15 Responses to John Humphreys, “professional journalist”

  1. rob says:

    This criticism would go way over Humphrys’ head. His prejudices severly blinker him. Jews/Israel whats the difference?
    In a recent “Today” discussion about the AGen’s advice for legality for Iraq War, a former Labour SocGen was explaining Saddam’s failure to comply with SC resolutions.
    Humphrys butted in “But Israel haven’t complied with SC resolutions”
    1)What Israel has or hadn’t done was totally irrelevant to the legitimacy of the Iraq War.
    2) SC resolutions relating to Israel also place requirements of other ME states/players.
    3) SC resolutions relating to Iraq permitted compliance by force. Not so the ME resolutions.
    Humphrys may or may not be aware of the above, but it didn’t matter to him. He could not let an opportunity pass for him to parade his prejudices & seek to influence his audience.


  2. danS says:

    This at a time when Germany decides it is OK to display adolf’s wax doll, 1 to 1 scale, for the first time since WWII in a berlin museum.


    What a wonderful world.


  3. Eamonn says:

    Interesting to hear Humphreys interview Ming Campbell and Peter Hain on the Today programme a day or two ago. The thing that struck me was the obvious way he had to force himself to be critical of Lib Dem policy on Iraq. However, when he turned to Hain, Humphreys relaxed and got into the groove of criticism and hectoring. It was so obvious where his heart lay.


  4. danS says:


    Does anyone have a dictionary of bbc quotes translation to english?

    What does ‘killed’ (in quotes) means?
    Are they hanging between life and death? do they see a light tunnel? are they faking their deaths?

    If they weren’t killed why report it?
    if they were killed why put it in quotes?


  5. danS says:

    Professional journalism at its best:
    As i mentioned before you can’t find anywhere in the bbc’s headlines a mention of last week’s Ashdod terror attack.Only hidden in followups of this kind: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3518518.stm
    This standard of reporting is best described here: http://zioneocon.blogspot.com/ (“Ashdod bombs leave Palestinian cabinet in tatters”)
    However this headlines is still there:
    “Israel arrests boy ‘with bomb'”
    Although the boy was released after he was detained (on the same day), and ‘the bomb’ was exploded in a (photographed) controlled manner, the story and its headline is still unchanged.


  6. danS says:


    Some golden excerps from the article:”The sources blamed the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, but that group denied any part in the alleged plot.” a plot!, ahah :
    “The boy at the centre of the alleged bomb plot,” a plot! ahah:
    “An Israeli security source said two members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades – which are linked to Yasser Arafat – had hatched the plot.” a plot! ahah.
    The bbc goes a great length here to discredit the Israeli sources while obscure the Palestinian child abuse.
    Another one to the bbc’s hall of fame.
    I’m not inventing, this is a bbc news report.
    Whatever happened to lord Hutton?


  7. danS says:

    Last point:

    When Palestinians kill Palestinians it’s:
    “Reports from Gaza City say Palestinian security forces have clashed with militants in a gun battle that left at least one PERSON dead and 16 injured.”

    When Israelis kill Palestinians it’s:
    “The clashes came only hours after Israeli air strikes on the territory in which two PALESTINIANS were killed and 12 others wounded.”


  8. PJF says:

    Best get the torture squad in to make Humphreys see sense.

    However did this once good and useful blog become a barking laughing stock of stupidity and hate? Oh yeah:

    What a shame.


  9. Eamonn says:


    It serves as a useful outlet to those who dislike the BBC’s political stance. I occasionally write to the BBC as well, but apart from an acknowledgement, I have never received a response to any of my points.


  10. Susan says:

    PJF: When did the BBC become a barking laughing stock of stupidity and hate?


  11. Dave F says:

    Humph would have been pretty effective working for the Spanish Inquisition.


  12. burt says:

    I had to listen over several broadcasts, but Humphreys is truly living up to his name. His latest editorial wheeze is to “humph” his opinion about stories, while perhaps sagely shaking his head (but to be fair, I can’t see that bit on the radio).


  13. Rich says:

    ‘When did the BBC become a barking laughing stock of stupidity and hate?’

    Hasn’t happened yet, it’s still the world’s most respected broadcaster. Or can you name one better????

    68% of Britains see it as a national institution we should be proud of.

    60% agree it is trustworthy (35% against).

    61% disagree that it is politically biased (33% agree – presumably including anti war nutters).

    Maybe it’s the people on here who are the biased ones.


  14. Kerry says:

    This site makes no bones about having a viewpoint on one side of an issue or another. Those of us who contribute to B-BBC through posts or comments freely express our points of view. But what is galling to many is the high-handed manner with which the BBC ‘decides’ what is and isn’t news or which comments are chosen. The Beeb often casts stories to reflect a worldview which does not fairly represent its subject. (Why not admit that they have a left-leaning editorial bias?) So, when a bomb kills over 200 people in Madrid the American-led coalition is seen as the cause (not the murderous thugs the BBC refuses to call terrorists. Check out B-BBC for numerous examples.) If this isn’t bias I need to trash my dictionary. Let the BBC commission a poll from the public on its coercive, oppressive source of funding and see if 61% want to continue. By the way, I’m always happy to catch the Beeb doing something right.


  15. Susan says:


    The BBC lives off of its WWII reputation, when it really was something to admire.

    Today it is something quite different.