I think it was on yesterday’s 8 am radio news that I heard the rioters captured and beaten by the British Army two years ago described as ‘demonstrators’, with its comforting overtones of placards, badges and cries of ‘What Do We Want ?”.
Blogger Squander Two noticed it too. He thinks the ‘demonstrators’ were the ‘demonstrators’ described in this BBC report.
That is not to justify the beatings. Were BBC journalists to be attacked, they would doubtless react quite differently. But as BBC correspondents like to remind us, there are two sides to every story.
UPDATE – I’m reminded of the BBCs reporting of the Indonesian riots preceding the fall of the Suharto regime in May 1998. Those burning cars and buildings in Jakarta were described in bulletins as ‘protesters’ and ‘demonstrators’, and one R4 bulletin described ‘demonstrators’ burning and looting, observing that ‘Chinese areas were particularly targeted’. A remarkably restrained description of racist mob violence, and one which it is impossible to imagine the BBC using if the rioters were, say, white Britons. As reports over the next few days pointed to continuous anti-Chinese violence including mass rape, the tone of reporting changed and the ‘demonstrators’ became ‘rioters’ – which of course they had been from the start.
O/T
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=L51GC1LKIK4JDQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/02/21/waust21.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/21/ixportal.html
why no such guts here?
Yes, the BBC are propagandists of the sort envisaged by Aldous Huxley in ‘Brave New World’ and George Orwell in ‘1984’.
But they’ll be less and less successful at propaganda as more and more people gain access to the self-regulating, no-bullshit zone of the blogosphere.
And hopefully they’ll soon become redundant.
Are there actually any BBC journalists on the ground ? Al-Amarah is supposedly worse than Crossmaglen or Newry and is I believe where 6 MPs were murdered.
Does anyone really think the BBC is doing anything more than second-hand reporting using Al-Jazeera output ?
http://ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/categorie/46044
Interesting Blog
http://www.regrettheerror.com
great match
Nbcnews A correction to a NBC News blog post:
Due to an editing error in a Feb. 8 report in “Blogging Baghdad,” we incorrectly reported that the Prophet Muhammad was killed instead of passing away peacefully. His grandson, Iman Hussein, was killed in the 680 AD battle that is commemorated during the Shiite holy festival of Ashoura. Link
SiN – can you imagine His Sainted Toniness even having the balls to think something like that, never mind actually saying it out loud?!
OT
Just listened to a 10 minute interview of Hilary Benn (the Minister to Give Taxpayers’ Money to Corrupt Governments) about Darfur. Although Mr Benn mentioned “ethnic cleansing” once you would never guess from interviewer or interviewee that the ethnic cleansing was by Muslims of black non-Muslims nor that the protection provided by soldiers of the Association of African Dictators – sorry, African Union – is COMPLETELY ineffectual.
BBC Breakfast – what you need to know over your marmalade and toast.
Sunnis have bombed Shiites “Most Holy Site”. The BBC then quotes
“One Iman as saying, the Americans have brought us terrorism”
In a stroke, the violence is reduced to blaming the Yanks while disseminating the drivel of an un named, obscure and biased Imman across the length and breadth of the UK.
As a taster we are then told of the forthcoming item soon to be aired of a female prisoner on death row and her new book.
This apparent puerile juvenile psychotic perverted addictive obsession continues elsewhere with gossip and tittle tattle concerning Royalty, always easy meat.
Meanwhile over on GM TV, a poll reveals that foreigners consider Brits to be nice but dull.
Perhaps they have been listening or watching too much BBC.
Disgraceful bias on Newsnight again last night. Their lead item was a report by a so-called “respected” outfit of lawyers called Human Rights First. The report was published just yesterday, no-one else seems to have reported it, yet the BBC had an in-depth report that looked as though it had taken several days to put together. In other words, the lawyers had teed up the BBC, the BBC had worked with the lawyers. The people invited to respond will have been bounced into their responses, no time even to see and read the report. One of them said he had not seen it.
A former Army lawyer, a Brigadier General, was brought on to make criticisms. But the BBC failed to say that he is leading counsel for the lawyer’s group. They then brought on Moazzim Begg, the Gitmo prisoner, as some kind of expert, without pointing out his own record and that Al Q trains people to lie.
And the BBC also failed to report that Human Rights First has been trying for over a year to prosecute Donald Rumsfeld. It is about as far left a group as one could imagine, and it has been attacked for having its focus on Human Rights almost exclusively against our side – never doing the same depth of work on human rights abuses in, say, China, Saudi, Zimbabwe etc. They trade in making wild an unprovable-either-way allegations against the US military, all part of the Abu Ghraib circus that the BBC laps up every week.
