Just a wee blogule

about BBC editorialising within news items (a habit I often notice and fail to raise consistently owing largely to time constraints). Having reported that Mr Green had been cleared of ‘inciting hatred against homosexuals’, the BBC went on to say ‘He has shown little regret for his comments when addressing the media. He has also said his comments referred to a homosexual lifestyle, rather than individuals.’

Remind me, what was the definition of ‘acquittal’ once again?

The Beeb’s rather lavish and more precise coverage of the Roman Catholic Church’s latest pronouncement concerning homosexuality is something I wrapped into a post about the BBC’s science at my own personal weblog. Please ignore my apparent plug unless this topic interests you enough to follow.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

And they say the age of deferential interviewing is dead.

[I wrote most of this post on Thursday 24th. Unfortunately I did not have time until today to dot the i’s and cross the t’s and post it.]

Deference was alive and well when James Naughtie interviewed Joe Wilson on Radio Four this morning. Naughtie started risibly by describing Valerie Plame as a “deep cover” agent – clearly he had no idea what the phrase meant. I laughed out loud, but that isn’t my complaint. My complaint is that throughout the interview Naughtie gave no indication that he had ever read or heard anything other than the standard American Democrat line on this affair. Republican “takes” on the Wilson/Plame affair abound. I referred to this WSJ article to write this post; hundreds of others would have done. Yet my impression is that Naughtie’s only significant source was a quick skim of Wilson’s own book.

All this is very much an American scandal. I don’t claim to have followed it in any detail. This Q & A by Paul Reynolds gives the basic story. (The American Expatriate, who has followed this affair, says it’s pretty good, and given the somewhat acrimonious exchanges on this very issue between Messrs Callahan and Reynolds in earlier AmEx posts and comments, that is not empty praise.) The point I want to make is that I am aware, just from casual mentions and links from Republican-inclined blogs, of all sorts of aspects to the story that don’t seem to have reached the Today programme. For instance it is all over the news that Bob Woodward of Watergate fame has come out and said that he knew Valerie Plame was an agent and it wasn’t Scooter Libby that told him. No mention of Woodward from Naughtie, although of course he did mention Scooter Libby.

When I became aware that this might make a B-BBC post, I scribbled down as best I could various of Naughtie’s words that caught my attention. My transcriptions are reasonably accurate but I don’t know if I can quite get across the extent to which nearly everything Naughtie said came across as being a prompt to allow Wilson to get across some talking point from his message. Because this is a blog about the BBC rather than about US politics, I have concentrated on Naughtie’s supportive questioning rather than Wilson’s answers. Here are some examples:

  • Naughtie asks in tones of sombre shared disbelief at presidential folly, “Why did the president use it?” [i.e. Why did the Persident refer to the disputed claim that Iraq sought uranium yellowcake in Niger in a speech.]
    Wilson answers righteously, as Naughtie must have known he would, “That’s a question for the president.”
    Naughtie responds with a chummy laugh: “Ah, but he’s not here so you’ll have to do.”
  • “What conclusions did you reach?” In principle, questions like this that just encourage the interviewee to talk more are fine – we listen to interviews with people to see what they have to say, after all. But in this interview there was almost nothing else.
  • “So the bureacracy was being harnessed to The Cause?” Naughtie’s speech tone while he said “the cause” was heavily ironic. The only possible answer to this was yes, they were, and that Wilson duly gave.
  • This next one was a contender for the toady of the week award: “Reading your book, it’s impossible to miss almost the sense of shock…” [that anyone would be so wicked.]
  • “Are you still mystified that this happens?” [Again referring to the wicked, wicked ways of Capitol Hill]
  • “Explain (apart from your personal distress) why that matters so much?” Another prompt, this time for Wilson to say how dreadful it was to reveal his wife’s cover. The personal distress bit was said in tones more appropriate to a bomb victim.
  • “When you became a hate figure…” At this point, only my iron digestion, the result of wholesome living, prevented a distressing breakfast time event.

