in his possession in the remote north-western city of Urumqi in 2007. I find it curious that the BBC goes on to state that Shaikh will be 'the first EU national' to be executed in China. Does the BBC now view us all as 'EU nationals' first and foremost?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Equality chief threatens BBC after ‘kill gays’ debate

Equality chief threatens BBC after ‘kill gays’ debate: "The BBC has been warned by the government’s equality czar that it could face legal sanctions if comments made by the public on its website fall foul of Labour’s new anti-discrimination laws."

Greg Dyke wants BBC licence fee axed

Greg Dyke wants BBC licence fee axed: "Greg Dyke, the former BBC director-general, has recommended the abolition of the licence fee after almost 90 years, in a report commissioned by David Cameron.

"

BBC gets go-ahead for service to let television access the internet

BBC gets go-ahead for service to let television access the internet: "BBC has been given the go-ahead for a new service to allow people to access websites through their TV

"

BBC charity boss spared jail over online child porn

BBC charity boss spared jail over online child porn: "Former BBC producer who had 'depraved' fantasies about abusing children has escaped jail despite downloading extreme child pornography

"

Ex-BBC producer narrowly escapes jail after downloading 'quite unspeakable' child porn

Ex-BBC producer narrowly escapes jail after downloading 'quite unspeakable' child porn: "
Former BBC sports producer Martyn Smith, 44, who also masterminded the Sport Relief charity was arrested after one of Britain's biggest paedophile investigations."

BBC's Autumnwatch makes 'key errors' in planting tree

BBC's Autumnwatch makes 'key errors' in planting tree: "It is such a respected nature programme that even Sir David Attenborough, the
doyen of wildlife shows, is one of its fans."

How BBC bosses ruined Christmas for Victoria Wood

How BBC bosses ruined Christmas for Victoria Wood: "Victoria Wood 'furious' with BBC after special relegated to Christmas Eve."

Doctor Who producer warns BBC will be 'dismantled' by Tories

Doctor Who producer warns BBC will be 'dismantled' by Tories: "Doctor Who producer Russell T Davies has warned the BBC will be 'dismantled'
by the Conservatives if they win the election."

Matthew Horne apologises on Twitter for his BBC overexposure

Matthew Horne apologises on Twitter for his BBC overexposure: "The actor Matthew Horne has apologised on Twitter for BBC scheduling and his
overexposure claiming, 'even I'm bored of me'."

A Formal Complaint to the BBC

A Formal Complaint to the BBC: "

This is a guest post by Mitnaged

After the Guardian’s Political Editor, Michael White, made ill-judged and scurrilous allegations about the IDF on the BBC Radio London’s Breakfast programme on 14^th December, I felt constrained to make a formal complaint to the BBC. Those who missed what White said can find it verbatim by clicking here.

A copy of the BBC’s reply to me follows, prefixed by “>” and embedded in it, in italics, is my subsequent reply to them:

>—–Original Message—–

>From: complaintresponse@bbc.co.uk [mailto:complaintresponse@bbc.co.uk]

>Sent: 19 December 2009 10:58

>To: [intentionally omitted]

>Subject: [intentionally omitted]

>

>Thanks for your email about the interview on BBC London 94.9’s

>’Breakfast’ programme on December 14 with the Guardian newspaper’s

>assistant editor Michael White.

>

>Mr White was invited to give his views on the news story of the attack

>on Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

>

>Having investigated your complaint, BBC London would like to apologise

>for any offence you might have felt on hearing Mr White’s comments.

>However, we would point out that Mr White is not a BBC journalist, and

>he was clearly introduced to listeners as a commentator from the

>Guardian newspaper.

I am glad that you apologised. It matters little whether or not

Mr White was one of your journalists (given the paper for which he writes his comments were hardly surprising – but most offensive was the fact that he was allowed to make those remarks unchallenged by the BBC hosts of the programme.

>He was putting forward his own views with his own choice of words, and,

>as with other commentators, the listener is free to make up their own

>mind on the validity of his arguments. The BBC’s advice to its own

>journalists would be to use plain and simple language, rather than make

>value judgements, but we cannot apply the same guidance to interviewees.

See my point above. The BBC has a responsibility to those who pay it to make sure that lies are not promulgated unchallenged. That the hosts remained silent implied that they agreed with those lies. (Additional note, not in the original: I have since been reminded that actually, the interviewer did not remain silent. She made a noise expressing agreement, as if what White said was as obvious as the fact that the sun always rises, and then they went on).

>Mr White’s comments about Israel were a brief aside, along with other

>remarks about Northern Ireland, during the interview about Signor

>Berlusconi. In these circumstances, the presenter had to judge whether

>to divert the interview into a discussion about what Israel calls

>’targeted killing’ or his comments about Northern Ireland rather than

>concentrate on the matter in hand.

