Fury at BBC's 13-hour Saturday sportathon: Bar Lottery and the news, nothing on except rugby and football - Daily Mail

Fury at BBC's 13-hour Saturday sportathon: Bar Lottery and the news, nothing on except rugby and football: "
Last night, angry licence fee-payers complained on message boards about popular drama and entertainment shows such as Casualty being booted off."

Archers 'hijacked' by 6 Music - Telegraph

Archers 'hijacked' by 6 Music: "The BBC has apologised after an episode of The Archers was interrupted
by a song by the punk band The Undertones."

BBC EU Public Relations - Biased BBC

BBC EU Public Relations: "Influential public relations agency BBC EU PR has just produced a puff piece for one of its top clients.

'Need some helpful spin?
BBC EU PR
Best in the business.'
(Herman Van Rompuy)

Update 16.20 - just noticed that Roland Deschain mentioned this on the open thread earlier, so tip of the hat to him. Beeb Bias Craig spotted it before me too.

Comments on this thread in haiku please. Starting from... now.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

HANGING AROUND.... - Biased BBC

HANGING AROUND....: "The BBC seems determined to implant the notion that a hung Parliament is inevitable. It seems to have daily items on the topic including this one this morning!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

ON THE QUARTET.... - Biased BBC

ON THE QUARTET....: "I was reading the BBC's coverage of the Quartet's condemnation of Israel for daring to build in Jerusalem and came across this sentence...'That move undermined efforts to restart indirect Israeli-Palestinian talks' But did it? Wasn't the firing of rockers from Gaza into Israel another reason to conclude that 'peace talks' are being undermined from THAT side? The BBC is always in such a rush to damn Israel, 24/7, isn't it? I wonder why the BBC hates the Jews so much?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

GONE TO THE DOGS.. - Biased BBC

GONE TO THE DOGS..: "I've received quite a few emails from people disgusted at the way in which the BBC has been pushing the joys of greyhound racing. One concerned B-BBC reader writes...

I have recently been appalled by the actions of the BBC
on several occasions where in various programs it has highlighted greyhound
racing as a fun sport and a great day out for the family.

Firstly early this year the presenter of Animals 24/7
visited a small-time greyhound trainer and so impressed was he with the
facilities he concluded to the viewer that greyhound racing was now a reputable
industry with no welfare problems. Not once did the presenter highlight that
not all trainers were so kind to their dogs and give the other side of the
story.

More shocking was the recent BBC program "Three men in a boat to
Ireland" where Dara O'Brians greyhound Snip Nua was taken along
throughout the program to follow its races, she was portrayed as Dara's personal
dog, when in fact he was part of a syndicate and had never met the dog before
the show. I was disgusted to learn that before the program was aired on the BBC
Snip Nua had in fact been euthanized after breaking a hock during a race while
the program was being made. At no time did the BBC make the viewer aware of
what had happened to Snip and the public was made to assume that at the end of
the show she went home with Dara!

Other programs highlighting greyhound racing have been 2
episodes of 'Flog It' in which the presenter visited a registered
and then an unregistered track, suggesting it was a great day out for the
family. Again no mention of welfare problems were highlighted by the BBC.

Most recently radio 1 presenter Greg James declared on
his show that he would be buying a greyhound puppy from Ireland, calling it 'Welcome Along' (his email address), and that his show would be
following its progress at the races over the next year! Greg James has not made
it clear if the BBC will be purchasing and sponsoring the dog, or if his show
will be, or if it will be owned by himself.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

SUN SHINES ON BBC BIAS! - Biased BBC

SUN SHINES ON BBC BIAS!: "

Did you see that The Sun has picked up on the rancid bias of the BBC.

Conservative backbencher Douglas Carswell said: "The BBC is in the hands of a left-wing elite. They're a privileged organisation run for the interests of the few not the many - which is why their views are closer to a broadcast version of the Guardian rather than a popular paper." Watchdog Mediawatch-UK director Vivienne Pattison stressed: "Under the BBC charter they are required to be neutral. It's important - after all, we fund them."

Too true!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

BBC Trust ignoring Canvas concerns, says BSkyB - Guardian

BBC Trust ignoring Canvas concerns, says BSkyB: "

Pay-TV company argues trust has failed to protect licence fee payers and should make on-demand content available to rivals

BSkyB has argued that 'inherent tension' in the BBC Trust's role has meant it is not taking on board industry concerns over the video-on-demand service Project Canvas.

The pay-TV company, which has been backed by rival Virgin Media in opposing Project Canvas, says there is a conflict between the trust's role as guardian of licence fee payers as and its job setting the strategic course of the corporation. It says the trust 'missed an opportunity to achieve the BBC's public purposes in a proportionate manner' when it published it provisional decision to approve the service in December.

