- Bishop Hill on the close yet unclear relationship between the Cambridge Environment and Media Programme and the BBC.
- Tom Gross of the WSJ writes, “If this isn’t terrorism, what is?”
For much of the Mumbai siege, the BBC went out of its way to avoid reporting that the Jewish community center was one of the seven targets. At one point viewers were told that “an office building” had been targeted (referring to the Jewish center as such).
Then on Friday morning, TV pictures of Indian commandos storming the besieged Jewish center were broadcast by networks around the world. Heavily armed commandos, their faces covered by balaclavas, rappelled from helicopters onto the roof while Indian sharpshooters in buildings opposite opened fire and a helicopter circled overhead. Huge crowds of onlookers could be seen looking aghast as they watched from nearby streets. While Sky News and other channels were gripped by these dramatic pictures, BBC World was not, almost pretending there was no siege at the Jewish center — even though by then it was one of only two sites that remained under attack in Mumbai. Had the terrorists chosen to besiege a church or mosque instead, can you imagine the BBC ignoring it this way?
- You mean those scary statistics in the letters from TV Licensing weren’t true?
- Following on from Laban’s post, I was listening to Radio 4 the day before yesterday at about 6.15pm. There was quite a lengthy discussion of Governor Rod Blagojevich’s corruption without, yet again, any mention of what party he represented. I expect this tactic works quite well. Anyone listening properly would have gathered Mr Blagojevich was of the same party as Mr Obama, but the many, many people who listen with half an ear while they get on with something else would never hear “blah blah corruption blah blah Democrat blah” whereas you can be sure that in a similar scandal involving a Republican they would get “blah corruption Republican blah THAT’S RIGHT, REPUBLICAN blah”.
Roundup
Bookmark the permalink.
Coward 8:00
May I take some time to consider your intellectual argument ?
“henryflower | 18.12.08 – 2:08 am ”
wow henry. thank you.
absolutely total and utter demolition job…
i am in awe.
Coward 8:00
So , I guess what you are saying is that truth is absolute. Wow ! You are a philosopher !
But, seriously, do you not believe in open debate, whether “twittering” or otherwise ?
Grant | 18.12.08 – 8:30 pm
funny you should say that, when the bbc shuts down and censors debate in so many areas.
big example – “climate change”.
Coward, thank you for contributing precisely no evidence whatsoever that the BBC are not routinely biased.
I take that as an admission that you don’t actually think very carefully about these issues, preferring to come on and clap like some well-trained fat circus seal when someone says something you agree with but lack the skills to say yourself.
Let’s just look at your rather amusing effort in more detail.
“What really amuses me is that it takes a long and completely accurate post from Kill the Beeb to get you lot to stand up and pay attention.”
Er… it takes a long and largely inaccurate or disingenuous post post from the Kill the Beeb to get us lot to stand up and pay attention to Kill the Beeb, certainly. Other times, if your brain functioned rationally, you’d see us paying attention to the BBC, and responding to each others’ comments. Sometimes we respond, sometimes we don’t. That’s the how the site works. You might think it novel, but I believe it’s fairly standard on the internet these days. In this instance, I’m responding to your post (or “standing up and paying attention” as you would pompously put it) because it was so funny.
“I have seen many a post on here, in fact most of them completely ignored because everyone else is too busy trying to be heard to listen.”
You really need to work on the basic writing skills, Coward. That sentence is torture to read. Once decoded into English, however, it is seen once again to be basically wrong. Some comments are ignored – that’s because there is no obligation to respond to every comment everyone else makes (see my previous point). Often, though, we have very long and sometimes heated debates with each other, almost as if we listened to each other and disagreed, or agreed, or paid attention, or were provoked into further thoughts.
“Only when someone points this out does everyone actually listen and respond to the contrary.”
No; you’re wrong, and arrogant with it, which is a bad combination in my book. We respond to each other and pay attention to each other’s comments most of the time. There’s no obligation to respond to everything that is contributed here, though I often do. That’s how it works. Stick with it, you can get the hang of that complicated idea, Coward. It’s not obligatory to “applaud” when someone has said something to which you’ve paid attention. (you might helpfully point who made you the objective judge of how comment threads should function, incidentally. I mean, unless you have some authority to say these things, there’s a risk you might just sound like an arrogant pompous dick.)
“I would guess that the bulk of you come on here because you have no one else that will listen to your hypocritical views. But guess what… No-one is listening. You are all just twittering on into thin air.”
Erm… if you’re not listening, how do you know we pay no attention to what everyone writes in our endless personal quests for attention? Hang on – you said you’d read ‘many a comment’! You’re listening, Coward. As it happens, people even more important than you listen too. We even have people from the BBC come here and contribute!
“Anyway my point was round of applause for Kill the Beeb for finally stating the truth.”
Oh bravo! Good point! Applaud some more and I’ll throw you a fish, clever boy!
