# BBC continues their assault on Tony Blair, or Fun With Quotation Marks **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 31, 2003, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113 "2003-07-31T13:02:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/21 "2003-07-31T14:33:53Z")
I agree with **jjimm**. This is quite normal reporting. It is not an attempt to distort. ---
**Author:** ![Martiju](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@Martiju](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martiju)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/22 "2003-07-31T14:35:33Z")
Not unfair in the slightest - and absolutely correct use of language when quoting someone whilst trying to make a wider point. Moreover this: Things like “US shows ‘Bodies of Uday and Qusay’” is also absolutely correct because at the time the US were claiming that the bodies were those of U&Q but it had not been confirmed. Indeed, NOT to have the quotation marks would have been misleading!! On the other hand, every anti-BBC campaigner can use any everyday story as a device for bashing the corporation I suppose…! ---
**Author:** ![Fang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/96bed5/32.png) [@Fang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fang)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/23 "2003-07-31T14:37:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Revtim \* > **First, is there cite to show Blair’s full quote that isn’t from a blog?** [From the source](http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page4295.asp). ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/24 "2003-07-31T14:37:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jjimm \* > [BEither it’s standard journalistic practice, or someone here is singling out the BBC, rather than those other publications, as part of a frankly pathetic and repetitive vendetta. > > You decide. \*\* Oh, I have no doubt that this is part of a pathetic and repetitive vendetta by **december**. Unfortunately, he seems to be right in this case. Although given that several other outlets phrased it the same way, he should have held them over the coals as well. I find the **Financial Times** description of appetite for office to be many times more acceptable than appetite for power, btw. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/25 "2003-07-31T14:41:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by London\_Calling \* > \*\*He knows he’ll invite general derision by citing Andrew Sullivan (again), the obsessive BBC hater, so he bypassed his daily source of wisdom to quote the source of the source, if you will. \*\* This item was also pointed to by Professor Glenn Reynolds at [Instapundit](http://www.instapundit.com/archives/010710.php). > [@](#): > > **jjimm** > Nearly every other publication in the country has used the same construction… Either it’s standard journalistic practice, or someone here is singling out the BBC, rather than those other publications, as part of a frankly pathetic and repetitive vendetta. I confess that I didn’t check other sources to see how they covered this statement. Note that FT said his appetite for office was “undiminished.” You have shown two examples who made the same mistake as the BBC – the Telegraph and the Independent. That’s not enough to prove that it’s standard journalistism. Still, your point is well-taken. The BBC had company. OTOH, doesn’t the BBC have a greater obligation to present unbiased news? Doesn’t the law require them to do so? ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/26 "2003-07-31T14:48:08Z")
**Neurotik** ,\*\* december\*\*, though the quote said “office”, the FT headline read as follows: **Blair maintains his appetite for power** No subtlety there. I suspect the publications felt justified with the use of the word “power” since that very statement was put to Blair a few seconds after he’d said “appetite for work” and he didn’t refute it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/27 "2003-07-31T15:22:38Z")
I notice, **jjimm** , that you didn’t refute my quotes of your characterization of **december** ’s work. I am therefore justified in continuing to quote you thusly, yes? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/28 "2003-07-31T15:31:35Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by jjimm \* > \*\* Indeed, only this morning I saw this construction used in a National Geographic article._\* Unfortunately, one can not always trust the National Geographic to be an unimpeachable source of journalistic integrity. I still remember some disgraceful insinuations they made about Jacques Cousteau’s behavior with seals during one of those long, long sea voyages. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/29 "2003-07-31T15:36:22Z")
Thanks for the link **Fang**. I see now that the quote from **december’s** blog is actually from the later lines, as **jjimm** pointed out. It’s not nearly as much a deception as the blog makes it out to be, if it is one at all. I should’ve known… ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/30 "2003-07-31T15:44:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*I notice, **jjimm** , that you didn’t refute my quotes of your characterization of **december** ’s work. I am therefore justified in continuing to quote you thusly, yes? \*\* You may indeed, though whenever you do this, my referring people to thread will indicate that your misrepresentation of me was considerably greater than that perpetrated by the British press. Anyway, you’re not a journalist, and I’m not the British Prime Minister\*. But I’m sure you agree with me: as you yourself have said in this very thread, “I” “congratulate” “jjimm” on “his” “shockingly” “even-handed” “and” “unbaised commentary on the world at large”. 😉 BTW, for those who seem concerned by this, I used _National Geographic_ as an example of “any old publication where this construction is used” (one that I happened to have been reading this morning). \*Yet. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/31 "2003-07-31T15:58:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \* > I still remember some disgraceful insinuations they made about Jacques Cousteau’s behavior with seals during one of those long, long sea voyages. I think we should all thank **Jackmannii** for this timely reminder of the pressures young people face today in our society We must all take the time to, both, teach our children\* and \*to watch for signs of weakness because sealant abuse can take hold anytime, anywhere. Thank you. Good research, \*\* jjimm\*\*. Kudos. Will the OP return to mop up the leaking shite all over the floor ? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/32 "2003-07-31T16:11:52Z")