In its response to the trust's conclusions, BSkyB raises issues over funding arrangements, says that the scope of Project Canvas is designed to favour free-to-air broadcasters, and claims that a 'one size fits all' user interface will be the standard.

'Sky believes that the inherent tension between the two roles has led the trust to disregard too easily concerns raised by stakeholders,' it said in its submission. 'With such weak obligations on the BBC and joint venture partners, there would be a real risk of the trust failing to discharge its duties as guardian of the licence fee revenue and public interest, by favouring the BBC's short-term commercial objectives over the interests of the wider market, and the licence fee payer.'

BSkyB said that a quid pro quo for allowing the BBC to be part of Project Canvas, which has partners including BT, Channel 4 and TalkTalk, would be to force it to make its on-demand content available to rivals with no strings attached.

'Consumers will benefit if the BBC's on-demand content is widely available on multiple platforms,' said BSkyB. 'Indeed in a world with Canvas it becomes imperative that the BBC syndicate its public service content without bundling it with iPlayer, if requested, and without requiring distributors to take unreasonable volumes of material. Such a condition would reduce the main concerns of a significant section of industry to the BBC's participation in Project Canvas.'

The BBC Trust, which refused to allow Ofcom to conduct a separate market impact assessment of Project Canvas, has admitted that while benefits to consumers will be significant there will also be an impact on the businesses of pay-TV companies such as BSkyB and Virgin Media.

A 'base case' scenario, according to the trust, would be that BSkyB and Virgin Media could lose out on revenues of between £127m and £470m. However, Sky argues that the costs are likely to hit £642m, the BBC Trust's 'high case' scenario, or above.

BSkyB has also cautioned that the funding mechanism, and in particular the start-up research and development budgets that the BBC has provided, run the risk of breaching state aid rules.

The BBC, whose total research and development spending increased by almost 300% from £16.1m in 2007-08 to £47.8m in 2008-09, argued that expenditure specifically on internet TV R&D did not represent a "pre-investment" specifically on Project Canvas but general expenditure on the initiatives for the sector.

However, a BBC spokeswoman said the corporation's R&D spend had not increased 300%, as last year's annual report suggested.

"Before 2008/9 a category of development spend in FM&T [Future Media & Technology] was not included along with other R&D costs in the BBC's annual report and accounts. We identified this inconsistency in 08/09 and published the full figure. This means there has not been a 300% increase in R&D spend, in fact the amount has remained fairly stable," she added.

"Previous years accounts were not misstated (the figure was treated correctly in the main income and expenditure and balance sheet), but the total R&D figure disclosed omitted this FM&T spend."

In the publication of its provisional conclusions in December, the trust said that an independent audit needed to take place to verify that the BBC's research and development spending would be shared equally among the partners.

It is understood that the trust was aiming to publish its final decision by the end of March.

However, for a number of reasons, including the expected publication of Ofcom's pay-TV review and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport announcing the successful bidders for the three regional news pilots, it is expected to be put back to April.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.

• If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly 'for publication'.

• Project Canvas
• BBC
• BSkyB
• Television industry

Mark Sweney

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

"

Richard Ayre to join BBC Trust - Guardian

Richard Ayre to join BBC Trust: "

Richard Ayre, the former deputy chief executive of BBC News and controller of BBC editorial policy, is joining the BBC Trust. He will replace the former ITN editor in chief Richard Tait as a BBC trustee on 1 August, for a four-year term. He will be paid £35,935 a year for two days work per week. Ayre is currently Ofcom content board member for England and chair of the regulator's broadcasting review committee. He will step down from his Ofcom role before joining the BBC Trust.

• BBC Trust
• BBC
• Ofcom

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

"

BBC forced to apologise after labelling picture of dead policeman as 'Mr Plod' - Daily Mail

BBC forced to apologise after labelling picture of dead policeman as 'Mr Plod': "
Millions of viewers tuned in to see a picture of father-of-two Ian Terry, 32, on the flagship Six O'Clock News programme during a story unrelated to his death."

BBC set to 'allow NAO in as its auditor', MPs told - Telegraph

BBC set to 'allow NAO in as its auditor', MPs told: "The BBC Trust is prepared to consider allowing the National Audit Office in as
the corporation's auditor, MPs were told, but it would not be offered
''unfettered access''."

Question Time 18th March 2010 - Biased BBC

Question Time 18th March 2010: "

Question Time this week hails from Wythenshawe, Manchester.

On the panel we have former foreign secretary Margaret Beckett, shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, the unbeatable David Starkey, Charles *hic* Kennedy and Green Party eco-loon Caroline Lucas.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Couldn't resist this... - Biased BBC

Couldn't resist this...: "From Ed West's Telegraph blog yesterday:

Most London media types in their thirties are still sartorially influenced by hip-hop, which American sociologist James Howard Kunstler thinks is a conscious decision to dress like babies.