It was a totally put-up job, led by Pater Marshall as the washington reporter. Gavin Esler as presenter should be ashamed of himself, as should the Newsnight producer.
“It was a totally put-up job, led by Pater Marshall as the washington reporter”
huh? whats happened to Justin Webb?
has he been sidelined since his refreshing outburst over the christmas period?
“in a stroke, the violence is reduced to blaming the Yanks while disseminating the drivel of an un named, obscure and biased Imman across the length and breadth of the UK”
i presume that no background information on the Imam’s Iranian connections was broadcast? In the Shiite south , especially Basra, a lot of Imams lived in Iran during Saddam’s time – i.e.theres Iranian infiltration going on, and Sharia Law is gradually encroaching on everyday life.
archduke
This “Imman” is an unknown quantity, a non-entity, his only claim to have his comments broadcast is that he has spouted the well worn BBC and liberal line that they want to hear.
We haven’t a clue as to who he may be although his agenda is not hard to resolve, he is a source?
He said what the BBC wanted to hear and this qualifies his comments as valid and newsworthy. It makes you despair at the moral bankruptcy of so called BBC journos and wish that you could puke all over them, to show your disgust.
Indeed sarge, indeed. And why the hell are the BBC interviewing “imams”? There are actual Iraqi political parties now. Interview a party for chrissakes.
the bbc is just reinforcing the sectarianism that is developing in Iraq.
Off Topic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/4710516.stm
Boy, 12, ‘raped boy, 8, twice’
Not even worthy of the front page…
More details.
Boy, 12, guilty of sexual abuse
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/4736496.stm
A boy aged 12 from Greater Manchester has been found guilty of sexually abusing two boys aged eight and four.
The boy, who cannot be named, was found guilty of two counts of attempted rape and seven charges of sexual assault at a trial at Liverpool Crown Court.
He was also guilty of three counts of inciting a child to engage in sexual offences and abusing a child under 13.
The boy, from Wigan, had handcuffed one victim to a drawer handle. Sentencing was adjourned until next month.
The court heard that between April and July last year, the eight-year-old went to his attacker’s home several times to play computer games.
On one occasion the 12-year-old fastened the young boy’s arm to a handle using handcuffs from his toy box and tried to rape him. The eight-year-old was subjected to seven assaults over four months.
The younger boy was also forced by the defendant to perform sexual acts involving an eight-year-old girl. The 12-year-old told the pair they would be “taken away” by police if they told anyone.
The defendant was also found guilty of abusing a four-year-old boy in a tent in the garden of his home in April last year.
Det Con Craig Hurst, of Greater Manchester Police (GMP), said: “This was an horrendous ordeal for those involved. Any sexual offence is despicable but the age of those involved in this incident makes it particularly shocking.
“It took courage for the eight-year-old boy to come forward to police and report this catalogue of abuse.
“I hope that he realises now that it was the right thing to do.”
This article isn’t even available as a ‘clickable’ on the BBC website anymore. The story only ‘broke’ yesterday.
huh? whats happened to Justin Webb?
Peter Marshall does reports for Newsnight. Therefore he doesn’t tred on Justin Webb’s toes, nor Matt Frei’s nor Clive Myrie’s (just posted to Paris) etc., etc.
I assume that the Peter Marshall who presented the distorted puff-piece for leftie Human Rights lawyers on Newsnight last night is the same nasty piece of work who was swearing at Stephen Pollard last year :
http://www.stephenpollard.net/002218.html
http://www.stephenpollard.net/002207.html
http://www.stephenpollard.net/002217.html
Peter Marshall had been implying that the London bombings of 7/7 were all our fault. He clearly has form. An ace in criticising us rather than the Islamofascism. Part of the BBC masochism brigade. Highly-paid by the licence payers to undermine the Coalition.
As Pollard asked last July – whose side is the BBC on ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4734500.stm
“Sources in Saudi Arabia have told the BBC that some of its articles have stirred controversy by going against the prevailing views of the conservative establishment that runs the country”
since when is religious totalitarianism “conservative”?
i mean, for example, Al Sistani in Iraq is a conservative, but all the signs are that he supports a democractic and free Iraq.
But the Saudis – boy are they totalitarian – in spades.
So what is it BBC? can we have a bit less of your foggy thinking please
Peter Marshall is yet another of the reporters who seem to be on the Newsnight staff, paid full-time just for that, plus all their expenses, and they send in an OCCASIONAL report. All part of the BBC’s grossly-inflated news empire.
