The BBC - beacons of truth in an age of lies [/sarcasm]

I just wanted to put together a thread that draws together all the wrongness the BBC is responsible for in one place. What have we got?

Well, for starters, there's the obvious 9/11 conspiracy to do with them reporting on the collapse of building 7 almost half an hour before it happened...

Here's a few threads to get you started on this one...

Then of course, there's the ongoing controversy over the BBC's leniency when it comes to reporting Israeli atrocities. There's quite an interesting article about how even Brits are getting fed up with Mark Thompson's continuing apologias for Israeli atrocities...

For many, he left an indelible stain on the BBC’s reputation when he refused to broadcast the Palestinian charity appeal in the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead in which more than 1,400 Palestinian civilians, one-third of them children, were killed by Israeli bombs and bullets. Real and lasting damage, however, was done when, in November 2005, Thompson and his wife Jane Blumberg travelled to Israel for what the Independent on Sunday called “peace talks” with the then “hard-line” Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon. The IoS claimed that, “Thompson... intends to build bridges with the country's political class”. Never before had any BBC Director-General embarked on such a meeting and references to it are removed continually from Thompson’s biography on Wikipedia, an indication of just how sensitive the whole event remains.

If you have to continually hide a fact like that by deleting it from Wikipedia, and you're head of the biggest news resource of the UK, that seems, to say the least, like a conflict of interest.

Then there's the business of the BBC using underhanded tactics to try and make it impossible for Press TV (an Iranian channel) to operate in Afghanistan. Here's a link to the relevant ATS thread.

And of course there's old stuff like the miners' strike coverage. The BBC edited film of the battle of Orgreave to show miners throwing things at the police in an act of apparent provocation. But the order of events was reversed - the police viciously baton-charged the peaceful protestors first, though you'd never have known from the coverage:

www.guardian.co.uk...
www.haldane.org...

Then, of course, most egregiously, there's the edited interview with Benazir Bhutto in which she revealed that Bin Laden was dead... when the BBC rebroadcast the Al-Jazeera interview, they took out the offending clause from Bhutto's reply and cut to Frostie doing what's called a "noddy" shot in the trade... Sadly, I can't find the clip concerned, but it's easly enough to find the controversy. She did subsequently refer to OBL being alive, but I think this was post facto damage control. It's interesting that David Frost didn't challenge her on it during the interview, and more interesting still that the BBC simply edited it out.

I'm so, so glad I don't pay my license fee.

The fact that the BBC does not slavishly peddle an anti-Israeli / pro- Palestinian position to sate "public opinion" is fine by me. As a listener on the BBC (rather than a reader of comment about the BBC) I can tell you that they are balanced in what they say. They report both sides with as much impartiality as they seem to be able to. Whether it is bombs in Gaza or suicide bombs in Tel Aviv. I was particularly impressed with their coverage of the recent “peace flotilla”, which is a step above your average YouTube diatribe.

9/11 is so full of paranoia, speculation and conspiracy that is best keep that out of any discussion, else you run the risk of degeneration into silliness, but on the day as everything was falling to pieces you have to give leeway to the odd error in live reporting whether it was by the BBC, Mahua TV or the Good Housekeeping magazine.

On the Palestinian charity appeal the refusal to broadcast is not without precedent and they have refused appeals in the past, for a variety of reasons. There were quite a few people (including Members of Parliament) who got a bit upset, but the BBC is the organisation who has to make judgements on whether certain acts will compromise its position or whether appeals will be fruitful. The fact that politicians got so vocal merely forced the BBC to bunker down as it could not be seen to “bend to politicians”. Perhaps if all the publicity seeking MPs were less vocal and there was a calmer dialogue the BBC may have conceded. That’s politics for you! Would there have been such a storm if the BBC had refused an appeal for victims of Hezbollah / Hamas suicide bombers or rocket attacks? Probably not. This just illustrates the point.

Other examples cited are editing issues which may / may not have been appropriate. As the Miners Strike was several decades ago I don’t think it carries relevance to the BBC today. Where the BBC is found wanting it apologises, but errors do happen – for whatever reason, such as BBC apologises over Queen clips

On the spat with the propaganda arm of the Iranian government, aka PressTV. If the Iranians are complaining about their news service getting “bumped” then that’s good. Iran being one country that proactively blocks the BBC because (let’s face it) the truth hurts. The BBC – alongside other organisations (like Yale University) are proscribed organisations. It would be very inconvenient for the average Iranian to actually know more than what the Iranian regime wants to feed them. Diddums.

I worked for the bbc, and they are a bunch of scum.

enough said.

reply to post by rich23


I dont trust the BBC... but its a case of the "best of a bad bunch"

Sky, CNN, Fox, al jazeera... all as bad if not worse... all have a political stance and an agenda, all try to formulate an opinion for you... thats the problem with mainstream media!