I didn’t expect or want to hear an unremittingly hostile interview with Mr Wilson. But I would have expected to hear one or two questions that raised issues that might at least speed up his heartbeat for a minute. Such as “Why did you tell the Washington Post that you had seen documents suggesting an Iraq-Niger deal (and recognised them at once as obvious forgeries) months before you could have possibly seen them, since they did not reach US intelligence until later – and if the answer to that is a fault of memory, why not extend your tolerance for faulty recall to Scooter Libby?”

Or “What do you say to the criticisms made of your behaviour by the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including several Democratic senators? This Committee said that nepotism had been involved in your wife’s recommendation of you for the Niger mission, when you had said that she had had nothing to do with it.

Or “If breaching your wife’s cover was so bad for you how come you immediately leapt into print to breach it more widely? Anonymity is a continuum, not a glass that breaks once and forever.”

Or Naughtie could have alluded to the fact that although Wilson has always said that Iraq did not buy uranium from Niger, he has become strangely unclear over the question of whether Iraq sought it – another point brought out by the Senate Intelligence Committee. But not by Mr Naughtie.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Biased BBC on BBC Newsnight last night:

Biased BBC in the background of a Paul Mason Newsnight report about ‘Web 2.0’, online companies that are making serious cash, with B-BBC, co-incidentally or not, on screen as he mentions the possibility of people seizing back control from large corporations. View via Newsnight’s pages until Monday night (B-BBC is 15’15”-18″ in). Thanks to commenter SiN.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Liz Pike, BBC News 24, 2.21pm today:

“Well for those of you wanting more news on the weather, I’m sorry, but for obvious reasons we need to spend more time on the George Best story. Police in Cornwall have set up a Gold Control, and for those of you like me who didn’t know what that was, it’s a special incident control room…”

Oh dear. The passing of George Best is noteworthy, but the reality of Hundreds stuck on snow-hit moor is surely pretty urgent here and now for anyone travelling in the south-west, particularly with the evening commute fast approaching! While we’re at it, surely anyone who’s watched rolling-news coverage of any major police operation or the BBC’s own documentaries would have heard the phrase ‘Gold Control’ before, let alone a professional BBC journalist.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

BBC News Online reports that

BBC defends ‘digital face’ trails, following four hundred complaints about them. They write:

The BBC has defended its adverts for digital TV following criticism from viewers who found them frightening.

Is that an official admission that these ‘trails’ are actually adverts? In common with many telly-taxpayers, I’m sick of the amount of advertising the BBC has loaded onto BBC1 and BBC2 over the last few years. It used to be that the lack of adverts on the BBC was used as a justification for the telly-tax, but those days are long gone.

“They have generated an encouraging level of enquiries, which has vastly outnumbered the amount of complaints received,” a spokeswoman said.

That’s the same lame excuse peddled by dodgy-advertisers everywhere!

“It is designed to be upbeat with cheerful music,” it continued, adding that the trails were not screened near children’s programmes.

BBC heads: ‘Upbeat and cheerful’, or scary and sinister?

If they’re so ‘upbeat’ and ‘cheerful’ why avoid children’s programmes?

However, one viewer complained to the BBC’s Points of View website that the image was “disturbingly psychotic”.

“It makes me feel queasy thinking about it,” wrote another contributor, while a third described it as “absolutely horrible”.

Quite. I don’t know about you, but the BBC’s digital ‘faces’ remind me of the stacks of skulls in photographs from the killing fields of Cambodia or Rwanda – stacks and stacks of individuals, born, nurtured and loved by someone, only to end up senselessly murdered in the name of political ideology or ethnic cleansing. Brrrr.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Missing in action: Brussels publishes list of the first pan-European crimes

– has anyone seen or heard anything of this important story on the BBC? Anthony Browne, reports:

BRUSSELS unveiled detailed proposals yesterday that would for the first time create a body of pan-European criminal law and force member states to punish citizens who transgress it.

The ruling means that for the first time in legal history, a British government and Parliament will no longer have the sovereign right to decide what constitutes a crime and what the punishment should be.

