Bias at the Beeb ("Who can be surprised at Britain’s current anti-Americanism when …")

The Daily Mail ^ | May 16, 2005 | Melanie Phillips

[chudogg]

a different version of history

LOL!! A different version of history! Sounds like the Postmodern revisionist historians.

Let me get this straight.

There have been numerous wars launched by Arab nations, with the stated goal of wiping Israel off the map since the nations founding. The BBC reports this as merely "several wars were fought involving Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon".

And your saying this is merely a "different version of history". True, its called revisionsist history, or LYING! They deliberatly leave out any indication of what these wars were fought over, and even go so far as to imply that Israel was an aggressor launching wars against their neighbors.

Then, the BBC leaves out any mention of terrorism. Are you saying in a "Different version of history" palestinian (i.e. Jordinian) terrorism doesnt exist in Israel? What "version of history" is that in, because i believe many Israeli's would like to live in that version.

There is are no versions of history, there is what happened, and then there is LYING! There can be slightly different interpretations that vary. Sometimes there are outfits that will spin what happens to match their own ideological motivations, and sometimes, such as in the case of BBC, they outright LIE!

You, in your pathetic defense of BBC, have just condoned lying.

It amazes me that there are Brits on this forum that come to the defense of their precious BBC under even the most outrageous circumstances. You will never see American freepers defending the PBS, which matches the BBC on ideological grounds in their reporting (rapid marxist if you weren't paying attention).

Sorry if i sounded as if i got a little worked up, its because i did. "we are taught a different version of history" is quite possible the most ignorant statement i have ever seen on Free Republic, if not in my entire life. Posters at DU would not sink to such lows to defend an outfit dismissing arab terrorism.

And Personnally, i dont care of your opinions on Foxnews and CNN (which i assume your implying are conservative biased?!?). I posted material that correctly challenges any notion of profesionality at the BBC.

Your delusional ramblings just gave me a bad opinion of British Conservatives.

[dervish]

I "well know" nothing of the kind. And your calling something "a fact" does not make it one. As you know I disagreed with your interpretation previously.

I have no desire to see anyone including Mad Ivan leave. I'm sure he has valuable things to say. But if the only way he can stay is by attacking others personally merely for posting articles which reflect badly on the UK, I do not support him.


I am sure that the UK has been and continues to be a strong ally of the US. But contrary to Mad Ivan's assertion, the US MSM does represent many people in the US. The anti-US rhetoric coming from the UK also represents real popular opinions there.

Has it occurred to you that those who criticize the UK actually care about the relationship? No one talks of France or takes their anti-US stands seriously because they are a lost cause we don't give a damn about.

Would you have us take the same attitude on the UK?

[dervish]

First contrary to what some have said, I have no problem with you if we can stick to issues. So let me address your points.

In the first instance there is a fundamental difference about the US media trashing the US and the BBC doing so. If the BBC wants to trash the UK that is different, and while I don’t like it, I would consider it more in line with self-destructive leftist politics. But the BBC has singled out the US and Israel as poster children of evil. Reminds me of the Iranian configuration of the big and little Satan.

Also the US media, as bad as they are, do not reach the virulence of the BBC. We have no venerated Tom Paulin who praised the killing of settlement Israelis. We did not fire a Kilroy-Silk for making true comments about totalitarian inhumane Islamic practices. Our Middle East specialists don’t come from Al Jazeera. Ronald Reagan’s death received respect in our press.

I have listened to both the BBC and CNN International, there is no comparison. The BBC is much worse.


Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

“How do you find competition between BBC World and CNN, for example?
I think it’s fair to say that one of the main reasons that the BBC launched BBC World was because of the very strong position that CNN had in the Gulf War in 1991. CNN was the channel that everybody turned to at the time of Gulf War and the BBC wasn’t there with its own international news channel. As a direct result of that, the BBC developed a channel called BBC World Service Television in 1991 and then that developed into BBC World as it’s known today. There is no doubt that in terms of getting carriage and getting viewership BBC World and CNN do compete in getting advertisers, but they offer a very different perspective on international news events. BBC World is very much an impartial presentation of events going on in the world. It’s not British, it’s not associated with any particular government - it’s impartial editorial approach. “

”I think the biggest compliment paid to BBC World was that after September the 11th our entertainment channel in America – BBC America - switched its programming to BBC World for about 6 days and a distribution deal with over 200 PBS channels brought BBC World news into millions of US homes for the first time and created a lot of very positive feedback. A lot of Americans tuned in to BBC World rather then CNN at the time because they praised the way that it covered the events of September the 11th. BBC World’s approach is to present the facts. Perhaps understandably but if you wanted to know the facts as opposed to the horror and emotional trauma of it, BBC World was seen as being the authority with a reliable and impartial view. In some ways September the 11th was a turning point for BBC World in terms of international awareness - praise and acclaim for the channel flooded in, in the way that the Gulf War in 1991 did for CNN.”

http://www.satkurier.com/?interviews/&kat=109&id=8519


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


“Hess was partially joking, but nearly all U.S. media have come under some attack from the head of the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC), columnists, think tanks, leftists and others for rooting for the home team a little too lustily. That cheerleading contributed to Americans’ support of the war, not the other way around, said Steve Rendall of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), who cited a study that showed pro-war sources were grossly favored on the evening newscasts of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS and Fox.