I disagree. Brief asides can nevertheless be offensive and inciteful. The presenter could either have challenged White or carefully steered him away from digging himself a hole by a statement that his remarks were beyond the remit of the programme.

>

>Given this background and the incidental nature of Mr White’s comments,

>we believe the presenters were right to concentrate on the substance of

>the interview.

I am not surprised, given the BBC’s record in the past. I however want to remain on record as taking issue with your reasoning.

I intend to take this up to the highest level. Not only did the presenters not concentrate on “the substance of the programme” as the BBC called it, but their presenter actually agreed with what White said, or at least failed to correct it. More predictable, however, was the standard BBC excuse and divesting themselves of all responsibility by reminding me that White was not one of theirs. That makes little difference – indeed I would argue that there is precious little clear blue water between the BBC’s attitude towards Israel and that of Michael White – but the BBC put out the programme, therefore the BBC was responsible for the content of it and for any offence caused.

Tagged: Michael White

"

Self-Criticism

Self-Criticism: "

This is a cross-post by Professor Richard Landes of Augean Stables

SELF-CRITICISM AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

Self-criticism stands at the heart of any experiment in civil society.

Only when we can acknowledge errors and commit to avoiding making them again, can we have a learning curve. Only when scholars can express their criticism of academic colleagues, and those criticized are able to acknowledge error, can scientific and social thinking develop. Only when religious believers can entertain the possibility that they may not have a monopoly on truth (no matter how convinced they might be of their “Truth”), can various religions live in peace and express their beliefs without fear of violence. Only when political elites are willing to accept negative feedback from people who do not have their power, only when the press can oppose those who control public decision-making, can a government reasonably claim to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

But self-criticism is difficult, especially if it takes place in public. Public admission of fault can provoke a powerful sense of humiliation, and involves an obligation to cease the erroneous behavior and attitudes. Most people actively dislike admitting error, fault, or failure, and will go to great lengths to avoid public concessions. We all develop elaborate means to protect ourselves from such public shame and obligation, by rationalizing or finger-pointing at some other party whom we try to coerce to take responsibility for the problem, either by manipulating public opinion or using force. The extreme expressions of such efforts to avoid responsibility involve scape-goating and demonizing, in which the sacrifice of the assigned “guilty party” is necessary to cover our own refusal to admit any fault.

And yet, self-criticism can become a valuable acquired taste. All positive-sum outcomes depend on some degree of willingness, if only implicitly, to admit fault, to share the blame, and to make concessions to the other side. Without self-criticism and its accompanying learning curve, there is little progress. Hence progressives rightly emphasize self-criticism.



MASOCHISTIC OMNIPOTENCE SYNDROME (MOS) AND THE PATHOLOGIES OF SELF-CRITICISM

In some cases, however, self-critical progressives can take this strategy so far that they fall into the trap of taking most or all of the responsibility for something when it is not primarily of their doing. To some extent, this unusual generosity reflects the notion that it takes a “big man” to admit fault, and that if we progressives are stronger, we should make the first, second and even third moves of concession and apology, in order to encourage those with whom we find ourselves in dispute.” Combining inflated rhetoric with a therapeutic notion that the disadvantaged should not be held to the same exacting standards (moral equivalence) leads one to fall into self-critical pathologies.

In the most extreme cases, we encounter Masochistic Omnipotence Syndrome (MOS): “it is all our fault; and if we can only be better, we can fix anything/everything.” This hyper-critical attitude can be seen with particular clarity in the response of some progressives and radicals to both the 9-11 attack in 2001 in the US, and the 7-7 attack in 2005 in London. For many, “What did we do to make them hate us?” trumped “What are they telling themselves that makes them hate us so?” In a sense, the very preference for the former question underlines our desire to be in control. Maybe we can fix what it is that we do to them, so they’ll not hate us so. Maybe even, they’ll like us.

At some level, this hyper-self criticism operates as a kind of prophetic rhetoric: by inflating the sins, by self-flagellating, one hopes to whip the offending Western party into changing their behavior, a kind of public shaming designed to provoke so much outrage and guilt as to change the situation. When the head of Amnesty International compared Gitmo to the Gulag, the comparison was of course grotesque in its moral equation of Gitmo with one of the most repressive and murderous regimes on the historical record, but Irene Zubaida Khan justified the comparison on rhetorical grounds:

“What we wanted to do was to send a strong message that … this sort of network of detention centers that has been created as part of this war on terrorism is actually undermining human rights in a dramatic way which can only evoke some of the worst features of human rights scandals of the past,” she said. “I don’t think people have got off the hook yet.”