Exhibit A - thirtysomething London media type Richard Bacon tweeting from New York yesterday:


Yo! 34-year-old white nigga! Boom!

(And he's hip to the latest liberal lip.)

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

The market doesn't need Project Canvas - Guardian

The market doesn't need Project Canvas: "

As the BBC Trust prepares a final ruling on the online video joint venture, BSkyB's chief operating officer puts the case against

Like everyone else at Sky, I've long been used to reading that I work for a 'satellite broadcaster'. But an increasingly large part of my time is spent on something that has absolutely nothing to do with dishes or set-top boxes. That, of course, is the growth and development of online video, which is increasingly central to this supposed 'satellite' business.

The reason for Sky's growing interest in broadband delivered video is simple. As we invest more than £1.5bn a year in content, it is important to make that investment work as hard as possible. So we aim to get our content in front of customers via multiple platforms and devices, whether through the TV, PC or mobile, or over satellite, cable, internet protocol television (IPTV), broadband, wifi or 3G. Taking an agnostic approach to technology means we can extract every drop of value from our investments while customers consume our content on their terms.

It's now more than four years since we launched our online video service – the first of its kind from a UK broadcaster. Since that time, Sky Player has continued to evolve, most recently with the launch on Xbox and the imminent arrival on Fetch TV, and others have also been innovating with online video, from LoveFilm and 4oD to Blinkbox and SeeSaw.

Looking ahead, I expect the pace of change and innovation will be just as strong, particularly as online video makes the leap from the PC to the TV screen. An increasing number of Freeview boxes will be broadband-enabled and TV manufacturers like Samsung and Panasonic are developing IP-enabled sets, for which others are developing a range of video 'apps' to be offered on those sets . So, while business models are still developing, there will be more opportunities for content providers as well as growing choice for consumers.

When the sector is at such an embryonic stage of development, I struggle to understand why we need a new, publicly subsidised platform in the shape of the BBC and BT-backed Project Canvas venture, which is under review by the BBC Trust. Sky's concerns regarding the BBC's involvement in Canvas have been widely reported, but I suspect the reasons for those concerns are not as well understood.

To be clear, we're against neither the growth of online video nor the development of common standards. But what we do stand firmly against is the use of public money in a way that distorts fair competition or undermines the scope for other innovative services to emerge in the future. Anyone looking at the Canvas proposals has to consider the consequences – whether intended or unintended – of diverting part of the licence fee away from programme-making and into proprietary platform development instead.

Taking in turn the three main elements of the Canvas project – adopting common technical standards, specifying a consistent user interface and bringing internet-connected TV to more consumers – there appears to be no need for the licence fee to be redirected in this way.

First of all, industry will deliver common standards for broadband video delivery whether Canvas goes ahead or not. That's already being considered by an established body, the Digital Television Group, which has accused the BBC and its Canvas partners of developing a standard separately from the rest of the industry. All sections of the industry, as well as consumers, would be better served if a single standard is developed through the DTG, giving all content providers – free and pay - certainty over key issues such as compatibility and digital rights management.

Second, far from being a positive development, the desire of the Canvas partners to impose an identical user interface on all compliant devices is anti-choice and anti-innovation. The reality is that consumers benefit when companies seek to differentiate their products, because that's what drives improvement. Let's not forget, the benefits of this horizontal approach, with multiple competing user interfaces, have helped Freeview reach many of millions of households in recent years.

And third, internet-connected TV is already happening and will continue to spread over time as consumer demand grows in response to innovation by the market. The danger here is that Canvas deters commercial players from launching new products and services that would compete with a BBC-backed platform.

So, rather than replicating what would otherwise occur naturally, the BBC could put the licence fee to better use by creating outstanding content and, importantly, making it available without discrimination on all platforms. The BBC's failure to operate a transparent and fair content syndication policy, and the trust's ineffectiveness in this regard, leads inevitably to the conclusion that the corporation puts its own interests ahead of those licence fee payers who might prefer to access BBC content on a platform other than Canvas.

Sky is far from a lone voice of dissent in this process. The Canvas proposals have created common ground with the likes of Virgin Media, Samsung and start-ups like IP Vision. All of them agree that the BBC should support innovation by investing in original content and distributing that content as widely as possible, not by spending the licence fee on an unnecessary and market-distorting platform.

The effects of that distortion could spread far beyond the original purpose of the licence fee. BT, one of the UK's biggest companies, could well become one of the great beneficiaries of the BBC's investment in Canvas. When the BBC Trust comes to consider its decision, it must recognise that helping BT to relaunch its TV service is not the right way to use the licence fee.