Bring back some PROPER reporters of the James Cameron ilk. All Marshall can do is a contrived “scandal” report, script effectively written for him by the leftie protest group whose PR he chooses to publicise, when there are much bigger issues to report from the US.
The main story on Radio 4’s ‘news’ today was the attack on a shia mosque in Iraq. Nobody was reported as dying but the streets were apparently soon full of angry protestors.
It is absurd that this should be the lead item. No reporting of Christian places of worship destroyed in Egypt or Nigeria. The BBC is now al-BBC.
It seems clear that Marshall hangs out with the pro-UN crowd. His ludicrous comments after the tsunami are reported here :
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2005/01/aiding-and-abetting-enemy.html
And reading this transcript of an ealier marshall piece, it is clear where his bias lies. Anti-US, pro anyone who criticises the US eg over Gitmo.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/GBlegalLimbo.html
“when there are much bigger issues to report from the US.”
yeah – like the UAE ports deal in the US and the flurry of threatened legislation from highly concerned governors and senators over there.
now THATS news.
“whose side is the BBC on”
Not anyone who feels British that’s for certain!
Geezer,
I’m not the one who responded to your post.
old post from Jan 2005, but still a good read. its by Lt Col. Tim Ryan of the U.S. army , on media reporting from Iraq. its still relevant.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/01/aiding_and_abbe.html
Archonix,
I ain’t so sure that it’s the BBC’s ‘foggy thinking’.
It’s more like the BBC’s calculated attempt to lead others into thought fog
OT BBC reporting of Nigerian riots varies depending on the victims.
Let’s see:
Here the victims are ‘people’ and the perpetrators unknown.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4735014.stm
While here the victims are ‘Muslims’ and the perpetrators Christians.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4738726.stm
No bias in reprting the riots there, I suppose.
DFH, just saw your post.
Perverted minds think alike 🙂
“thought fog” – i like that phrase. sums it up really.
bbc iraq news: some temple to a moon god is blown up.
real news: Kurdistan gets the thumbs up from US Dept. of Commerce – “gateway for investment in iraq”
http://www.krg.org/articles/article_detail.asp?LangNr=12&LNNr=28&RNNr=70&ArticleNr=9485
from that article we find this site:
http://www.kurdistancorporation.com/
well, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck – it is a duck. we have a de-facto independant state called Kurdistan.
ever catch that one happening on the BBC? thought not.
Yet another example of sloppy news reporting, without reference to the wider context:
“Syria witnesses Islamist revival”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4735240.stm
no mention whatsoever of the Iranian presidents visit to Damascus recently:
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=72628282&p=7z6z8584
the BBC report would make you think that the Islamists are a threat to the Syrian government. When in fact, Hamas have operated out of Damascus for years now.
And the Iranian president is a firm ally of the regime.
Hey Max. Maybe muslims aren’t people. Just a thought.
AD
Given that ‘Kurdistan’ (don’t repeat that in front of a Turk) is advertising itself as a ‘gateway for investment in Iraq’ ‘once the security situation improves’ it would be a bit disingenious to report that and not an(other) incident contributing pretty forcefully to the security situation not improving. I suspect that potential investors will be more interested in hard news than in US Dept of Commerce platitudes.
A bit about both would be nice – with some case studies about the issues facing new investors in Kurdistan rather than PR fluff.
More “plumbing”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4738914.stm
At least Sky says “Middle East origin”
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13510155,00.html
Islamic crime funds terrorism, why is this article hidden, and that facts covered up at the bBC?
I think we all know.
Max,
very good example of uneven reporting standards. Even in the second article, they can’t bring themselves to identify the two sides.
Cockney,
Investors like stability, it seems that Kurdistan has it while the rest of Iraq does not. Build your house on rock not shifting sands. It’s a mutual thing.
Are the Kurds so divided amongst themselves that they go around killing each other and/or killing Americans, with outside influences egging them on for their own devious ends?
Or are they a largely rational, responsible, proud, mature people intent on turning their patch of territory into a safe place in which to bring up their children with a decent education and a job to look forward to.
Who would you back? the apparently sane or the ones wearing the suicide belts?
Join the BBC if you support the latter.
“A bit about both would be nice”
i totally agree Cockney. of course i know that the stuff i linked to could well be platitudes, but where is the BBC reporting on all of this, so that we can get a better judgement of the situation?
oh i forgot – that doesnt fit into the beeboid agenda of:
iraq = bad news
in case anyone has caught this yet, heres someone whos blogging about kurdistan
http://www.michaeltotten.com/
the question i ask is – why are we depending on independent bloggers like this guy, begging for paypal donations, to give us this sort of coverage , when we have a £1 billion BBC news agency.
i not saying that BBC should be ALL good news about Iraq. but all i see from the BBC is bombings, deaths, and nothing BUT bad news.
as a viewer, i would be interested in reports from Kurdistan. whats going on there. why are they so effective against terrorism. why are they so pro-american? and numerous other questions.
Listening to the Jeremy Vine show discussing the Prince Charles issue we un-cover the true BBC agenda.
Namely, should Monarchy have a voice and represent what some people think, or should it stay indoors and like children, be seen but not heard.
HM The Queen is apparently OK because she “listens” to government advisor’s. I read that as she does as she is told and is a willing and pliable government functionary.
Prince Charles on the other hand, twenty years ago, starting making comments about our heartless architecture or what passed for it by slating the National Gallery extension as a “hideous carbuncle”
Jeremy Vine talking to a listener made the outrageous comment that these remarks led to the loss of livelihood of an architect. The listener just had time to refute this slanderous slur before being cut off and slammed with some banal music.
The true BBC agenda, the “wider issue” as they may call it, is should we be a Monarchy or a Republic, and if it is a Monarchy should the Monarchy shut up and only be wheeled out as a tourist attraction? viewed only as an extension of the ruling party.
Guess what BBC staffers and News Editors think.
OT – Matt Freis new Washington Diary is out.
Published 10:30am.
Current number of comments:0.
To coin a phrase used by BBC Newswatch – this blog (Biased-BBC) is on fire today. Cracking posts exposing a failing, corrupt and biased BBC. To posters, I salute your indefatiga…..whatever! well done.
BBC sets aside £100m for UK films
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4739216.stm
“The news follows a poor showing for British film at Sunday’s Bafta awards, with The Constant Gardener winning just one award out of 10 nominations.
However, the investment strategy is subject to a “favourable” licence fee settlement which will be set by the government later this year.”
Who gave the BBC the remit to finance the UK film industry?
It may be a laudable aim (to win more Oscars for British productions…?) but who the hell gave authority for the BBC to fund it via the mandatory TV tax?????
no way, I won’t pay!
dumbcisco “Bring back some PROPER reporters of the James Cameron ilk”
What!? Cameron is no doubt the patron saint of lefty BBC hacks. A self-confessed provider of opinion rather than facts.
Re Newsnight – at least the BBC provided an interview with an American who was critical of the Human Rights group report. He pointed out the relatively miniscule number of abuse claims, the severe punishment of some servicemen found guilty, that absense of severe punishment in other cases was probably a result of lack of evidence (compare with 2 adults walking from a London court last week following a trial relating to the death through “torture” of a 4 month old child) & that abuse was just as widespread in WW2 & all other conflicts.
Esler gave the man a fair hearing.
Maybe the Constant Gardener didn’t win a Bafta award because it was a load of agit-prop crap with high production values: maybe Brokeback Mountain, Walk the Line etc were just good movies. All credit to the Bafta “electorate” for doing what they’re there for ie deciding on how good the films were as films not as vehicles for questionable propaganda. BTW we all know what films will be financed by the BBC don’t we.
I don’t understand the point of the BAFTAs. Either its international on which basis the Brits would be lucky to get nil, or its British in which case there won’t be any nasty Hollywood corporate whores around to steal Our Boys n’ Girls thunder. What’s the artistic merit of an International Film Festival Where The Brits Get A Bit Of An Easier Ride Than Anyone Else?
As far as the BBC’s input goes I’ve got no problems if it’s genuinely a sensibly targeted investment but one suspects it might really be a subsidy to generate lots of films about poor people struggling against oppression in 80s Grimsby etc etc etc
aren’t you being unfair in citing the BBC’s use of the word ‘demonstrators’ as an example of bias. After all, the story you link to quotes a Ministry of Defence press officer as saying that ‘the troops had been near a demonstration’. Or do you think the MoD is biased against our boys in Basra too. If this is the worst you can cite, I will cheerfully pay my licence fee!
I will cheerfully pay my licence fee!
john reith
Do the BBC deduct it monthly from your salary?
Lets see the John Reiths IP address.
aren’t you being unfair in citing the BBC’s use of the word ‘demonstrators’ as an example of bias. After all, the story you link to quotes a Ministry of Defence press officer as saying that ‘the troops had been near a demonstration’.
—————————-
so you’re saying that the BBC is just a mouthpiece for the Ministry of Defence?
I don’t understand the point of the BAFTAs.
I don’t understand the whole point of the US Academy Awards’ “foreign film” awards either. British/Australian/New Zealand films, directors and actors are always nominated in the “regular” categories instead of the “foreign films” categories. Are they not “foreign” too?
This has always confused me.