# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/41 "2003-07-31T20:28:06Z")
😕 😕 Tony Blair has an undiminished appetite for continuing his work. To continue his work he has to be in power/office (surely the same thing in this context??) So, his appetite for power is undimished. And how on Earth does reporting that Tony Blair wants to continue in office/in power/doing his work constitute a continued “assault” on Tony Blair by the BBC (see how I changed the words around there but retained the essential meaning). Do words really mean such different things in America? And, if so maybe Americans should desist from semantic commentary on British media. **December** , as you believe this has been such a scandalous affair, please provide a cite of Tony Blair attacking this report. Or of any Labour party minister/MP/ex-MP/supporter attacking this report. Or any British media source/commentator attacking this report. ---
**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, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/42 "2003-07-31T20:35:11Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Chicago Faucet \* > December was quoting, word for word, the spin the liberal BBC was putting on Blair._ 😕 Did you read this thread? **december** did point this out, but he also neglected to say that this same spin was repeated by the _conservative_ British press, too. \*I disagree, but let’s not get into that now. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/43 "2003-07-31T20:38:00Z")
> [@](#): > > _Chicago Faucet_ > the liberal BBC Cite please. The BBC is an organisation employing over 23000 people in Britain alone. Any evidence of this “liberal” allegation (whatever that means anyway). > [@](#): > > It was BBC doing the spinning How do you know? You have seen a small part of the transcript of the press conferance. You have no idea how the press were briefed by Tony Blair’s spin doctors. The fact that a very similar wording appears in several unrelated media sources suggests that the wording was used by someone. ---
**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, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/44 "2003-07-31T20:42:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Avenger \* > \*\*😕 😕 > > Tony Blair has an undiminished appetite for continuing his work. To continue his work he has to be in power/office (surely the same thing in this context??) \*\* Let’s see if we can’t do something about your confusion. Lord Acton said: > [@](#): > > 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton didn’t say: > [@](#): > > Hard work tends to corrupt, and absolutely hard work corrupts absolutely. There’s a difference in context. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/45 "2003-07-31T20:50:52Z")
To be “in power” is pretty much a synonym for being in office in political parlance. Blair’s reply was in the context of his staying in office for another term. So I don’t see any distortion in the statement by the BBC. Since various newspapers from a wide political spectrum chose the same phrase it is difficult to see what the fuss is about. ``` The BBC must be doing a pretty good job if its critics have to scrape the bottom of the barrel in this fashion to attack 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, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/46 "2003-07-31T21:16:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. That’s an absolutely outrageous request. **december** may not be the model of unbiased posting, but this particular thread has much to recommend it. I agree with the OP that the BBC (and other sources) rendered a deceptive quote. Your request might have garnered some sympathy had it been addressed to **december** in a thread that was truly unfounded and without basis. But to place it in this thread, which makes a very clear and cogent point, is useless. And by the way – if you’re asking posters that use the boards “…as [their] own personal stomping ground[s] for unfounded and biased attacks and spin…” I assume you’ll be hitting **Reeder** up for an apology as well? - Rick ---
**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, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/47 "2003-07-31T23:01:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > \*\*To be “in power” is pretty much a synonym for being in office in political parlance. Blair’s reply was in the context of his staying in office for another term. So I don’t see any distortion in the statement by the BBC. \*\* I agree, but that’s not quite what the BBC’s paraphrase said. They used the phrase “appetite for power,” which has a different connotation than an appetite for getting work done. The BBC’s usage implies that Blair wants power. What Blair actually said was that he wanted to accomplish a “big job of work.” ---
**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, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/48 "2003-07-31T23:40:28Z")
**Bricker** and **Chicago Faucet** - I don’t know why you are not able to follow along with the thread, but here’s the story so far. Tell me if you think this is a fair assessment. **december** (yet again) attacked the BBC. Not _all_ the newspapers that used the identical quote, just the BBC. He referred to the “scummy trick” and “malicious interpretation” as further proof of the BBC’s “continued assault on Blair”. The debate here was supposedly about “Whether that use of quotation marks is improper journalism” and “Whether the BBC is conducting a continuing assault on Tony Blair”. Granted, the former does provide grounds for an interesting debate, but clearly that is not the main purpose of this thread. The thread title makes that clear. Then **jjimm** did some excellent research which basically destroyed the argument that the BBC was specifically (and maliciously) attacking Tony Blair. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jjimm \* > \*\ ***Neurotik** , **bricker** a couple of things that might have escaped your notice. > > 1. Blair himself did not deny this statement was true immediately after he said it, though given an opportunity so to do. [Transcript](http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page4295.asp) from part of the press conference: 2. Nearly every other publication in the country has used the same construction: > > The [Financial Times](http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059478591204):The [Telegraph](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/07/31/nblair31.