Mike Darcey is BSkyB's chief operating officer

• Project Canvas
• BSkyB
• Online TV
• BBC Trust
• BBC
• Digital media
• Television industry
• BSkyB
• BT

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

"

EPHRAIM HARDCASTLE: Surprise! Murdoch's most generous donor is BBC director general Mark Thompson - Daily Mail

EPHRAIM HARDCASTLE: Surprise! Murdoch's most generous donor is BBC director general Mark Thompson: "
Publishing heiress Elisabeth Murdoch, 41 - daughter of Rupert - will ride the Paul Nicholls-trained gelding Al Amaan in the Ladies' Charity Race at the Cheltenham Festival on Thursday."

The BBC's monstrous downgrading of radio drama, review - Telegraph

The BBC's monstrous downgrading of radio drama, review: "Gillian Reynolds despairs at the diminishment of drama on the radio, and
reviews the past week's highlights including Radio 4 play Not Bobby, the
Classic Serial: Clarissa, and Frederic Raphael's series Final Demands."

John Simpson likens BBC critics Bradshaw and Hunt to mechanics attacking Rolls Royce with spanners - Telegraph

John Simpson likens BBC critics Bradshaw and Hunt to mechanics attacking Rolls Royce with spanners: "The broadcaster John Simpson has compared critics of the BBC to 'mechanics
going into a Rolls-Royce garage with a spanner and starting to lay about the
bodywork'."

Tom Conti says BBC is afraid of poshness - Telegraph

Tom Conti says BBC is afraid of poshness: "Brave is the actor who attacks the BBC, but Tom Conti, the star of Shirley
Valentine who has appeared in several dramas for the corporation, feels
it is now institutionally biased against 'poshness'."

Cost of BBC rooftop studio at Euro 2008 'double previous estimates' - Telegraph

Cost of BBC rooftop studio at Euro 2008 'double previous estimates': "The BBC has admitted that its rooftop studio in Vienna for Euro 2008 cost
almost £600,000 - more than double the amount previously disclosed."

Radio 4 apologises for day old shipping forecast - Telegraph

Radio 4 apologises for day old shipping forecast: "Radio 4 has apologised for broadcasting a shipping forecast which had already
been aired a day earlier on Today, its flagship news programme."

A FORMAL COMPLAINT TO THE BBC – PART 5 - CiF Watch

A FORMAL COMPLAINT TO THE BBC – PART 5: "

This is a guest post by Mitnaged

As those of you who have been following this will know, BBC Radio London aired an interview with the Guardian’s Political Editor, Michael White on 14^th December last year. On the 19^th December last, I initiated a formal complaint about the content and conduct of that interview. You can find accounts of the various stages of the process here, here, here and here

Readers may remember that I sent a further email to Andrew Bell, the Complaints Director of the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, which I printed at the end of Part 4 of the saga. It went as follows:

“Dear Mr Bell

“Thank you for your letter of 4^th March.

“In it, you write, “… I do not feel that there was any lack of impartiality shown by the fact that he [ie Michael White] was not challenged….”

“I am afraid that you miss the point completely:

“My complaint was not only that the presenters failed to challenge Michael White but that they indicated agreement with his views.

“It is evident to me that you have singularly failed to address this evident bias on their part in your reply to me and I would like an explanation of whether this was because you ignored this in your investigation and, if so, why you did not think it important.

“Yours sincerely”

I got the following reply:

From: Andy Bell [mailto:andy.bell@bbc.co.uk]

Sent: 12 March 2010 15:19

To:

Subject: RE: For the attention of Andrew Bell ref: AB/1000029

“Dear

“Thank you for your email.

“I have gone back to your original complaint where you did raise the issue of the presenters making noises which you think signified agreement with Michael White’s views. However, you offered this as support for your complaint that Michael White’s contribution was inaccurate and misled the audience not as evidence of bias. I believe I dealt with the point about accuracy substantively in my letter though I did not refer to these noises specifically. However, I am very happy to consider it as evidence of bias now.

“I have listened to the report again. There are three occasions, while Michael White is speaking, where Jo Good says “mmmm”. I have to say that I think I would be hard pressed to take this as evidence of bias. Interviewers say this, and similar things, all the time whilst interviewing contributors and it usually means no more than “I understand what you’re saying” . I can speak from personal experience in saying this, having spent many years interviewing people for television myself. Even when an interviewer might use the word “Yes” during the course of an interview even this would not necessarily signify agreement, but simply “Yes, I understand what you’re saying”.

“I do appreciate that you were upset by Michael White’s remarks, and as I said in my letter, I do agree that he did not express himself at all clearly, but I am afraid that I don’t consider what he said, given the background I set out in my letter, or indeed any noises that the presenter may have made, to represent serious breaches of editorial standards.

“However, if you are still unhappy with my finding it remains open to you to appeal to the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust. Correspondence for the Committee should be addressed to its Secretary, Bruce Vander, at the BBC Trust Unit, 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ or by email to trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk. The Trust normally expects to receive an appeal within four weeks of the date of this letter, or of any subsequent correspondence between us.

