(from Blithering Bunny)
I’ve got some analysis of Nik Gowing’s claims at Blithering Bunny. Needless to say, he adduces virtually very little evidence to support them.
If the BBC won’t sack him (as I expect they won’t – he’s more likely to be promoted than sacked), then I look forward to many years of fun at Mr Gowing’s expense.
(from Blithering Bunny)
From The Times:
THE BBC’s £2.8 billion licence fee is safe for the next ten years but will not survive into the digital age, ministers have decided.
The long-awaited Green Paper on the future of the BBC, which is due this month, will recommend that a sweeping review of the broadcasting industry is started shortly after 2012, paving the way for major changes in funding to reflect the digital revolution, The Times has learnt. The Green Paper, which sets out the Government’s conditions for renewing the ten-year royal charter in 2007, is currently circulating around Whitehall awaiting the approval of other key departments, including Downing Street.
I’m sure we did mention, quietly, some time ago, that Nick Gowing is the BBC journalist who pioneered the notion that the US military has been targeting journalists in Iraq. Thankfully we have been reminded by sites like this one (via Captain’s Quarters). Now, of course, at CNN a senior journalist has lost his jobover making similar allegations. Those of us who watch the BBC and note its bias felt some small portion of the offense in contemplating Gowing’s remarks that the US public felt when they considered what Eason Jordan has been saying. Gowing still retains his job, I believe, because the BBC tolerates almost any kind of conspiracy theorist when that person’s animus is directed at the US (working, no doubt, closely together with their journalistic cousins at Al-Jazeera). Perhaps we needed to speak more loudly.
I couldn’t find our mention of Gowing, although I know we made one, on Google- but I did find this uproarious post from DumbJon which made the point well, and shows how clear was Gowing’s accusation.
(from Blithering Bunny)
BBC News, in its wisdom, has decided that one of the main headlines of the day is a protest march against America’s decision not to sign Kyoto. Yes, really. This is one of the biggest news stories of the day. Literally “hundreds” of protesters are expected. Wow. Even if that figure is accurate – and the leftist media has a habit of exaggerating the numbers for these protests – so what? These protest marches are a dime a dozen. Few people care much any more about them. I don’t mean that people aren’t interested in these issues (and many may in fact have some agreement with the sentiments expressed), but they’re not much interested in the marches, which are manned by the usual suspects.
One protester was interviewed by BBC, and the BBC sought fit to broadcast his quoting of a Native American saying, which went something along the lines of “Only when the last tree is cut, only when the last river is polluted, only when the last fish is caught, will they realise that you can’t eat money”. Sounds more like a modern greeny invention to me than a Native American saying (it can’t be that old, either, if it refers to money), but the journalist – someone called Graeme – said “Yes, a wise old Native American saying”. I really wonder whether the BBC was just taking the piss here.
P.S. Eason Jordan, CNN’s News Executive, has resigned after massive pressure from bloggers (but not from the MSM, who tried to ignore the story), after he claimed (at a Davos session) that the US military deliberately targetted and killed journalists in Iraq.
What led to his resignation was not so much the claim, but his bungling attempts at backtracking and cover-up, which kept the story simmering for weeks. If he’d simply said “I was wrong, and I apologise”, the storm would probably have blown over.
Instapundit has a round-up of some links, and Chrenkoff has some links to show that this sort of accusation is not new.
P.P.S. Plaudits to the BBC, though, for continuing to do good work on Zimbabwe. Another investigation is on News 24 at the moment.
PPPS. Saw another BBC interview with a Green Party member on this protest march. She said that the Bush administration is “ruled by oil interests” (yawn), and there should be a tax on US imports, because they’re freeloading by not signing up to these international agreements. The reporter, Graeme someone, said “Wouldn’t the action required to really make a difference on greenhouse have a major impact on the economy?” Yes, she said, but this wouldn’t necessarily be negative, because 40% of our energy needs can be met by using existing conservation techniques. If we used these techniques, then we’d all be better off, and poor people wouldn’t be as cold in winter. (Really. I’m not making this up).
