« Robin Aitken on the biases of the BBC |
| Joseph Loconte: Contempt? The BBC Ignores Blair's Foreign Policy Agenda »
For some background to this video please see this piece from BBC journalist Robin Aitken.
April 18, 2007 at 03:24 AM in BBC on America | Permalink
Tim you post some great subjects but this one is just, well... It might as well be asked if we can trust Al-Jazeera, or during the cold war, Pravda.
April 18, 2007 at 04:15 AM
The BBC “plans to conquer the US domestic media market”? What a hoot! That’s about as asinine as saying that PBS is going to conquer the US media market.
Kevin Sampson |
April 18, 2007 at 04:19 AM
It appears that YouTube has pulled the video.
April 18, 2007 at 05:38 AM
I believe this is what one would regard as a rhetorical question. The only that that irks me about the BBC is not the fact its biased, all news outlets are, but the fact that it fails to admit its overwhelming bias to the left.
Andrew Ian Dodge |
April 18, 2007 at 11:34 AM
I suppose a viable alternative to the BBC would be FOX News with such 'stalwarts of objectivity' as Bill O'reilly, Hannity and Colmes e.t.c.
April 18, 2007 at 06:33 PM
I agree with Steevo, with the amount of material available I think there could have images of far more impact to the USA than a hitleresque Prince Charles, and the fact that BBC advertises for staff in the Guardian, which means little to them.
The real question is 'Can Britain Trust the BBC', to which the answer is a resounding "NO". That is unless one is a militant Muslim, a communist, or atheist, although with the help of the BBC, the latter two will eventually be extinct as a result of the first.
Teddy Bear |
April 18, 2007 at 09:52 PM
Andrew, the BBC can no more admit to its bias than tell the government not to grant its license fee funding as it equates to the same thing.
The BBC has a mandate to be impartial and fair, unlike other news outlets. People go to jail or can be fined up to £1000 for not paying this corrupt behemoth. The deceit and lies perpetrated by the BBC pursuing their agenda, under the masquerade of 'independant', with no real accountability or responsibility, makes it one of the worse elements of our society.
Teddy Bear |
April 18, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Excellent, the video makes the point well.
Andrew Ian Dodge says (1134): "The only that that irks me about the BBC is not the fact its biased, all news outlets are, but the fact that it fails to admit its overwhelming bias to the left." Maybe it doesn't admit bias as it is funded by TV licence-payers who have to pay the BBC to watch any channel, and it has a public service remit which (I thought) requires impartiality.
April 18, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Having worked with Robin at the BBC I have the upmost respect for his journalism and some sympathy for this thesis. There was more evidence of this in the coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings. As I said on my blog at www.charliebeckett.org the BBC (and other UK media) launched into an attack on US gun laws within hours of the shooting, before we actually knew the full facts. The US media recognised that it just isn't on the agenda. I personally think the Yanks' gun laws are mad but I understand the difference in cultures and politics and want the journalism that covers America to reflect that instead of reflecting metropolitan media instincts.
Charlie Beckett |
April 19, 2007 at 09:23 AM
Re the Virginia Tech shootings, what really grates is the BBC curling lip sneer, like "we in the UK have the answers to your problems", when the truth is far from that. Until we've sorted out our own social psychopathic behaviour, the BBC would be doing us all a favour if it just stuck to covering the news and stay out of finger pointing. 'Glass houses and stones' comes to mind.
For the BBC though, this story, like EVERY US catastrophe, enables them to denigrate the US, while giving their license fee payers the mistaken feeling that they are living in a better society.
Teddy Bear |
April 19, 2007 at 06:12 PM
Dennis, re: "I suppose a viable alternative to the BBC would be FOX News with such 'stalwarts of objectivity' as Bill O'reilly, Hannity and Colmes e.t.c."
Do you have ANY clue about the difference between NEWS and opinion commentators?
Neither Hannity nor O'Reilly nor any of the other COMMENATORS does "news". They only do commentation, and they are clearly designated as conservative, liberal (Colms, Hannity's partner, is, by the way, a FLAMING liberal who does counterpoint commentary!), Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc etc etc.
The problem with the BBC is that they put their bias into their NEWS.
April 21, 2007 at 01:37 AM
In all spheres the BBC maintains its attack on the US.
In an effort to stop some of the sectarian violence in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad where hundreds have died in the last week alone, The US are building a wall around one of the Baghdad districts.
It should be creditable,anything which will prevent loss of innocent life, but the BBC manage to unearth those who find fault with it and run their story with little or nothing to counter it.
We are already used to something similar from the BBC, with the Israeli security barrier built around the West Bank. There is absolutely no doubt that this barrier has prevented many terrorist attacks since its construction, but try to find anything positive about it in a BBC article.
The BBC has continued to call this barrier a wall, although 95% of it is actually a fence. The only place a wall was constructed was near Palestinian villages that overlooked Israeli roads to stop militants throwing rocks at cars or people. However nearly every picture on the BBC webpages shows in relation to this barrier shows the 'wall' section of it. Richard Dimbleby in Question Time, continually referred to it as a wall, despite being informed that it was a fence. It would be the same if somebody called a door a 'knob'.
Well the BBC are not wasting any time focussing on the negative aspects of a barrier in Baghdad. They would rather see miltants able to continue their agenda unhindered, and the more innocents that die, the more glee the BBC has at being able to blame the pro-Iraq war nations for their venture.
For the BBC, whatever the US does is doomed.