“Thank you again for writing to us. .

“Yours sincerely

“Andy Bell

Complaints Director

Editorial Complaints Unit

Room 5168

BBC White City

201 Wood Lane

London W12 7TS”

And I replied to him by return:

“Dear Mr Bell

“I disagree with your interpretation, which I think is disingenuous and as subjective as you imply mine is.

“Much depends on the tone of the “mmm” or the “yes” and I believe that Jo Good was agreeing with Michael White. Given the BBC’s past record of anti-Israel bias, it is very difficult to understand Jo Good’s noises as not being in agreement. I also believe that she may have been totally out of her depth, which begged the question as to why she was allowed to conduct the interview.

“Yours sincerely”

If we look at Andrew Bell’s reply to me above, it is evident that he is engaged in hair splitting. He is not examining the presenter’s noises in the context of the interview as a whole but chooses to focus instead, rather bizarrely, on the aspect of where I mentioned them in my complaint:

“However, you offered this as support for your complaint that Michael White’s contribution was inaccurate and misled the audience not as evidence of bias….”

(It seems that Mr Bell is afflicted of the same malaise as CiF moderators, that of blinkered literalism. He appears to have no idea that a contribution may be inaccurate and misleading and therefore very likely biased as a result of both of these, whether or not “bias” is actually mentioned).

We then get to the explanation of why he thinks so:

“.. There are three occasions, while Michael White is speaking, where Jo Good says “mmmm”. I have to say that I think I would be hard pressed to take this as evidence of bias. Interviewers say this, and similar things, all the time whilst interviewing contributors and it usually means no more than “I understand what you’re saying” . I can speak from personal experience in saying this, having spent many years interviewing people for television myself. Even when an interviewer might use the word “Yes” during the course of an interview even this would not necessarily signify agreement, but simply “Yes, I understand what you’re saying”.

(So Bell is arguing, and probably with a straight face and as earnestly as he knows how, that just because HE sees no bias in the presenter Jo Good’s “mmm” remarks – and I would lay odds that she was nodding too but obviously I have no proof – then her “mmm” on the three occasions when Michael White was libelling the IDF was no more than a “Yes, I understand what you’re saying.” Moreover Bell is arguing that my subjective interpretation of Jo Woods’ part in this egregious and highly insulting exchange must needs be set aside in favour of his subjective interpretation, because he is an employee of the BBC with “many years of interviewing people for television…” because “interviewers say this and similar things all the time…”

Bell seems to have completely ignored that conversations have at least two participants, a speaker and a listener – in this case many listeners – but that the speaker dare not assume that he/she will be completely understood. Therefore for Michael White to say, “..In Israel they murder each other a great deal…” may be taken as meaning precisely that, in spite of its lamentable grammar. For me, to hear a presenter to not only allowing him to say this unchallenged but also making sounds of agreement throughout the part of the interview which deals with that is evidence of bias in that case, regardless of Bell’s opinion of what tends to happen in other interviews with less contentious subject matter).

I noted above that the BBC, like CiF, tends not to view contentious remarks or statements within their context unless it suits them to do so. Michael White writes for the Guardian. Because of this, I believe that he saw an opportunity to deliberately derail the discussion about the attack on Silvio Berlusconi and took it so that he could undermine his newspaper’s number one bête noire.

The BBC, of course, has its own history of animus towards Israel, which means that any remarks by Michael White which were consonant with that would be acceptable to it. For myself, however, I believe that at least some of the responsibility for letting the interview be sidetracked must lie with Jo Woods herself. Michael White is wily and knew exactly what he was doing. Jo Woods, however, clearly showed herself to be out of her depth when it came to reining him in, and she therefore adopted the course of least resistance towards something she probably knew very little about – that of agreeing with everything he said.

Tagged: Guardian, Michael White "

On and On - Biased BBC

On and On: "The fractured relationship between Israel and the US was the second item on news headlines this morning, but by the next bulletin it had been demoted it to the tail end. Because of Hillary’s concessionary language it was downgraded from sensational “rift,” announced with relish,
( Paxman called it a ‘Crisis of Historic Proportions) to a grudging admission that both parties were making conciliatory noises.

Too bad for the Beeb, slightly less ammunition to chuck at Israel.

Today R4 promised an interview with Ron Proser ‘before eight o’clock’ but we had to make do with Jeremy Bowen speculating over the implications of settlement building, snubbing the US, and General Petreaus’s ominous warning that Israel’s provocative act is endangering US soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Not forgetting another insurmountable obstacle, the impossibility of expecting the Palestinians to lose face. The BBC accepts unquestioningly that this immovable impediment to resuming talks trumps all others. So the more demands the Palestinians make, the more impossible it becomes to resume talks.

The actual granting of planning permission for the new house-building is more complex than it appears. It has been made to look as though it violates previous agreements as a defiant and deliberately provocative move by Israel. But my understanding is that this isn’t the case.