Also unseen and unheard on the BBC are:

  • Kennedy failed to declare free flights:

    CHARLES KENNEDY is expected to be subjected to a Commons investigation over his failure to declare more than £30,000 of free flights from his party’s most generous donor, who is wanted by police in America.

  • Marlowe’s Koran-burning hero is censored to avoid Muslim anger:

    …producers of Tamburlaine the Great have come under fire after censoring Christopher Marlowe’s 1580s masterpiece to avoid upsetting Muslims.

    The censorship sparked condemnation yesterday from senior figures in the theatre and scholars, as well as religious leaders. Terry Hands, who directed Tamburlaine for the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1992, said: “I don’t believe you should interfere with any classic for reasons of religious or political correctness.”

Bet these would have both got top billing at the BBC if they weren’t about Charles Kennedy and Muslim appeasement…

Update: Bryan comments that the Marlowe story was mentioned on the BBC World Service yesterday, whilst Venichka has spotted the third of these ‘missing’ stories in action on BBC Views Online as Marlowe rewrite ‘draws criticism’, a luke-warm report of The Times story, missing out, for instance, an interesting quote from Inayat Bunglawala, media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, who said “In the context of a fictional play, I don’t think it will have offended many people”.

Meanwhile, the search goes on – has anyone seen or heard anything of the other two stories (the EU one in particular is notable – where is Mark Mardell?) in any BBC media or the Marlowe story on any UK broadcast?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Joined-up narratives: A comparison

Imagine if the BBC created a page entitled The Struggle Against Aids. Imagine if then they included copious stories about linkages between Aids and homosexuality. Imagine if then they took an opportunity to frame a story about rising Aids cases alongside one about indecent and criminal homosexual behaviour, and alongside someone influential’s unmediated and copiously quoted opinion that Aids was linked to homosexual bad behavour. Well, that’s just imagination, isn’t it?

But in the case of Iraq this morning we had this, this and this. Deaths. Abuse. Calls for the US to leave Iraq. Where’s the link between them? What warrants them being interwoven as a headline block? Nothing in particular, unless you’re prejudiced. Stinking biased. An information fascist. That kind of thing.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

BBC Views Online’s front page just now links to Women resist ‘honour’ marriages

, a story about violence and threats of violence against the family of five female cousins, now aged 14 to 22, who were ordered nine years ago by ‘village elders’ to be married to the boys of another family in settlement of a dispute.

Whilst BBC Views Online goes into some detail about the tragic circumstances of these unfortunate girls (sadly not uncommon in their part of the world) and their “religious marriage ceremony, called a sharai nikah”, the BBC have, for some unknown reason, managed to omit a crucial word or two of useful background information. Either of these words would have done. They begin with ‘m’ and ‘i’.

Update: Marc of USS Neverdock comments that the BBC’s omission’s from this report go much further than omitting the ‘m’ and/or ‘i’ words. According to the Telegraph, Blood debt women offered up for rape:

A village council in Pakistan has decreed that five young women should be abducted, raped or killed for refusing to honour childhood “marriages”.

The women, who are cousins, were married in absentia by a mullah in their Punjabi village to illiterate sons of their family’s enemies in 1996, when they were aged from six to 13.

The marriages were part of a compensation agreement ordered by the village council and reached at gunpoint after the father of one of the girls shot dead a family rival.

In addition to the sentence on the women, the village council has sentenced to death Jehan Khan Niazi, the father of three of the women, and the fathers of the other two for failing to honour the supposed bond with men whose identities they are not even certain of.

The women have said they will commit suicide if their fathers obey the council.

– the reality therefore is so much more awful than the BBC’s namby-pamby token coverage. Worse, a scandalous story like this doesn’t even get a look in on the BBC’s television news – they’re too busy following every last minute of George Best’s dying days. It’s sad to see a character like Best on his death bed, and it is worth a mention in passing, but it doesn’t (yet at least) merit full-length coverage high up in the running order (like on this evening’s Six O’Clock News) when there are stories like this one or the ongoing famine in Niger that are so much more deserving of our attention.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Whilst watching BBC News 24 at 1.20am

, presenter Deborah Mackenzie introduced a report on Her Majesty’s trip to Malta with:

Britain’s Queen Elizabeth…

What a damn cheek! Almost everyone in the UK refers to Her Majesty as ‘The Queen’, but no, not the other worldly BBC News 24, even though it’s the BBC’s domestic 24 hour rolling news channel, targetted at and paid for by the BBC’s UK telly-taxpayers (as distinct from BBC World, or for that matter, News 24’s own ‘The World Today’ programme).

