These attacks on the BBC are usually indicative of one or both of two things: strong bias and/or severe ignorance.
December, once again you are setting yourself pathetically low double standards in the “debate” (though it is more correct to call it a bias-driven sally on your part). Firstly, you know next to nothing of the BBC or their coverage. Secondly, well, you have a reputation for bringing forward idiotic sources, and BBCWatch is a typical reiteration of your favourite past time: giving air time to biased channels that no one with half a shred of information has time for. Doesn’t it ever get tiring?
I suggest you try to become a half-way informed consumer of BBC news before making a fool of yourself on this matter yet again.
Now for a cognitive exercise: do you, december, perceive anything suspicious about BBCWatch?
By the way, the BBC has had a variety of nicknames. Baghdad broadcasting Corporation was mentioned. The other funny one was the Belgrade Broadcasting Corporation, earned during the bombing of Serbia for daring to air points of view or reports that were inconsistent with UK government or ally positions and/or activities. The BBC was attacked then for the same tired allegations we see now, such as being anti-war, anti-government, pro-enemy and all the rest of that horseshit people like you, december, just love to communicate without any support other than vague hearsay.
Nice one making a comparison between assessing information from people like your ideological idiot heroine Coulter and from the BBC. Coulter spews her lame-brained opinions without any grasp of the larger picture. The BBC, on the other hand, reports factual events as accurately as possible and leaves opinion largely out of the equation. It’s fairly easy for anyone who has read two or three of Coulter’s pieces, not necessarily in their entirety, to form a negative opinion of her output, at least if that “anyone” possesses a modicum of information and standard intelligence (which is perhaps too much to ask). Can you claim the same about the world’s largest and most respected news organization? Of course not – if you want to impugn the BBC, you have harder work than that ahead of you. Rather a harder target than your heroine. A harder target than FOX News, even, believe it or not.
E.g., in the post under yours, Abe blasts Coulter without indicating that he has read her books and articles and without giving examples of her alleged “lame-brained opinions without any grasp of the larger picture.” Abe also blasts BBC Watch as allegedly biased and not deserving of attention, also with no basis. If he had read their reports, he would have discovered many dozens or cited quotes from BBC broadcasts with analysis of comparable coverage.
Note also that Ann Coulter has no legal or moral obligation to be non-partisan. OTOH the BBC is obliged to report accurately and impartially in accordance with the terms of its Charter.
Regardless of my understanding of the BBC, this thread is about a factual prediction: *“What will the British government do about the BBC?”
Abe did make a good point: the BBC has been attacked like this before (whether fairly or not) and emerged unscathed. So, history gives a reason to predict that they’ll weather these attacks without damage as well. Their charter comes up for renewal in 2006. We shall see whether they suffer any adverse consequences from this contretemps.
Well, that’s not the question, the real question is your complete and utter ignorance (and usual shifting around.)
Non example my dear fellow, although part and parcel of your usual dodgery. You may engage Abe to prove that he in fact is not aware of Coulter’s various and sundry writings, however we already know from your extensive blundering about like a blind elephant that you know little to nothing about the BBC.
You can take that up with Abe, although I frankly do not see much point in his wasting his time with you and your tar baby defences. Abe’s knowledge or not of a partisan site attacking BBC is of no relevance to your ignorance.
Woo Hooo.
Again, this is of little to know relevance to your ignorance nor the fact you continue to launch attacks on a media outlet you know almost nothing about, except for second hand partisan tripe. We all understand very well your delicate ultra-Zionist sensibilities are the real source of whatever interest you have in BBC.
Given the committee announcements today and the significant leaning towards “the jury is still out” on several of the points, I’m guessing that both sides will claim victory (as, indeed, they have) and let it fade away rather than risk stirring up trouble again.
It’s not really the majority they have, which is about equal to the majority in 2001 when they called an early election, it’s how well they think they’ll do.
With the senior members of the cabinet under more fire than they have probably ever been in Tony Blair’s premiership at the present time, it’s unlikely that they will call an early election unless they can repair the damage and boost their waning support among the electorate.
You know, I just finished reading Collounsbury’s message to December, and for the life of me I can’t see a single argument being made. It is just one long personal attack, culminating with this beauty:
In which Collounsbury attacks December for something unrelated to the thread in hand.
Is there a Moderator in the house? How long do we have to take this crap before he gets punted again?
Well it’s great to see one supporter of glaring double standards of debate come to the defence of another, well done Sam. I take it you feel comfortable with the utter trash december throws around then? If you aren’t, his silly persistent responses and intellectually bankrupt cites are more than deserving of scorn. If only the moderators had the power to do something about such dishonesty and stupidity of argument, I have no doubt you would have less occasion to whine and complain when your favourite poster justly puts december down.
Now for a somewhat deeper reading of recent news than has been provided so far: Campbell, despite some facile headlines, was not “cleared”, certainly not in the way many people could be justified in thinking.
My emphasis. No it certainly isn’t the end of the story, especially when the inquiry was limited and facing an extra-governmental master of communications like Campbell, who (with the help of Jack Frost-- another of the usual suspects of this matter) successfully made this issue about the BBC rather than about governmental or personal accountability. One thing is certain – someone has a lot to answer for, and Campbell may yet be called to answer when future committees (with improved reach and resources) go to work.