I really cannot be bothered to write a long drawn out reply to your ramblings but just to inform you of one thing. Just because I read postings does not mean I am listening. If I listened to this endless drivel I would go nuts!
Coward | 18.12.08 – 8:55 pm |
Then why do you even come here? Why have you spent – if we’re to believe you – so much time lurking here? Saying you have read many a post here but never paid attention to any of them seems a little weird. If that’s the case, why bother sticking around? How did you find this blog, anyway?
“I really cannot be bothered to write a long drawn out reply to your ramblings..”
Typical Beeb attitude really. Can’t put together a counter argument , therefore attack the people who say it rather than the substance.
Coward 8:55
Aptly named !
Jon 9:22
I hope that one day the BBC will put up someone on this website who will even begin to start an intellectual argument.
I am sure we would welcome the debate. But, so far , no-one of any substance.
Coward – I only hope that one day this site can recover from the stunning blows you’ve delivered to our self-esteem with your rapier wit and exceptional intelligence.
You are pathetic. If you are any older than, say, 19, I truly feel sorry for you.
henryflower 9:42
So, irony not your strong point !
Really, you have said it.
We are still waiting, like a groom for a bride !!
“The BBC, Environmental Information Regulations and a very convenient loophole ”
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=125
Grant | 18.12.08 – 9:27 pm | #
Grant – you’ve said it too. I’d love nothing more than serious debate with an honest intelligent Beeboid.
Coward: “If I listened to this endless drivel I would go nuts!”
How would anyone tell if you did?
Grant | 18.12.08 – 9:27 pm |
I hope that one day the BBC will put up someone on this website who will even begin to start an intellectual argument.
I am sure we would welcome the debate. But, so far , no-one of any substance.
There have been in the past, but the only who stuck around is Sarah Jane. Although she(?) is more sympathetic to the idea that the BBC is biased, and not a blind defender of the indefensible.
Yes indeed – good point David, I certainly respect and enjoy Sarah Jane’s presence. Sarah Jane, I did not mean to imply that you were neither honest nor intelligent, believe me! 🙂
henryflower 9:57
“serious debate with an honest intelligent Beeboid ” ?
Pissing in the wind .
What a pointless exercise – reading posts but not “listening” to them.
I bet Coward buys train tickets but never goes on a journey.
Grant – you can say that again!
(Oh, you did… )
😉
henryflower 11:45
ok, I posted twice . I am not perfect like the BBC !
Grant, I can’t work out whether I am drunk or you have Alzheimer’s… 🙂
Original Robin – stop mocking the guy so painfully, remember, he’s demolished our self-belief! It takes a crazy kind of genius to openly boast of reading things without paying much attention to them, and then criticise them based on that extensive but inattentive reading.
I’d find such a claim hard to believe were it not for the fact that his error-strewn and painfully inaccurate analysis seems to indicate that it’s no empty boast.
As a debating tactic it’s among the more unusual I’ve ever come across, Coward. I don’t think it’s an approach that’s really paying off for you as much as you maybe hoped it would.
Henry 1:23
Can’t comment on either of the false alternatives !
I actually agree with some things Kill tb said yesterday. The one that got you all going.
For example “that nobody actually listens to anything as they are too busy trying to be heard. ”
I DO do that. I often go : scroll past, scroll past, scroll past… POST!
I want to be heard more than I listen. Specially when people gang up together, patting each other on the back and getting increasingly carried away.
Good posts make me think “I’m glad somebody said that.” I don’t often say so though because too many “well saids” make for a dull read, so they should only be permitted if they’re addressed to Moi.
Telly tax is not my gripe. There are lots of taxes that I don’t like. I would rather not fund: incompetence, inefficiency, waste, and I certainly would prefer not to be forced to contribute to a system that creates people who can’t go to work without losing income.
I’ve said this so often I bore myself with it, it’s the enormous influence that the BBC still has on public opinion that hurts.
I don’t blame people for paying. If you take the law into our own hands you ought to be prepared to put up with any anarchic vigilante behaviour.
Equally, not paying is a good way to protest, until the day the BBC suddenly becomes impartial, educational and entertaining
Kill tb flared up like that before. But a new one: “But the BBC themselves are still doing an excellent job.” makes me think that he is the one who hasn’t been listening.
Shami on AQ again.
I do often get told that I’m twittering into thin air. Good point Coward. But I’m still twittering hypocritically all the same.
ipreferred | 18.12.08 – 9:56 am,
Difference is, David Vance backs up his colourful language with facts to justify his abhorrence of the BBC, while ‘The BBC is Great Value’ simply rattles off a string of insults with no substance.
Sue, if nobody listens, then how do I know that you contribute ten times more substance in one paragraph than Coward managed in his entire hollow rant?
Bishop Hill has another post up about CEMP and the BBC. Contradictions abound:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/12/18/getting-your-argument-straight.html