“The key point is that there was actually nothing to apologise for, since it was explicitly agreed between America and Israel that, as a concession to kick-start peace negotiations, Israel would stop building in the West Bank although it would continue to build in east Jerusalem. Indeed, Hillary Clinton herself, no less, praised Israel for this agreement.”

“America has thus effectively unilaterally repudiated that agreement. In other words, this whole uproar has been artificially manufactured by America to produce a crisis with Israel – while refusing, astonishingly, to condemn the Palestinians at all for their refusal to enter peace talks, their honouring of one of their worst terrorists by naming a square after her, their violent attacks on the Temple Mount in recent days, and so on.”

Defenders of Israel always view these actions with dismay because on a superficial level they look bad. So it would have been better for ‘apologists’ like myself if this had not happened. Nevertheless, why should we just accept that reporting of everything complicated will be dumbed down by the BBC so that Israel looks utterly evil.

If Paxman knows anything of the subtleties of this topic he’s not letting on. He gave the US Assistant Secretary of State Philip J Crowley a Paxman grilling. Rude and ill-tempered. “What’s America gonna do if they build them?” “Why don’t you just say ‘build these houses and we’ll cut off your
aid?’ “ On and on and on. “Occupied lands.” “ Endangering lives of soldiers.”

Newsnight continued with a prurient film about a “child sex abuser,” in which it emerged, at the very end, that the seven year old abuser had been abused herself, yet until that was revealed they implied that she was a kind of freak who had become sexualised through original sin.

Disgraceful sensationalised treatment of both subjects, even more disgusting than usual. The BBC is rotten.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

SHAHIL UPDATE - Biased BBC

SHAHIL UPDATE: "This is still a huge story for the BBC - I refer to the Sahil Saeed kidnap narrative. It's not often you see SUCH publicity being blasted through the BBC and it was the major headline yesterday and is still right up there in the rankings. As Martin said yesterday, every day is a good day to bury bad news when Labour have to be saved.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

IS BRITAIN WORKING OR NOT? - Biased BBC

IS BRITAIN WORKING OR NOT?: "So, let me get this right. On the day when official figures reveal that an astonishing 8.16 million of our fellow citzens are now 'economically inactive' and when that rate is now 21.5 per cent of the working age population - the highest since records first began in 1971, good old BBC decides that all is looking quite rosy! Rejoice - Gordon has saved the day! And just in case you may think that this is a one off, here in Northern Ireland the headline is "Slight rise in unemployed' disguising the fact that almost 28% of the working population is not working and the increase in unemployed sets a new record. But with Labour in power and a stooge Assembly here to preserve it doesn't do to let the details rise too far up the news story, does it? Can you imagine is a Conservative government was in power and these sort of scandalous figures came out the outcry the BBC would lead? This is Save Gordon - the last stand!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Setting The Tone (pt 2) - Biased BBC

Setting The Tone (pt 2): "Further to an earlier post comparing the opening paragraphs of BBC articles about the Tea Party and Purple People movements, here are two more examples of tone-setting openers. Both come from recent pieces by the BBC's Madeleine Morris, one on the Tea Party convention in Nashville last month and the other on the first meetings of the new Coffee Party movement at the weekend.

For the Tea Party it's a Don LaFontaine horror movie trailer:

They came from as far away as Hawaii, Maine, and Texas - an overwhelmingly white, middle-aged army of angry conservatives, furious with government spending and influence, and ready to do whatever they can to stop it.

The Coffee Party, on the other hand, gets a welcoming, jaunty little local radio ad:

Looking for a little bit of civil political discussion with your decaf latte? Well the newly formed Coffee Party movement may be for you.

I note also from the two articles that the Coffee Party's grassroots cred is taken at face value ('A grassroots US political grouping') but that of the Tea Party is not ('The Tea Party movement describes itself as a grassroots movement of conservatives.') Those conservatives, they like to call themselves grassroots but can we really trust their claims?

David Preiser has commented on this in the open thread and, as it now seems impossible to link directly to comments, I'm reproducing his post here (with one small quibble - I don't think it's entirely fair to say the Coffee Parties are 'all white', but they're certainly no more diverse than the Tea Parties, so David's point about BBC double standards still stands):

As everyone here knows, the BBC refused to report on the Tea Party movement as it grew and grew until the reality of tens of thousands of people gathering across the US on April 15 forced them to acknowledge it. Then, Kevin Connolly grossly misrepresented and cast aspersions on the participants, hinting at dark forces and racist overtones behind the movement. He also insulted the participants with a sexual innuendo used for them only by the Left. Nearly every time Mark Mardell has deigned to mention the Tea Partiers, he makes sure to paint the participants as being exclusively white and middle class, as if that's an automatic disqualifier. It wasn't until Katty Kay's quite reasonable report in December that the BBC even bothered to really talk to the participants in depth. And even there the title of the piece and overall message is one of 'boiling anger'.