Rendall claimed that 71 percent of the sources on these programs could be identified as pro-war, with only 2.6 percent identifiably antiwar at a time when a major nationwide poll found that anti-war sentiment had grown to 27 percent of the U.S. population—a tenfold difference. In addition, anti-war sources tended to be Iraqi, French or German government officials, and their interviews came in the form of short sound bites from the street, while the pro-war sources got sit-down interviews inside the studio.

Rendall said his favorite major news source, the BBC, does it differently. “Their attitude toward official power … is a far more adversarial one,” he said. “In the U.S., we’re not used to journalists getting in the face of officials.”

He has harsh criticism for various specific stories, such as the coverage of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Feb. 5 speech to the United Nations on banned Iraqi weapons.

“Instead of seeing some journalistic skepticism in the coverage of Powell, what we saw was an epidemic of journalistic credulity,” Rendall said. “What we saw were gushing reports. It’s not a journalist’s job just to act as stenographer for some powerful public official. The point is, governments always lie. Reporters should know this.”

Hess, however, defended the Americans, saying it is the BBC that’s guilty of a recent leftward tilt. “In general, American journalism is much more fact-oriented,” he said. “I did feel that the BBC tended to have a political point of view … and I was surprised by that. Particularly, the anchors have moved farther and farther to the left.”

BBC’s viewership and visits to its Web sites skyrocketed during the Iraqi conflict. “BBC was a natural outlet for people who opposed the Bush policies to begin with,” Hess said.

Rendall agreed that news sources abroad tend to be pointedly ideological, but to him, the claim of objectivity is part of the American media’s problem.”


http://www.washdiplomat.com/03-07/a2_03_07.html


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


“BBC World reaches over 250 million homes”

‘snip’

“The latest International Air Travellers Survey (IATS) Asia-Pacific 2002 confirms that BBC World is the fastest growing international news channel in the region. The study measures the viewership of international television channels and readership of international publications among international air travellers. Since the previous survey in 2000, BBC World viewership has grown by 6% to 13%, while other channels have suffered - CNN dropped by 24% from 26.1% to 19.8% (following a 13% drop the previous year), and CNBC are down by 34% from 10.4% to 6.9%.”


http://www.ebu.ch/news/press_archive/2003_and_prev/press_news_2003_17_bbc.php

The BBC has brand name recognition and thus enjoys supremacy in India. In the US BBC World viewership has risen. This rise is attributed to viewership seeking anti-US, anti-war coverage they don't receive in the US MSM.

[jjbrouwer]

Your incredibly rude post suggests that British schools probably teach better manners as well as a different version of history.

[chudogg]

Ok, I'm rude. Is there anything else you would like to add to the subject or is that it?

[dervish]

"several wars were fought"


The passive voice, a grammatical no-no, is handy to avoid assigning responsibility.

It is bias like that which is insidious and pervasive at the BBC. Then of course there is the outright lie bias like Dr Bell.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4276717.stm

[jjbrouwer]

That's it. I might defend the BBC some more if/when you manage to calm down.

[chudogg]

I take that as a 'No'. I guess you are a little uncomfortable with a little low-brow are twisting (which, surpises me seeing the conduct of British Parliamentary proceedings) or you have nothing further to add in light of my comments.

Thankyou and goodnight.

[Alas Babylon!]

OK, Dervish, I can understand that. In fact, I too have absolutely no use for the left wing media and the political biases of most of the West's journalists. I agree that the BBC, like CNN, ABCCBSNBC and PBS are biased. I lived in Australia, Italy and Germany for many years and saw first hand the anti-American/Israeli press in those places. Have you ever met and spoken to American journalists? I have. While stationed at the Pentagon, working for the Joint Staff public affairs office, I got to meet the likes of Wolf Blitzer, Bob Zelnick, and a host of others. They tried to give the impression that they were pro-military/USA, but you could hear the left wing bias in every question they asked.

I still think Mad Ivan is alright. But I tend to like most folks that I've known awhile anyway.

[pau1f0rd]

No, I mean the Daily Mail, which is the source of the lead article.

[pau1f0rd]

Glyndwr4Cymru, there are always dvds and videos (though TBH DVDs have more adverts than the TV!), plus hard disk technologies that allow you to remove adverts from the programmes you want to watch. You could buy one easily with the money you'd save from not paying the license fee for 5 years.

Let's not forget that the BBC's annual budget is £2.5 billion. Do you really think it's a good way to spend public money? $4 billion?

[pau1f0rd]

yes, this was a serious option at the recent Charter Review.

[jjbrouwer]

Goodnight, wacko.