Sunni leader attacks Baghdad wall
Teddy Bear |
April 22, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Teddy Bear -"In an effort to stop some of the sectarian violence in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad where hundreds have died in the last week alone, The US are building a wall around one of the Baghdad districts".
I would love to see the uproar if authorities in the UK or US attempted to construct a wall around a complete neighbourhood, issue ID cards to all residents, post soldiers at the entrance to the walled area without effective consultation of the citizens being corraled.
The wall is simply a physical manifestation of calculated divisions created by the failing occupation. The constructors of the physical wall are the same ones who constructed the current Iraqi government that has presided over the destruction of their country.
It is so convenient for us to start viewing the chaos in Baghdad as a product of irrational Iraqi citizens with a penchant for sectarian violence. This removes the glaring fact, accepted by most logical observers that we caused what is occuring within that country.
April 22, 2007 at 05:28 PM
Mamapajamas- I think it's a touch comedic that, most posts on this topic do not differentiate between the BBC as an organisation and it's news editors. When i refer to Fox, you insist on separating commentary from news delivery.
Commentary is an effective means of focusing & directing public opinion and invariably discusses subject matter receiving coverage on the parent channel's(BBC or FOX) corresponding news broadcasts.
April 22, 2007 at 07:25 PM
Dennis, I can't speak for the UK, but I can tell you that here in the US, if suicide bombers were crossing the border every day from Mexico to commit atrocities, our wall would already be built. Even without the atrocities, we want to build the wall.
The problem with your position (that we are the ones causing the atrocities) is that after we leave and a genocide occurs, you get to shrug your shoulders and walk away, so you have no reason to be realistic with your views.
And I do agree with your classification of "news" outlets as little more than propaganda networks, whether they are BBC or Fox. For example, the BBC's refusal to use the word "terrorist," instead using "militant," speaks volumes about the BBC's support of crimes against humanity. It need not explicitly state as much, but diction and choice of stories to cover (showing only US mistakes and not showing terrorist acts) tilts the coverage enough, even without editorializing.
April 23, 2007 at 05:17 PM
Dennis, you, the BBC, and this world's Left don't care what happens to the Iraqis who want freedom. You simply don't. The only 'answer' you folks can spew is for our troops to leave. You hate Bush, you hate American power, and as JF said you'd shrug and walk away if we left and utter genocide and beheaded hell reigned. With one big exception of course. You'd take the opportunity with perverse I-told-you-so glee condemning Bush and America.
Here's a post from Mohammad in Iraq, he has a web site if you wanna verify:
"It's frustrating to see the media turn a blind eye to the nature of the crimes and open fire on an honest endeavor to restore peace to a bleeding nation. I'm sure the terrorists are pleased by the coverage. Why not, when their crimes are being portrayed as successful breakthroughs against the efforts of Iraq and America it's likely motivating them to keep up the killing.
"Would it be "hate speech" to expose the terrorists for what they are?
"I think our hate for their crimes must not be hidden; there is no shame in hating those blood-thirsty monsters.
"Even more appalling I see and hear some people who think the solution is to end the war from our end and I can't find an argument more naïve than this—I've seen enough wars in my life that I can't remember a day when there was peace and I hate wars more than they can imagine. But we didn't start this war; it's the terrorists who started this war against life.
"Instead of telling us to stop fighting back, I'd like to see some people stand up and protest the crimes of the terrorists and tell them to stop the killing and destruction…turn the stop-the-war campaign against the terrorists, is that too much to ask for?
"Tell the criminals to stop killing us and stop attacking the people who are risking their lives fighting for liberty and equality."
We're not asking the media and the stop-the-war crowd to carry arms and shoot the terrorists; we just want them to stop shooting at us.
April 23, 2007 at 06:39 PM
Dennis - so what you're saying, is that if terrorists were blowing up hundreds of innocent civilians daily in an area where you live, you'd want your government and security services to first set up a committee to organize a public referendum, whereby they sent out poll circulars, waited sufficient time for the replies to come in, before they implemented any safeguards. Meanwhile the bombs continue to go off, while your family and friends are decimated.
Aren't you ashamed of your thinking? Consider yourself lucky there are wiser minds than yours taking care of you, and please don't vote anymore.
Teddy Bear |
April 23, 2007 at 08:54 PM
The BBC is a state broadcaster set up in the 1920's in the mould of its east-european socialist contemporary broadcasters. It is funded by its advertising, European Union grants, and overseas product sales all the while being subsidised by the exclusive revenue of the infamous license fee. This is a tax on knowledge paid for under the open threat of a £1000.00 ($2000.00) fine for owners of unregistered TV's. BBC bailiffs are permitted to raid suspected properties where an undeclared TV is being harboured. Not only is this a gross infringement of the civil liberties of the British peoples, but it is a market distorting subvention to which its competitors have no access. Thus the BBC can outbid Sky, ITV etc with taxpayers money to win the right to screen sporting and other popular programs. It is a surprise to me how they managed to smuggle this past the Competition commission of the World Trade organisation. The BBC has access to the US market despite this unfair competitive advantage. Fox and CBS must be asleep on the job!
Paul Cadier |
June 30, 2007 at 07:32 PM
Paul Cadier |
June 30, 2007 at 07:35 PM
More importantly, can Britain trust the BBC?
I'd say no.
It's a temple of the self-loathing left.
Kim Mason |
August 30, 2007 at 01:29 AM
There’s a place in your heart and I know that it is love. This place could be much brighter than tomorrow and if you really try You’ll find there’s no need to cry.
coach purse |
July 02, 2010 at 08:54 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.