Now, there has been a new opposition movement starting up calling themselves the Coffee Party. It's hardly anything more than the Tea Party movement was in its first weeks, even before people really started calling them Tea Parties. Yet, the BBC not only reports it, but goes to meet them and get their thoughts.

Coffee Party brews up rival for Tea Party

The only similarity between this and the BBC's reporting on the Tea Parties is the gross misrepresentation of the participants. They promote the lies of the Left here too, only this time they claim that the participants are a real grass roots movement. Which is a lie. This thing is being run by Democrat Party hacks. Annabel Park, whom the BBC presents as part of a 'silent majority' campaigned for The Obamessiah, and her own website is owned by a campaign group for Democrat Senator Jim Webb.

They're also all white and middle class. But the BBC strangely fails to offer any such description of the participants.

In contrast to any BBC report on Tea Parties, this one takes the claims of motivation by the participants at face value. No suggestion that they're extremist or angry or potentially violent, as Mardell likes to do with the Tea Partiers. Instead, the Coffee Party astroturf is portrayed as being lovely and wanting nothing more than for government to help people and for politicians to join hands in peace and harmony everlasting.

Don't trust the BBC On US issues.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

"State or private?" - Biased BBC

"State or private?": "Cristina Odone:

I am sitting in a BBC Green Room. It’s school holidays, and I have no one to baby-sit Isabella, aged 6, so I bring her along to my interview. The programme presenter, well known for her liberal views, pops in: “Hullo – your daughter?” she smiles at Izzy. I nod, yes. The presenter looks at me: “State or private?”

“State or private”. Not, “how old?” or “how sweet” or any number of friendly comments a grown-up makes upon meeting a child who is feeling self-conscious in an unfamiliar place. State or private: that has become the ultimate litmus test for so-called liberals today. (So-called, because what is liberal about a group that mocks and ostracises anyone who does not share its values?)

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

THE RETURN OF SHAHIL - Biased BBC

THE RETURN OF SHAHIL: "I am sure that all decent people will be pleased to know that the little kidnapped British boy, Sahil Saeed, has been released from captivity from where he was being held prisoner in Pakistan.Is it just me or has the BBC coverage of this story - led by the fragrant Orla Guerin - been MASSIVELY over the top all day? Thoughts?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

So it Goes Again - Biased BBC

So it Goes Again: "“The BBC is currently much more interested in the untimely granting of planning permission for a few houses for Jews. Joe Biden’s visit was just in time for that, but, dammit, just too late for the ceremonial dedication of a public square to Dalal Mughrabi.”

Forgive me for re-posting a snippet of my own copy. I’ve been away from a computer, and now I see that Robin Shepherd has written another cracking article about the BBC’s treatment of these events and the BBC’s attitude to Israel in general.

“What in fact is the BBC line against Israel, as evidenced by the thrust of its writing and reporting?”

He cites five examples of certain stories the BBC has chosen to ignore or downplay. Had the BBC given them the prominence they actually merit, a different light would have been cast on the situation. One that would render the BBC’s entire narrative on Israel incoherent.

“That is why the Dalal Mughrabi story was ignored. That is why the BBC continues to censor all reference to Hamas’s anti-Semitism from their profile of the group on their website. That is why terrorists are referred to as “militants”. And what applies to the BBC applies in Europe more broadly.

By leaving the general population in a state of near total unawareness about the realities that Israel confronts in its dealings with the Palestinians, even neutral and unbiased observers are bound to come away with the impression that Israel is the guilty party in this conflict.

This is real censorship. And it works.”

Writers that understand the case for Israel and have a grasp of the I/P conflict invariably mention the BBC’ s slanted coverage. The biased reporting that has gone on for the last forty years has a helluva lot to answer for.
Robin Shepherd is one of the more eloquent supporters of Israel, and he is by no means alone in regarding the BBC’s deficiencies over this matter with deep despair.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

MORE SNAKE OIL... - Biased BBC

MORE SNAKE OIL...: "
Here’s another BBC warming fanatic. He’s James Painter, who for the past decade has been filing warming alarmist stories from his beat in his various roles as BBC World Service Spanish American editor and Miami bureau chief. He came to my my attention because he's led the field in reporting alleged climate change related drought problems in the Amazon, one of the areas where the IPCC report has been found to be discredited; Richard North reveals today why it's bunk.