Campbell, Blair’s close friend and spin meister (he is very, very good) is probably the man that Blair went to when he posed himself the question, “How do I sell this war?” Campbell may then (almost certainly did, in fact) have assisted Blair in forming a communications policy designed to win over support for war from the somewhat reluctant British public and office. We saw this campaign unfold with impassioned appeals to emotional responses (describing single examples of horrible sufferring of individual Iraqis), with falsehood-based intelligence reports (WMD, 45 minutes, impending threat, etc), and with some good displays of oratory skills and persuasive techniques; all carried out in quite an organized manner that I do not attribute to Blair or advisors alone, rather at least in part to Campbell, considering his involvement and the fact that this kind of thing is his expertise. Either that, or British and American intelligence really is as piss-poor as is suggested and did provide perfect materials for Blair to use without Campbell’s aid, which is unlikely to say the least. Anyway, Campbell was involved in the handling of the two suspicious dossiers on which the case for war was made, and he was instrumental in the development of a communications policy as concerns Iraq. If we look at House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report:
My emphasis. Keep in mind that the committee did not have access to the intelligence in question or to those who may have handled it, so their conclusions to date may be incomplete or even misguided, and are to be considered tentative until corroborated by more solid findings. I get the feeling the committee may be building bridges with this latest report, but if you read the whole thing there are plenty of serious questions and issues that remain to be resolved.
My emphasis. There are more such tidbits to be found, that most media will likely fail to note. Campbell cleared? Hardly, he’s merely wriggled free for now, a display of skill I find (from a professional point of view) quite admirable.
December, I’ll address that display of naive foolishness you call a post when I have some time. Sam, pay attention.
You’re laboring under the impression that it’s acceptable behaviour to personally attack and ridicule people on this board as long as, in your opinion, they really deserve it.
I said nothing about the quality of December’s argument. In fact, neither did Collounsbury. He just launched into a full-page attack on December’s character.
Abe: I’m on your side, really I am, but you might not want to use BBC sources for this particular story. Not because I think they’re necessarily wrong, but because the BBC obviously has a vested interest in stories about the BBC.
OTOH, I await december’s imminent posting of a link to the Sun story, the only media source to side firmly with the government and blast the BBC. In fact, I’ll save everyone the time: here it is, right next to “David Mellor brands Edwina Curry a trollop”.
Unsurprisingly, the story in the very conservative Daily Telegraph has an anti-Labour spin:
while the left-leaning Guardian is more circumspect:
I’ll spare you (and me) the rest of the media cites, although feel free to check the Independent, Financial Times, Evening Standard, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror and Sunday Sport websites if you want more perspectives. In general, though, the squabble with the BBC is given less play (and rightly so IMHO) than some of the larger issues involved.
You’re labouring under the impression that we’ve never had this discussion before. We have, and every time it happens you fail to make a convincing argument to support your protests.
December’s character can stand to be attacked when he trots out his usual array of partisan confirmation-biased nonsense, self-serving polemical garbage intended simply to slander his targets, not engage in any form of credible debate. December usually betrays his goals when he posts in these forums, goals almost always related to his personal background as a Jew or a conservative. It’s not the fact that he is a Jew or a conservative that bothers anyone, you understand. It’s his approach, methods, agenda, dishonesty, double standards, bias, etc.
So, as long as this kind of “debating” (trolling) is the flavour of the day, other posters will skate up to the line and deliver criticisms of his arguments, sources, and character as it pertains to his arguments (and his character almost always does pertain to the argument, like in the recent case where most of december’s pronouncements were based on ignorance, bias, agenda, and poor sources).
You have a problem with this, take it to the Pit and raise your concerns, and offer a link in this thread so we can see it. You can even explain how exactly Collounsbury “attacks December for something unrelated to the thread at hand” when it is painfully clear that everything C said about D was all too related to D’s output.
jr8, I was waiting for someone to bring up that point, and it’s a good one. Whether the government is attacking the BBC or not, the BBC’s independence, resources, capabilities, etc. are NOT known to have been compromised, at least not yet. One of the things I find interesting about the BBC is their record in reporting on themselves in times of such controversy, and I am watching them even more closely now that they have this situation all fired up. I included the link to the House of Commons report that the BBC story I linked is based on, and the BBC’s interpretation is quite correct (in fact, based on the report they had quite a bit of room to position themselves better but didn’t). I have seen no grounds for concern regarding BBC’s impartiality in this row. Anyway, you make a most fair point, my response is that other than hissy fits and strident calls for apologies, we haven’t really seen any evidence from the government that harms the BBC’s credibility or respect (nor did the House of Commons committee, apparently). As for having eventual vested interests, if anything that brings more scrutiny of self-coverage and (presumably) even more compelling reason to be fair and impartial.
<sigh> Not only have you selectively edited my post to spin it in a way I clearly did not intend, but you counter my posting of links to complete stories with a couple of headlines (without details or links, and in two instances referring to articles I’ve already cited ) and another op-ed piece. Inconceivable.
If only the Brits were fortunate enough to have Fock Snooze… then they’d know wots wot, right-o december? :rolleyes: Sadly, they’re instead saddled with that uppity, pinko BBC crap.
Damn Limeys-- we saved their ass in the Revolutionary War AND the Boxer Rebellion (not to mention the Boer War) and THIS is the thanks we git?
Right then. Keep a stiff upper lip. Carry on. As you were.
If you think Alastair Campbell has been cleared in any real sense of the word then you don’t know much about these commitees.
The comitee has an in-built Labour majority and what happened is the committee split along party lines meaning that it’s findings were influenced by politics and therefore inconclusive.