While one can debate the value of such rhetorical moves designed to create a sense of drama, one must at least become aware of the significant distortions in perception it can lead to. The tendency to hyper-self-criticize leads to a kind of moral self-absorption in which one loses any sense of the other side of any conflict as moral agent. Any attempt to put matters in perspective by comparing gets dismissed: “I refuse to judge myself (us) by their standards.” This kind of thinking undergirds both PCP1 and PCP2, indeed one can gauge the passage from the more moderate to the more extreme thinking precisely in terms of the degree to which self-criticism becomes, like Freud’s tyrannical super-ego, vindictive and destructive.

But the real tragedy here comes with the unconscious racism involved in such a moral argument. The proponents of such thinking fail to grant the “other side” any moral agency. “Their behavior is entirely reactive, a response to our bad deeds. If only we would stop, they would stop.” This approach, which gives us, among other things, the current policy of appeasement in the West, also operates on assumptions that the “other” — in this case, the global Jihadis and the Muslim cultures from which they draw their recruits — are not autonomous moral agents. In other words, they, like animals, can’t help themselves. Hence, we make no moral demands on them, indeed, we lower ourselves to their moral level with our equivalences.

THE DISTORTIONS OF NOT FACTORING FOR SELF-CRITICISM

However one feels about this hyper-self-critical discourse, one should at least acknowledge the role of a therapeutic inflation that makes for extremely bad history. When one looks at all the forms of imprisonment that cultures have designed for people they identify as enemies, Gitmo is not the Gulag, not even in the same league, not on the same planet. Similarly, the only traits that Israel and the Nazis share, every other sovereign culture in the recorded history of mankind also shares… indeed, when viewed in the context of history, Israel is unquestionably the least Nazi-like state in the long history of cultural conflicts resolved by violence. As a result, the last thing that a sober analyst — as opposed to an enthused activist — wants to do, is read the situation in the light of this rhetoric of therapeutic inflation.

Observers trying to resolve matters to everyone’s advantage, should, when examining evidence from the Middle East, always consider the source. They should never forget how much, normally, people dislike self-criticism and how much they will do everything to avoid it. All zero-sum outcomes depend to some degree on the ability of one side to impose its blame on the other (they deserve to lose). In tribal warrior cultures, there is no need for such arguments since the basic understanding of all the tribes is “my tribe is right or wrong,” and “plunder or be plundered.” But even the most educated, evolved, and enlightened people can fall into the game. No one likes criticism, a fortiori, public criticism.

This purely human reluctance to self-criticize highlights an element of Jewish culture that most outsiders do not really understand, and that leads to a marked misreading of the Middle East conflict. In the comparative history of self-criticism, Jewish culture is probably the most self-critical. Jews are commanded to rebuke each other and to listen to that rebuke. Jews invented prophetic rhetoric. The Ethics of the Fathers (compiled ca. 200 CE) invoke as one of the traits of a great Torah scholar, “lover of rebukes” (6:6).

The ability to both give and take criticism — admittedly one of the most difficult acts of dialogue in the human repertory — constitutes one of the keys to Jewish survival through millennia of oppression, to Jewish self-deprecating humor, and to the dramatic success of Jews once modern civil societies adopt fair rules: equality before the law. One might even argue that Jews, unlike any other culture, so thrive on their ability to self-criticize that some Jews actually can become addicted to self-criticism.

And so, not surprisingly, among nations, the Jewish nation — Israel — has produced among the most self-critical sovereign cultures on record, certainly when one takes into account the behavior and attitude of its neighbors. Under conditions that lead other sovereign entitites to shut down dissent and move to “martial” law, Israel has maintained an extraordinarily vibrant discourse of self-criticism. Post Zionist historiography is impossible to understand without this framework.

Nothing contrasts more with Israel’s culture of self-criticism than its belligerent neighbors, especially the Palestinians. Here we find one of the most aggressive zero-sum political cultures on record. They accept no responsibility for the war they wage, and justify all their behavior — including how they treat their own people — as a response to the Zionists. They demonize the Zionists with conspiracy theories and blood libels drawn from the most delirious of European anti-Semitic fears to inspire their victimized people to take arms against this malevolent enemy. Who could self-criticize when being assaulted by such merciless and powerful forces? Self-criticism under such conditions is unthinkable, and dissent is treachery. The exceptional number of Palestinians killed by Palestinians suggests a culture in which intimidating dissenters and eliminating traitors is the norm.