I didn’t realize that Maureen Dowd worked for the BBC. So, **London\_Calling** , I assume you would agree that it is a fair representation of your position that what the BBC did was “not… _polite_”? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/33 "2003-07-31T16:11:54Z")
**december** , I think you owe these boards an apology. And I think you ought to request that this thread be closed. Perhaps in the future you might reconsider using the SDMB as your own personal stomping ground for unfounded and biased attacks and spin. (And please note that this is not simply a case of “if you don’t want to read a thread, don’t open it.” Every single day there are numerous threads with ridiculous titles/OPs, often misleading and always to serve one purpose: to further **december’s** conservative ideology. It goes without saying, but what is most frustrating is that when confronted with a sound rebutal, instead of conceding, the author merely spins or ignores.) After the loss of one great (but nasty-tempered) poster last night, I think enough is enough round here, no? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/34 "2003-07-31T16:12:50Z")
And **LC’s** reminder to be careful about one’s sources is ever so apropos. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/35 "2003-07-31T16:17:27Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by jjimm \* > Anyway, you’re not a journalist, and I’m not the British Prime Minister_. As it happens, I am the editor-in-chief of the “Ambrose Anchor” (along with being the head photographer, publisher, chief cook, and bottle-washer), a newsletter for members of my Knights of Columbus council. Every month, I am read by at least 150 people. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/36 "2003-07-31T16:19:45Z")
Well, the BBC is coming out on top this time: > [@](#): > > [http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=428552](http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=428552) > > The Government is losing out to the BBC in the battle for public trust in the wake of the David Kelly affair, an opinion poll published today indicates. > > The survey by NOP found that 54 per cent of respondents trusted the BBC more than the Government over claims about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Only 21 per cent said they had greater faith in the Government. > > The poll, commissioned by public relations company Weber Shandwick, found that despite concerted criticism by government ministers, the public still places greater trust in the BBC than in other news organisations. ---
**Author:** ![Fang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/96bed5/32.png) [@Fang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fang)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/37 "2003-07-31T16:37:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Revtim \* > \*\*Thanks for the link **Fang**. I see now that the quote from **december’s** blog is actually from the later lines, as **jjimm** pointed out. It’s not nearly as much a deception as the blog makes it out to be, if it is one at all. I should’ve known… \*\* Well perhaps not quite as misrepresentational as the blogs (and **december** ) make it out to be, but still not fair to Blair. “Undiminished appetite for power”, while maybe a technically accurate description of what Blair was trying to say, still to me carries the connotation of somebody who wants more power than he has and will stop at nothing to get it. YMMV of course. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/38 "2003-07-31T16:40:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by leander \* > \*\ ***december** , I think you owe these boards an apology. And I think you ought to request that this thread be closed. > > Perhaps in the future you might reconsider using the SDMB as your own personal stomping ground for unfounded and biased attacks and spin.\*\* Well I don’t agree that my criticism of the BBC was unfounded. First of all everything I said was accurate and cited. As has been pointed out, Blair never used the phrase “appetite for power.” It was a reporter’s usage. **jjimm** says that Blair accepted that usage by not objecting to it. I don’t buy that, because quibbling over wording makes an interviewee look bad at at formal press conference. Even if agree with **jjimm** , the BBC mixed up two separate questions. They used the quoted word, “undiminished,” as if it went with the phrase “appetite for power,” bu that phrase came from a separate question. I’ve seen this particular type of of quotation mark abuse committed by others. I disapprove of the practice in general. I think it’s deceptive journalism. I see nothing wrong with starting a thread on the subject of misuse of quotation marks. Furthermore, although this particular example wasn’t that big a bit of Beeb Blair-bashing, I do believe that the BBC has been gunning for Blair and his administration. Maybe Blair deserves bashing, but the BBC shouldn’t be playing a partisan role. If they are, that fact certainly ought to be noticed. Given the importance of the BBC in world journalism, their partisanship (if any) is worth debating. **sailor** , thanks for the poll info. Your cite says, > [@](#): > > But the research makes sober reading for all broadcasters as it found that 51 per cent said that they trusted television and radio news less now than they did a year ago. So, the BBC appears to be doing better than the government, but both parties are actually losing in the court of public opinion. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/39 "2003-07-31T19:17:29Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by december_ > **jjimm says that Blair accepted that usage by not objecting to it.** Not quite: I said ‘I suspect the publications felt justified with the use of the word “power”’. The meaning is a bit different. > [@](#): > > **So, the BBC appears to be doing better than the government, but both parties are actually losing in the court of public opinion.** I agree. ---
**Author:** ![Chicago\_Faucet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chicago_faucet/32/13910_2.png) [@Chicago\_Faucet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chicago_Faucet)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/40 "2003-07-31T19:37:33Z")
Leander, December has to apologize for being conservative? Surely you jest. Why don’t you apologize for trying to squelch the freedom of speech of a fellow Doper? Conservative Ideology. Please. How about Liberal Ideology? December was quoting, word for word, the spin the liberal BBC was putting on Blair. It was BBC doing the spinning. December was the one to bring it to light. I thank s/he for that. If you want to see what your liberal buddies are doing on this board, and how guilty they are themselves of your accusations, just check in with SimonX and London\_Calling. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113.md?page=3)