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/07/31/ixportaltop.html):The [Independent](http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=429150):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. > > You decide. \*\* To which **december** could only reply > [@](#): > > 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? When **jjimm** pointed out that > [@](#): > > **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. **december** did not respond. Did not admit that he was wrong. Anyone know why? I think **jjimm** has made it clear that this was not a case of the BBC “continuing their assault” on Blair. How could it be when three other major papers (including a conservative one) used _exactly_ the same quote? Again, **december** does not acknowledge this fact. No apology for wrongly accusing the BBC; no admitting that this thread was simply (yet another) excuse to attack the BBC. I believe that enough is enough. Why this sort of nonsense is allowed (especially in Great Debates, which ought to be about debating ideas, not furthering one’s agenda), I do not know. Perhaps because he’s so _polite_ about it…😉 This is not about conservative or liberal. It’s about the way one “debates”; the starting of misleading, biased, agenda-driven threads; the spin and the lack of mea culpa; the failure to admit the truth; the continued lies and distortion for the sake of furthering one’s own personal ideology; and the crapping of it all over these boards. (On preview I see that **december** is continuing _his_ assault on the BBC. No mention of the fact that the other papers did this as well. It’s “the BBC’s usage”, not the FT’s et al.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/49 "2003-08-01T00:52:28Z")
There are two points raised by the preceding discussion: 1. An attack on the BBC; and 2. An attack on the quotation. I agree that the former is misplaced. It’s unclear to me if the Financial Times, Telegraph, and Independent derived their quote from the BBC coverage or independently; in eaither case, it’s clear that the BBC is not deserving of sole blame. I maintain that the attack on the quote itself is quite justified, and ample reason for this thread’s existence. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Clawman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47c2d/32.png) [@The\_Clawman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Clawman)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/50 "2003-08-01T00:55:24Z")
Still, much Kudos to anybody who still gives a flying fuck about anything that the usual suspects post. Please Brit-Dopers, they ain’t worth it… Remind me again mods on the rule about trolling? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/51 "2003-08-01T01:13:12Z")
I hold the BBC in a higher regard than I do other sources of information. Unless there is more that Blair said that the headline is referring to, I think that it was not the BBC at its best – even if other newspapers did the same thing. Very uncharacteristic of the BBC and worthy of comment by december. I’m a liberal, myself, and don’t like it when free speech is squelched from either side. What puzzles me is _why_ did all of the newspapers misstate his comment in identical terms? If I were a journalist, I would think twice before narrowing someone’s actual words to one quoted word. That technique can certainly be used to mislead. I can remember one time when the local newspaper said that during inservice, teachers were “working” at school. That very much implied that it was not real work. But my favorite is this: Mr. Smithson was seen leaving the hotel with his “wife.” ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/52 "2003-08-01T03:25:52Z")
> [@](#): > > They used the phrase “appetite for power,” which has a different connotation than an appetite for getting work done. The BBC’s usage implies that Blair wants power. What Blair actually said was that he wanted to accomplish a “big job of work.” ``` Blair's answer about "work" was in the context of a question about his staying in office for a full third term ie. about his staying in power. So **in this particular context**"power" and "work" are pretty much the same. At worst this is a minor and inconsequential inaccuracy. ``` Here is the question btw: “At the weekend your friend and Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, said quite categorically that you would stand at the next election and serve a full third term. Was he speaking with your full authority?” ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/53 "2003-08-01T04:40:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Let’s see if we can’t do something about your confusion. Lord Acton said: > > > [@](#): > > > > 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. > > Lord Acton didn’t say: > > > [@](#): > > > > Hard work tends to corrupt, and absolutely hard work corrupts absolutely. > > There’s a difference in context. \*\* Thank you **december** , we’ve successfully established that “power” and “hard work” are not direct synonyms. Although I can’t find the point where myself or anyone else argued that they _were_. Now, do you have anything to say to my actual point about the context that the words were used in which is what I was actually talking about: > [@](#): > > Tony Blair has an undiminished appetite for continuing his work. To continue his work he has to be in power/office (surely the same thing in this context??) So, his appetite for power is undimished. And take into account **CyberPundit** ’s point, which I had not picked up on about the question that Tony Blair was answering: > [@](#): > > Blair’s answer about “work” was in the context of a question about his staying in office for a full third term ie. about his staying in power. So in this particular context “power” and “work” are pretty much the same. At worst this is a minor and inconsequential inaccuracy. > > Here is the question btw: > “At the weekend your friend and Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, said quite categorically that you would stand at the next election and serve a full third term. Was he speaking with your full authority?” While you’re there, do you have any response to the other parts of my previous post that you ignored: > [@](#): > > December, as you believe this has been such a scandalous affair, please provide a cite of Tony Blair attacking this report. Or of any Labour party minister/MP/ex-MP/supporter attacking this report. Or any British media source/commentator attacking this report. To be honest, this thread is a complete non-event, it puts concerns about the future of the BBC into context if this is really what it’s opponents are reduced to. I won’t go as far as some others and demand an apology for the thread, but **december** should certainly apologise for the title of the thread which, on any reading, is a total mangling of the truth. ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/54 "2003-08-01T05:44:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Avenger \* > \*\*…but **december** should certainly apologise for the title of the thread which, on any reading, is a total mangling of the truth. \*\* I wonder if it’s possible that this is deliberate. I may be giving **december** too much credit here, but perhaps the thread title is a deliberate distortion of the truth. I mean, the “power/hard work” thing is a bit of a misrepresentation, but an “assault”? That’s a bit much, even for a BBC-hater like him. I should think even he sees that as quite a stretch. An “assault” would be more along the lines of “Blair’s a jerk” or “Tony Blair’s mother wears combat boots.” So, what say you **december**? Have you _whooooshed_ us all with your thread title? Or, as I suspect is more likely, are you guilty of pretty much the same sort of distortion you accuse the BBC of? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/55 "2003-08-01T05:59:26Z")
Is it simply possible that “power” has a _slightly_ different connotation in Britian vs. in the United States? E.g, **december** works himself into a lather because he’s interpreting “power” as “mastery of the heaven and earth,” whereas British Dopers (and the BBC) simply consider it as “an urge to stay in office”? It certainly wouldn’t be the first time there’s a linguistic difference between American English and British English, after all. That said, the OP is still stoopid. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/56 "2003-08-01T10:07:22Z")
I emailed the Oxblog blogger with the info I’d derived for this thread, asking “Just wondering why in this instance you singled the Beeb out and not the others?” He replied: > [@](#): > > I’d singled out the Beeb for no better reason that that I read it daily, whereas I don’t tend always to look at the others. Many thanks for bringing them to my attention, though ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/57 "2003-08-01T10:24:31Z")
[On further examination](http://oxblog.blogspot.com/) he’s now nodded to the information I supplied: > [@](#): > > An emailer points out that today’s Telegraph uses exactly the same formulation. …but then goes on to cite Hitchens bitching about BBC announcers pronouncing ‘Wolfowitz’ with a Germanic, rather than Americanized, pronunciation. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/58 "2003-08-01T10:41:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Avenger \* > Thank you **december** , we’ve successfully established that “power” and “hard work” are not direct synonyms. Although I can’t find the point where myself or anyone else argued that they _were_. The BBC and some other UK newspapers implied that they were synonyms. They _quoted_ something Blair had said about work as if he had said it about power. I agree with **Avalonian** and others that this misquote was a minor flaw. However, I also believe that the BBC has been conducting an assault on the Blair administration. > [@](#): > > Now, do you have anything to say to my actual point about the context that the words were used in which is what I was actually talking about: I’ve said it. The BBC (and others) got the quote a bit wrong, in a way that had a more negative connotation than what he actually said. I agree that this particular quotation error is not a big deal. I find it a interesting from a POV of proper rheoric. Various posters have raised good points as to whether or not there’s anything wrong with this type of quoting. The other half of the topic – the BBC’s alleged partisanship – is an important debate. **jjimm** – Good work in getting your info to Oxblog. For the record, here’s the full quote that you disparaged: > [@](#): > > From my quick skim of the transcript, it appears that Blair never said anything about his “appetite for power.” > > Now, this may seem like a minor quibble, but it’s indicative. Like consistently mispronouncing Wolfowitz’s name or selectively using scare quotes to mock certain events, it suggests an agenda at work, an agenda that the BBC is not supposed to have. I don’t agree with your rolleyes at the consistent mispronounciation of Wolfowitz’s name. Neither the Germanic pronounciation nor the American pronounciation are relevant. The relevant one is _Wolfowitz’s pronounciation_. It’s disrespectful to consistently mispronounce someone’s name. It shows that one hasn’t bothered to get the name right. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/59 "2003-08-01T10:51:55Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s disrespectful to consistently mispronounce someone’s name. It shows that one hasn’t bothered to get the name right. \*\* I agree that it is a bit irritating, and possibly, in a personal context, even disrespectful. However, believe me, there’s _plenty_ of mispronunciation in all media (EYE-rack? JagWAAR cars? Monty PyTHAAN? Worcestershire Sauce?). I really think, regarding the barrel-scraping, that we’ve dispensed with the bottom and are now heading through the cellar floor. ---
**Author:** ![Martiju](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@Martiju](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martiju)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2003, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113/60 "2003-08-01T10:59:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > \*\*Is it simply possible that “power” has a _slightly_ different connotation in Britian vs. in the United States? E.g, **december** works himself into a lather because he’s interpreting “power” as “mastery of the heaven and earth,” whereas British Dopers (and the BBC) simply consider it as “an urge to stay in office”? It certainly wouldn’t be the first time there’s a linguistic difference between American English and British English, after all. > > That said, the OP is still stoopid. 😉 \*\* This was my take on it, looking afresh this morning. Here (unless I’m the only one, of course) power is not seen as anything monstrous, but just a way of saying that one is in office, in charge if you will, of the country. I know it’s been said above but I’m convinced that’s really all there is to the ridiculous assertion that the BBC is out to get ‘Our Tone’!! J. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-continues-their-assault-on-tony-blair-or-fun-with-quotation-marks/192113.md?page=4)