Our understanding of the Middle East conflict suffers from a peculiar twisting of the dynamics of self-criticism. As a result, many people do not understand the nature of the rhetoric they hear and, assuming it all comes from the same “place” — no one likes to self-criticize — mis-interpret the information they get. In the case of the information coming from Israel and the Palestinian or Arab media, for example, much “even-handedness” has insisted that the Arab media is every bit as reliable as the Israeli, and vice-versa, that Israeli media can be as dishonest and propagandistic. From one perspective it would seem obvious and straightforward to distinguish between the unusually self-critical Israeli press willing to air its disagreements publicly and the exceptional reluctance of the Palestinian press to express serious criticism of their own side, to allow any dirty laundry to go public. And yet, a wide range of highly intelligent and well-informed people tell us the exact opposite.

Even-handedness demands that we give both sides a hearing. If the Palestinians start shouting about tunnels under al Aqsa and rioting, and the Israelis deny that there are any tunnels, the media presents this in terms of what each side claims. No mention of the ridiculous nature of the accusations — that would be to judge! — nor of the violent contempt with which Muslim building projects in Solomon’s Stables violated every norm of civilized behavior and destroyed precious sites of knowledge.

As a result, for uninformed observers, the Middle East conflict may seem bewildering. If one presents the “refugee problem” in terms of “both sides,” and you get your typical self-critical Israeli to speak, you get Israelis taking 50% of the responsibility, while the Palestinian spokespeople will put 98% of the responsibility on the Israelis, largely using and citing the self-critical Israelis to make their points. The uninformed comes out thinking, “Okay, so Israel’s about 75% responsible/guilty.”

In order to understand this problem, one must understand a critical cultural issue: civil societies thrive on self-criticism, and authoritarian ones thrive on scape-goating and demonizing. To take the “narratives” from both sides as equally legitimate (or worse, to primarily trust the demonizing narrative from the authoritarian side because they are “losing” the battle with civil society), is to make critical category errors. In the battle between a totalitarian society and a democracy, “even-handed” approaches will always favor the totalitarian state. Rather than appreciate the value and difficulty of self-criticism, reward it, and encourage it on the other side, it punishes the self-critical and rewards the demonizers.

Instead, one needs to factor in the role of demonizing and refusal to self-criticize not only in producing the narratives we hear about the problem, but also in the creation and exacerbation of the problem itself. In the history of nations and ethnic disputes, normal response of a culture faced with the behavior of Arab elites and their genocidal discourse and war plans in 1948, would have been massive return massacres by the victorious enemy against whom they had declared so merciless a war. Thus, if one places the Palestinian refugee problem on the vast the panorama of such ethnic disputes — even ones contemporary to it (like India and Pakistan, 1948) and ones contemporary to us (Balkans, Rwanda, Sudan) — the blame for its insolubility seems to reside primarily, overwhelmingly, with the Arab elites.

By not holding them responsible, by approving their lethal narratives, by affirming their boundless sense of entitlement, by justifying their rage and violence, the West has nurtured a monster… Global Jihad. Only by understanding the dangers of their hyper-self-criticism will Westerners at once learn to respect themselves, and show respect for Arab and Muslim culture by demanding minimal levels of self-criticism from them. Only then will the destructive combination of demopaths and their dupes be broken.

_____________

To explore this subject of Masochistic Omnipotence Syndrome further Professor Landes has a highly recommended post here.

Tagged: Richard Landes

"

BBC MOURNS THE GAZA FALLEN

BBC MOURNS THE GAZA FALLEN: "God, did you catch the BBC TV news at 6pm? We were treated to a full-on love-in for all those killed in Israel's 'bloody war' against the poor innocents of Hamastan. It seems that those evil Jews just wantonly slaughtered at will and little wonder the BBC seems determined to not let the moment pass. The shocking lack of any balance of this topic requires comment. Your thoughts?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

BBC TRUST PROPAGANDA ROLE REVEALED

BBC TRUST PROPAGANDA ROLE REVEALED: "The BBC remains predictably silent about the allegations against Dr Ravendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, despite further revelations about his conflicts of interests (to put it mildly) in the Sunday Telegraph and around the world. Meanwhile, the BBC World Service Trust, a body that soaks up cash from the UK Foreign Office and is the cosy-cosy gatekeeper to the UK's international aid efforts, continues its frenzied efforts to spread Pachauri's moonshine about 'climate change'. This page says it all. In fact, the so-called Trust's role is formally to spread such lies:

We aim to:
* Help people protect their food supplies and incomes as the climate changes
* Train and strengthen local media to raise environmental issues and stimulate debate
* Prepare local media to provide life-saving broadcasts during natural disasters; and
* Make sure all our work considers the effect on the environment

For 'environment', of course, read 'climate change'. In the BBC's eyes, the two are interchangeable.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"