But who can you trust? Rense.com??

Thats why i read as many different new outlets as possible... the truth is normally hidden in there somewhere.

I consider the BBC to be the best overall news source available. Overt bias and agendas spoil any enjoyment of particular news outlets like the Guardian or Times. It's hard to get through their articles without being tripped up by reporter's bias. Sky News is usually too shallow as an alternative news source so what's left? Sweet FA.

BBC reports are far more neutral and need to be, given their global audience. BBC World Service is popular across Asia and Africa and was the primary trusted source in the Middle East prior to Al-Jazeera (many reporters left to join AJ).

Politically, it doesn't get into bed with the major parties or court politicians like other media often do. Regarding Palestine or Israeli news, they report on events and keep commentary to a minimum.

In terms of breadth, depth and variety, the BBC website is without peer imo.

I believe that the BBC is at good as it can get and yes they seem to be impartial.

Regarding the Israel / Palestine issue , BBC even made a documentary as impartial as it can get , presenting both sides of the story as clean as possible and also sticking to the major facts in this conflict since the beginning . The documentary is called " The birth of Israel " and i recommend it to everyone , you can watch it online on google video

Also from the "yes men fix the world" bhopal hoax live from the bbc studios it shows that their interviews aren't "rigged" before , guests aren't aware of the questions ahead of the interviews ,there is no previous understanding on how the interviews should go : www.babelgum.com...

edit to add that bbc has a section of writers room , where english people are encouraged to send heir work , movie scripts and things like that , stimulating the intellect in this way , while others media companies are doing exactly the other thing around : dumbing people down . take CNN for example , all you can hear from them :"Follow us on facebook and twitter"

[edit on 19-6-2010 by charlie_the_loafer]

Originally posted by Kandinsky
I consider the BBC to be the best overall news source available. Overt bias and agendas spoil any enjoyment of particular news outlets like the Guardian or Times.

Whereas covert bias is the beeb's stock in trade...

Politically, it doesn't get into bed with the major parties or court politicians like other media often do.

Hmmm... from "Duke" Hussey's reign onwards it's been pretty supine and the fallout of the Dr. Kelly affair shows just how obsequious the governors are.

And no-one's commented on the Bhutto interview which was blatantly censored....

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by paraphi

9/11 is so full of paranoia, speculation and conspiracy that is best keep that out of any discussion, else you run the risk of degeneration into silliness, but on the day as everything was falling to pieces you have to give leeway to the odd error in live reporting whether it was by the BBC, Mahua TV or the Good Housekeeping magazine.

How on earth can you say that predicting the collapse of WTC7 was an odd error in live reporting. Camon be serious !!

As you quote in your post " degenerating into silliness" best describes your defending of what could only be inside information that was passed to the anchor on that fatefull day.

Respects

I worked for them, and it was like hell on earth.

Enough said.

I would never trust any program they put out, or news show they do.

reply to post by andy1033


You have already said that you think the BBC are scum, so you are beginning to repeat yourself. Was it the microwaves?

To topic. If you compare the science and technology news areas beteen CNN and the BBC you will see a great deal of difference with the BBC haveing a wider range and depth of reporting. CNN seems to concentrate on Mr Jobs and Apple and nothing else gets a look in!

Regards

reply to post by paraphi
I agree about the science and tech pages. For a multi-media news site, I can't think of anywhere better. The website is like a sprawling mansion with hidden rooms and basements full of good stuff. Their history sections are fantastic and pitched at college levels. The music channels are pretty cool too.

I'm not referring to anyone in this thread, but the BBC gets a lot of criticism that's indirectly targeted by direct competitors. In the UK, The Mail, Express and Sun rarely miss an opportunity to attack license fees, fat cats and political bias (left wing allegedly) at the BBC. They criticize the quality of productions and bemoan the 'value for money' for 'hard-working honest taxpayers.'

Well guess what the owners of these 'great' news outlets do for a living? Shocker! Yup, they own TV stations and news websites. BBC is simply the competition. Is there any reason at all to suppose that removing the BBC would improve the quality of the output of these MediaCorps? I'd say no fricking way! Highly unlikely!

So the BBC can take hits all day from the whingers, critics and accusers imo. Their alternatives are too depressing. Maybe BBC are liars? I don't think so and I could be wrong. The problem, as I see it, is that private, commercialised MediaCorps are held sway to the pressures of the advertising industries that sustain them. It's like Congressional neutrality in the face of the Lobby Industry.

If I had to choose a 'desert island' website, BBC would be the one...ATS close second!

They have a long way to go before they descend to the depths of The History Channel.