PPPPSSZZZzzz… Matthew Parris on tonight’s BBC docu on Howard. Kenneth Clark’s going to speak. Who would ever have guessed? And here’s another shocker – Ann Wiiddecombe! Didn’t see that one coming. And Hugh Dyke, a former Tory who quit the party to join the Lib Dems.
Neil Craig of A Place To Stand On writes:
I have just been watching the Judge John Deed programme.
While this is not a news item I do believe that the basis of this show is corrupt – each week our hero judge, who is a radical thorn in the side of the grey suited men, goes into court to quite deliberately finesse his duty by finding for some politically correct party in the teeth of the evidence.
(This week’s was awarding ridiculous damages against a nasty company which had been producing dioxins thus leading to the birth of a disabled photogenic kid – in fact there is (as with nuclear) precious little evidence that dioxins are dangerous in small quantities let alone in the circumstances described.)
It is stuff like this which creates a background of bias. The impartiality of the law is a cornerstone of any free society. If the BBC were doing a programme in which the hero was deliberately fitting up communists, moslem fundamentalists, serbs (well maybe not them) without even a suggestion that something was wrong then it would be obvious that the BBC were undermining freedom. The same applies here.
I am far from suggesting that any work of TV drama should be submitted to an “anti-bias” editor before publication. But the extent to which certain vaguely left-wing memes dominate British TV drama can be judged by trying to imagine dramas run according to their opposites.
The results are actually funny; funny because they are so unheard of. Imagine a show with a young hero who goes to church. Imagine a show with a heroine who isn’t trying to make it in a man’s world. Imagine a historical drama where the sympathetic protagonist actually had the attitudes common in his time rather than those of a twenty-first century intellectual. Imagine a drama about a handsome campaigning journalist taking on a fat ugly politician. No wait, you’ve seen dozens of those, but imagine one where the journalist is willing to use any lie to bring down a relatively good man.
Dream on. Back in the real world the BBC describes its hero Judge Deed as “the judge who is not afraid to question the establishment.” Yawn. Who exactly is afraid to question the establishment these days?
The BBC has an article out to commemorate the anniversary of Senator Joe McCarthy’s claim that 205 members of the State Department were Communists: 1950: McCarthy Launches Anti-Red Crusade. There is a link also to Secret McCarthy papers released.
My feelings when writing about McCarthyism are similar to those of Jonah Goldberg expressed in this article. There are two messages to get across.
Message One: McCarthy was a state-backed bully and demagogue who harmed many innocent people. The banning of the Communist party was a disgrace to the freedoms of the US. (Did you know Ronald Reagan, then president of the Screen Actors’ Guild, opposed it?)
Message Two: Communist infiltration was rife in the State Department and elsewhere. Many of those McCarthy named were Communists. Some were Communist agents.
The BBC articles linked two are strong on Message One. Message Two – or Fact Two, rather (as since the publication of the Venona Intercepts carried out by the National Security Agency, there can no longer be serious doubt about the extent of Communist infiltration) is nowhere mentioned.
From the first-mentioned BBC article:
He named Dr Owen Lattimore as “the top Russian espionage agent”.
McCarthy’s claim that Owen Lattimore was the top Soviet spy in the US was certainly wrong. The question of whether he was a spy at all is subject to heated debate. There is no doubt, though, that he sucked up to Stalin in the most sickening way. After visiting the notorious Kolyma complex of labour camps he wrote an article for National Geographic magazine in which he commended one commandant for his “deep sense of civic responsibility”. (Scroll down to “Blinded by the truth” on this link.)That pronouncement was not an isolated incident but consistent with his general line. If Lattimore is to be mentioned at all, something of this should be mentioned too.
The article goes on:
His [McCarthy’s] claims were not substantiated, but many lost their jobs or reputations. He used a combination of intimidation and hearsay evidence to browbeat the accused.
The implication is that none of his claims were substantiated. Yet the idea that not all of McCarthy’s victims were innocent is neither new, nor little-known, nor confined to right-wing extremists. Back on 4 April 1996 an article appeared in the Washington Post by the liberal journalist Nicholas Von Hoffman saying “Was McCarthy Right About The Left?” (The link takes you to summary of the article in WaPo archive – you must pay to read it all.) That article became famous, particularly as it came from a left-winger.
Since then there has been a stream of writing on the subject.
You’d never know any of this from the BBC.
(from Blithering Bunny)
Nicholas Vance has another good post up today at Last Night’s BBC News, about the PC blather that is in the BBC’s new manifesto as they attempt to get their Royal Charter renewed (and follow the link to The Telegraph story).
On that note, I liked this letter to The Times recently:
I have recently paid my BBC licence fee and the debate about the future of its royal charter has given me an idea (A brief guide to unconscious BBC bias, Comment, last week). The government should publish a left-leaning newspaper (with no advertising) distributed here and abroad. To pay for it, it should introduce a newspaper reading licence of, say, £150 to be paid only by those who live in the UK.
If you are caught reading a newspaper, even one you have paid for, without holding a valid newspaper reading licence, you would face a hefty fine or even a spell in prison. Neighbours would be encouraged to rat on those whom they know haven’t paid their licence. Those who support the existing principle of the BBC licence fee will support this idea of a licence, I’m sure.
Reg Bamford
London SW15
(from Blithering Bunny)
An extraordinary letter from Peter Mandelson to Michael Grade (Chairman of the BBC), obtained by The Times:
PETER MANDELSON, the European Trade Commissioner, has mounted an attack on John Humphrys, the Today programme journalist, complaining to the BBC of his “virulently anti-European” views and claiming that the “anti-European bias” of some BBC presenters is a “problem”.
In a stinging letter, obtained by The Times, to Michael Grade, the BBC Chairman, Mr Mandelson accused the BBC of failing in its charter obligation to promote “understanding” of European affairs and declared: “I do not think the present BBC coverage is good enough.”
He said the BBC gave too much coverage to moderate Eurosceptics and should instead give more coverage to extreme Eurosceptics such as UKIP, who wanted to take Britain out of the EU altogether.
Mr Humphrys last night dismissed the criticism as political opportunism. “It’s delightful for once to be accused of being Eurosceptic when we’re usually accused at the Today programme of being Europhiles,” he said. “It’s interesting that Peter Mandelson has any idea of what my views on the subject are.
Read the rest here, including this:
His comments that “UKIP views are, if anything, under-represented” was seen by one leading moderate Eurosceptic yesterday as a cynical ploy. “It just shows how cynical the Government is, wanting to make all Eurosceptics seem like loonies,” he said.
If Mandelson – who is employed by the EC, let us not forget – is right about one thing, it is that the BBC has mostly ignored the EU issue, giving it sketchy, superficial and inadequate coverage. But Mandelson’s grasp on reality, always shaky, appears weaker than ever if thinks that the BBC is anti-EU and Humphreys “virulently anti-EU”.
The timing of the public release of this letter, which was supposed to be confidential (why? Was he worried that people would laugh at his views?) is particularly embarrassing for Mandelson, coming as it did after a recent inquiry into the BBC found that the culture at BBC News led to a “reluctance to question pro-EU assumptions”, and the day after the BBC ran a negative documentary on Kilroy in his UKIP days.
But of course this letter is just the filip the pro-Europeans at the BBC need. Now they can push for even more pro-EU coverage, on the basis that Mandelson has decreed that they’re not pro-EU enough.
P.S. Richard North has also seen this story:
This is undoubtedly a “spoiler” by Mandelson, who undoubtedly correctly assesses that if he can engineer a complaint against the BBC, its corporate tendency is to suggest that, if it is getting complaints from both sides, then its coverage must be about right – even though the review panel rejected this suggestion… Mandelson, with his known tactical skills, is obviously making an early attempt to tilt the coverage in favour of the “yes” campaign.
P.P.S. Reader Bill Collins informs me that “back in June the BBC dug up and publicized a claim that the BBC was biased in favor of Israel. The article doesn’t mention that the BBC has been accused of bias in the other direction”.
(from Blithering Bunny)
Criticism of the BBC’s activities in Nepal from Indian paper The Statesman:
BBC’s coverage of Nepal raises questions
Sudeshna Sarkar in Kathmandu
Feb. 6. — British Broadcasting Corporation’s coverage of the recent developments in Nepal raises questions about ethics.
On 1 February, Nepal’s King Gyanendra dismissed Prime Minister Mr Sher Bahadur Deuba and his Cabinet, announced a new council of ministers under his chairmanship and imposed a state of emergency suspending fundamental rights. Communication lines were cut and flights stopped from Kathmandu. Following the royal action, BBC Radio’s World Service broadcast an interview with Maoist leader Krishna Bahadur Mahara. Speaking from an undisclosed location, the rebel leader, who carries a price on his head, said the King had closed all doors for negotiations with his action. The programme, aired around 11 p.m. in Nepal, was heard by numerous people, including government and army officials.
The anchor mentioned its Nepal stringer, Netra KC, by name. He also mentioned the fact that since telephone lines were disconnected in Nepal, KC was nipping across the border into India and making calls from there. Soon after that, there were unconfirmed reports that Netra KC had either gone into hiding or was missing.
Today, an official intimation came from the International Federation of Journalists who issued a statement saying the president and general secretary of the Federation of Nepalese Journalists had been arrested. It further added that BBC representative Netra KC had also “disappeared” after being called to the army barracks in Nepalgunj. “The IFJ is calling for the international community to support our courageous Nepalese colleagues,” the statement said.
But if the report about KC is true, it raises questions about the BBC’s ethics in disclosing the name and mode of operation of its representative in a country where emergency has been imposed and press freedom curtailed.
Netra KC was earlier reportedly roughed up by the Maoists when he had gone to an outer district. At a time the media should show responsibility in its reportage of a crisis, several foreign correspondents have been relying on hearsay and rumour.
Another BBC correspondent visited the National Human Rights Commission office in Kathmandu to ask about reports that the army had raided a hostel and arrested students.
The new dispensation in Nepal’s gagging the Nepalese media has fuelled exaggerated reports by the foreign media. Dubbed “parachute journalists,” they have been Nepal’s bane last year too when they covered a Maoist blockade of Kathmandu and a period of unrest triggered by the killing of 12 Nepalese workers in Iraq in a sensational, exaggerated and often inaccurate manner.
(via Dissecting Leftism)
Not a very clear report, it has to be said, but worth passing on nonetheless.
(from Blithering Bunny)
Watching BBC 2’s Kilroy: Behind the Tan. In an act of questionable judgement, Kilroy, it seems, has been letting a camera crew follow him around for a long time. The producer, who was constantly asking him questions, clearly sounded unsympathetic. So why did Kilroy do it? Surely he knew that it was a hatchet job in the making?
And hatchet job it was, although everyone involved did their best to look like an idiot.
Kilroy said that Afghans were Arabs, in public. The producer or commentator said “It’s not the sort of mistake a politican can afford to make”. But of course they can, if they’re a BBC-approved Labour politican. It wouldn’t even be reported. It’s just the sort of mistake someone on the right cannot make.
The producer also seemed to think there was something hypocritical in Kilroy claiming that he wanted more openness in politics because he prevented the camera crew from filming some UKIP strategy meetings. Maybe, but it’s not internal strategy meetings that the public want access to, is it?
It seems to be another example of the BBC trying to discredit Euroskepticism by focusing on the silly personalities of some Euroskeptics. I don’t deny that it’s legitimate for the BBC to run shows that focus on political personalities – it’s good to see these people up close, and it’s partly their fault if they look foolish (for whatever sins go on in the editing room, they provided the material). But how about a serious look at the EU for a change?