P.S. Is it just me, or is that moustached twat who pops up frequently on News 24 to exclaim:

This week on Talking Movies…

exceedingly irritating? Still, I suppose he does at least jolt me into changing channel as fast as I can before I get too brainwashed to resist!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone


  • Adloyada has an important post on what she has said in comments to the BBC’s Israel/Palestine impartiality review. The deadline for submissions is tomorrow.

    One of the BBC pages she cites is this page of statistics about the Intifada. As Adloyada observes, the BBC breaks down the statistics of Israelis killed by Palestinians into civilian and military but all the Palestinians killed by Israelis are placed in one large group. Says the BBC, “There are no figures to show the proportion of Palestinians who were combatants and those who were civilians.” Why, then, are the Israeli dead so divided in the BBC figures? The fact that the Israeli dead are divided into two groups and the Palestinian dead are undivided has two effects. Firstly it means that you see a long line of icons representing Palestinian victims and mentally contrast it with the fact that none of the several lines of icons representing Israelis are remotely as long.

    Secondly, pretty well everyone regards it as less bad to kill soldiers than civilians. So most readers, even those sympathetic to Israel, will discount somewhat the group representing Israeli soldiers. There is no equivalent group of Palestinian combatants to be discounted. That absence is, of course, a consequence of the fact that the Palestinian way of waging war is to wear no uniform. Given that the BBC does see fit to add a little reminder to an article about the Israeli disengagement from Gaza to the effect that that Israeli settlements there were in violation of international law I would have thought that this repeated Palestinian breach of a far more fundamental international law was also worth a mention.

    An even more severe criticism is that the BBC’s statement that “There are no figures” to show the proportion of Palestinian combatants to non-combatants is not true. What the BBC means is “our source provided no figures and we did not care to look further.” Astonishingly, B’Tselem, the “Human Rights Group” (see what Adloyada says about them) who provided this data to the BBC described all Palestinians killed in the Intifada who were not wearing PA uniforms as being “civilians” – in other words even members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad killed while carrying out suicide bomb attacks were described as “civilians.”

    It seems this was too much to stomach even for the BBC, hence their disingenuous statement that there were “no figures.” Of course there were figures: Adloyada links to one analysis telling a very different story to B’Tselem’s, in the Middle East Quarterly. Or the BBC could have checked out the statements made by Hamas, Al-Asqua Martyrs’ Brigade and Islamic Jihad themselves claiming responsibility for suicide bombings. Surely this task would not have been beyond the BBC, seeing as we are always being told what a world leader among news organizations it is.

    UPDATE: Here is more about the statistics of the intifada, including a link to a paper by Don Radlauer of the Institute for Counter Terrorism that provides exactly the sort of figures that the BBC said were not available.

  • Right for Scotland reports how John Simpson’s use of the phrase “misguided criminals” to describe the July 7 bombers won a poll for most politically correct phrase of the year. Then the BBC told the Daily Record that the claim that he’d used these words was “nonsense”. Too busy commissioning artwork to search, I guess. (Hat tip: Dumbjon)
  • This they call news? Commenter Jack says, “This is the type of thing I’d expect to see in an email doing the rounds, not on this world news site supposedly representing Britain.”
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Scott Burgess reports on the £60,000 Tracey Emin sculpture

that BBC licence-payers have just coughed up for, and the BBC’s attempts, reported in the Sunday Times, to justify the expenditure:

The BBC was embarrassed last night by e-mails that showed it “invented” a justification for spending £60,000 of licence payers’ money commissioning a Tracey Emin sculpture.

Emin’s Roman Standard sculpture of a bird on a post was bought by the BBC at a time when Mark Thompson, its director-general, was announcing big cost cuts.