He’s now moved on to become a lecturer and research fellow at the Reuters Institute in Oxford, but this is partly funded by the BBC and he is still a BBC Latin American analyst, filing stories on the impact of drought and the shrinking of glaciers. So Mr Painter remains a BBC man through and through. He is clearly of that BBC breed that believes climate change is a crusade. He recently gave the annual keynote lecture to the Society of Latin American Studies. It’s well worth a careful read because his speech is a case study of the extent to which bias has infected every aspect of BBC journalism in this area. He says:

To summarise then, climate change is happening, it’s happening faster than expected, and it will have a huge impact on Latin America. Of course there are all sorts of scientific uncertainties, but uncertainty should not be an excuse for lack of coverage in the media. In the same way that climate adaptation policies have to be incorporated into governments’ development strategies, global warming as an issue has to be mainstreamed into the media.

Basically, this fanatic believes that 90% of scientists accept global warming, and therefore the views of sceptics should not be reported; that the Arctic is melting, that the Amazon will be badly affected by drought , and vast parts of South America will become desert. He thinks also that the 2007 IPCC report did not go far enough:

…there is plenty of evidence to suggest that by some key performance indicators - the rate of warming, the rate of melt in some parts of the world and the rise in GHG accumulation - real-world changes are at the upper bound or beyond the worst-case scenario presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) last year.

The main thrust of his argument is that media organisations must stop reporting other news, and focus their main efforts on climate change. I’ve noted before that if you scratch the surface of the nature of BBC journalism, you find that it’s actually a propaganda machine, and that almost every reporter that is examined is actually a political activist. Mr Painter fits that profile; the tragedy is that he clearly believes – from the tone of his lecture – that’s he’s an objective reporter. He’s not, he’s a peddler of snake oil.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

TODAY... - Biased BBC

TODAY...: "For those interested, here, and here, and here.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

BBC is caught up in a row over Nelson Mandela and Jeremy Clarkson & the astronaut - Daily Mail

BBC is caught up in a row over Nelson Mandela and Jeremy Clarkson ‘the astronaut’: "
The outspoken presenter revealed that the former South African president had mistaken him for an astronaut."

BBC 'failing to provide alternative to commercialised US children's programmes' - Telegraph

BBC 'failing to provide alternative to commercialised US children's programmes': "The BBC is failing to provide an alternative to the superficiality and
commercialism of US children's programming, according to the respected
producer of In The Night Garden."

BBC to spend £1m on World Cup studio - Telegraph

BBC to spend £1m on World Cup studio: "The BBC is to spend £1 million on a 'flat pack' television studio to cover the
World Cup after winning a bidding war to film the tournament from the top of
a Cape Town hospital."

Bob's Yer Uncle - Biased BBC

Bob's Yer Uncle: "
Here we are, frantically battling against the bias at the BBC. Year in, year out, we stab away at our keyboards, foam-flecked spittle flying, blood pressure on the point of spontaneous combustion.
Auntie, meanwhile, gaily carries on, undeterred, oblivious and undaunted.

Then, along comes Bob. Hell hath no fury like a live-aid organiser scorned. The BBC sits up and openth one eye.
So. Should we recruit a celeb?.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

MARRED AND QUESTIONED - Biased BBC

MARRED AND QUESTIONED: "Anyone else have the misfortune to watch the Andrew Marr show this morning? It was the usual left-liberal fest. First up we had the new Green Peace President Kumi Naidoo on to tell us about the horrors of global warming. He took the opportunity to also express his support for law-breaking. Andrew just smiled at him. Then we had author Ian McEwan on to warn us about the horrors of...global warming. Get the message? After that, on sauntered Lord Adonis to warn us of the evils of Conservatism and the need to abolish the House of Lords. To finish, Ken Clarke was interviewed and he insisted that Conservatives needed to go after the liberal vote in order to win the election. Balanced and fair from start to finish as Andrew shines his light.



Next up, the execrable Nicky Campbell "Big Question." The first question on this Mothering Sunday was "whether we need fathers". The general consensus was that we didn't and that two lesbians provided the almost perfect model for bringing up children. There was also talk of "it takes a village" to bring up a child. Fathers were seen as an irrelevance to having a happy child. The feminised audience were a disgrace but par for the course. Next up, "Is it time for a maximum wage"? Hard left trade union Unite had a representative on to explain that it is an outrage that there is no ceiling on how people can be paid. He lied about the minimum wage being a great success (It hasn't) and now he demands a maximum wage. Pure Communist thinking and endorsed by Nicky Campbell.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Setting The Tone - Biased BBC

Setting The Tone: "Here are the opening paragraphs of two articles from the BBC today, both from stories about anti-government protest movements. One discusses the 'egalitarian' Purple People movement in Italy while the other is about the 'conservative' Tea Party movement in America.

'Think of a world of politics without spin doctors, teleprompters, stage-managed conferences, party headquarters, manifestos, cynicism or even leaders.'

'When the bearded activist in wraparound sunglasses put his hand on my shoulder, I felt his anger.'

No prizes for guessing which is which. (Compare the pictures, too. One group is happily 'festooned' in symbolism, the other has 'declared war' 'bitterly'.)

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"