Internal e-mails revealed serious doubts within the organisation about spending so much on a sculpture that had no links to the corporation.

An e-mail dated February 22 from senior BBC publicist Janet Morrow to Vanda Rumney, head of communications, gave warning that the commission could create a “sticky situation on the public art front which could blow up”.

Morrow noted that the sculpture “is not connected to a BBC building, nor is it linked in any way to a BBC broadcast or BBC activity — the BBC has purely used licence fee money to create a public sculpture”.

She then said she had “invented” a “plausible line” to justify the commission.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Yesterday evening’s horrific events in Bradford

reminded me of the murder in Birmingham last year of the last police officer to die on duty in the UK. Alone among news organisations, the BBC’s pathetic choice of lead story that night was the appointment of Mark Thompson as the BBC’s Director General. Tossers.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

It’s compare and contrast time again.

Yesterday’s edition of The Times reports that London bomb victim lied about rape history.

Garri Holness, who lost part of a leg in the July 7th Islamist terror attacks in London, formerly known as Gary Linton, is revealed as a convicted rapist, guilty, along with six others, of a brutally violent gang sex attack on two sixteen year old schoolgirls in 1985.


Downing Street: What about the victims indeed, Holness?

Downing Street: What about the victims indeed, Holness?

Recalling the prominence afforded to Holness recently by a number of BBC programmes, I looked for their coverage of this story. After searching for it, I found Rape past of London bomb victim.

Not surprisingly (to readers of Biased BBC at least), the story had long since been removed from BBC Views Online’s index pages. When it was featured though, it didn’t make News Online’s front page (home to plenty of trivia at the best of times), and was, instead, hidden in the England section, itself below the UK section. Another case of blink and you’ll miss it, but you can’t (quite) say that they haven’t covered it.

Also not surprisingly, The Times report of the story, though not that much longer than the BBC’s, is sharper and more detailed than the BBC’s passive effort, including such facts as:

  • Holness’ gang history as ‘Star’ of the ‘Young Raiders’;


  • The £50,000 that Holness deems inadequate compensation for his injury, in contrast to the £13,500 compensation for victims of rape (elsewhere, News Online quotes Holness saying “I am going to need financial security for the rest of my life” – losing a leg is bad, but Holness, a musician, apparently reckons it’s a meal ticket for life);


  • Holness lied to the Daily Mail, claiming that he had been cleared on appeal;

And last, but not least:

  • Holness was paid £700 by the BBC to appear in six programmes charting his recovery.

None of which, it seems, the BBC deems worthy of bringing to telly-taxpayers attention, and certainly not for any length of time.

P.S. See also today’s update to my post from Monday, below.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Under the rather bland headline Ex-police authority head charged

, BBC News Online reports that:

Former Humberside Police Authority chairman Colin Inglis has been charged with 14 counts of indecent assault in relation to allegations of child abuse.

News Online goes on to say:

Following the launch of the North Yorkshire Police investigation last September Mr Inglis was suspended from the police authority and the Labour Party.

He was replaced as leader of Hull City Council in May this year.

This story was also reported on the BBC’s Six O’Clock News this evening, though Inglis’ party affilition and former tenure as Hull City Council leader weren’t mentioned, which is odd, since “Tories” (as the BBC unfailingly calls Conservatives) subject to legal proceedings are almost always linked to their party.

Update, 19NOV05:

Catching up with the news after a hectic few days, by way of contrast, The Times’ coverage of this story last Tuesday, Police chairman charged with 14 counts of child sex abuse, begins:

A LABOUR politician who supervised Britain’s worst-performing police force was charged yesterday with 14 counts of child abuse.

No doubt about Inglis’ political affiliation there then! The Times also reports:

The politician, who is openly gay, has consistently denied any wrongdoing, blaming the allegation on a homophobic conspiracy. He cited “dark forces” as the reason for his fall from political power.

– yet more facts that the BBC completely omitted from their coverage of this story. Would any of our BBC readers care to offer their adoring telly-taxpayers an explanation for keeping the public in the dark?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone