BBC admits to left bias

[geni]

But how is this not then a case of muslims being given gentler treatment because they claim they're more sensitive to offense?

Not so much sensertive as being offened by different things. Jews may accept that some people oppose kosha food but makeing certian coments about yellow stars is likely to ah get a reaction. Catholics may not be too concernded about the bible but say portraying Pope John-Paul II in hell would generaly be viewed as insensertive.

The CofE is a bit difficult because they are such a broad church.

 

[RyanRoberts]

John-Paul II in hell would generaly be viewed as insensertive

I'm pretty certain it wouldn't be 'insensitive' enough to be cut from a comedy program. Having your deeply held beliefs ridiculed is part of being a member of a western society - its what helps to make them equal members of a marketplace of ideas, rather than being awarded special reverence. So many things are off limits with Islam which contributes to feelings of separateness. We gleefully trash our own idols to keep their power in check, the special reverence for Islam gives its lunatic principles power.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not so much sensertive as being offened by different things. Jews may accept that some people oppose kosha food but makeing certian coments about yellow stars is likely to ah get a reaction. Catholics may not be too concernded about the bible but say portraying Pope John-Paul II in hell would generaly be viewed as insensertive.

That's bull. The "religion of peace" gets preferential treatment, and you know it. And the yellow stars has nothing to do with Judaism per se, but with how NON-jews have treated Jews, in rather recent times I might add. That comparison was cheap and pathetic, and was in no way equivalent to discussion about treatment of the Koran. And there IS nothing sacred in Christianity that is immune to criticism or ridicule - JPII probably does get portrayed as being in hell, Benedict has certainly been portrayed as being the devil by Islamists. But there is little about Islam which is NOT claimed to be above such criticism and ridicule. And the reason is quite simple: nobody walks around with posters saying "behead those who insult Christianity", and nobody would believe the threat if it was made. But people DO march with signs saying "behead those who insult Islam", and such death threats HAVE been carried out successfully in the heart of secular Europe. Bowing to that pressure is tawdry political correctness at best, and more often than not simple cowardice.

 

[geni]

That's bull. The "religion of peace" gets preferential treatment, and you know it.

Really? Ok lets have a look at say the sikhs. They have the hard hat thing and the whole kirpan thing that was an issues in canada fairly recently.

And the yellow stars has nothing to do with Judaism per se, but with how NON-jews have treated Jews, in rather recent times I might add. That comparison was cheap and pathetic, and was in no way equivalent to discussion about treatment of the Koran.

The yellow star is just another symbol.

And there IS nothing sacred in Christianity that is immune to criticism or ridicule - JPII probably does get portrayed as being in hell, Benedict has certainly been portrayed as being the devil by Islamists.

And if you try that in europe and have any profile or goverment links you will get protests from the vatican.

Or say putting Bobby Sands in room 101 would have an interesting effect.

But there is little about Islam which is NOT claimed to be above such criticism and ridicule.

Define "about islam"

And the reason is quite simple: nobody walks around with posters saying "behead those who insult Christianity", and nobody would believe the threat if it was made.

No because explosives are the weapon of choice for christian groups around here.

But people DO march with signs saying "behead those who insult Islam", and such death threats HAVE been carried out successfully in the heart of secular Europe.

Britian is not in the heart of europe.

Bowing to that pressure is tawdry political correctness at best, and more often than not simple cowardice.

The last people to blow up part of the BBC were christian.

 

[Ziggurat]

The yellow star is just another symbol.

But it is not THEIR symbol, and it is not a symbol of religion. It is a symbol of genocide.

And if you try that in europe and have any profile or goverment links you will get protests from the vatican.

Yes, and those protests can be safely ignored.

Define "about islam"

Anything about Muhammed, Allah, the Koran, Sharia law, any of the hadiths, any of Muhammed's followers, any of their religiously significant sites. Find me an Islamic equivalent of Piss Christ, for example.

No because explosives are the weapon of choice for christian groups around here.

I presume you mean the IRA. See below.

Britian is not in the heart of europe.

I wasn't refering to Britain in that particular instance. I was refering to Theo Van Gogh's assasination.

The last people to blow up part of the BBC were christian.

Which was incidental, really. How many times did the IRA actually cite doctrinal differences in order to defend their actions? I never recall it. They were a political organization which grew up along sectarian fault lines (and those sectarian differences were in turn largely the result of political differences), but it was never really the religious differences which drove that conflict for them. And they sure as hell never got motivated to carry out attacks because of offense to catholicism as a religion. Sinead O'Connor never had to worry about IRA hit men whacking her for tearing up a picture of the pope on SNL.

 

[geni]

But it is not THEIR symbol, and it is not a symbol of religion. It is a symbol of genocide.

Accorrding to the torah so are all versions of the star of david.

Yes, and those protests can be safely ignored.

So can most protests

Anything about Muhammed, Allah, the Koran, Sharia law, any of the hadiths, any of Muhammed's followers, any of their religiously significant sites.

Would destorying large parts of it count as critisism because that is what appears to be happening to larges parts of mecca at the moment.

Other than that it is rahter trick because humor is not exactly encouraged.

Find me an Islamic equivalent of Piss Christ, for example.

The satanic verses (Salman Rushdie is a muslim)

I presume you mean the IRA. See below.

Nah they appear to have given up violence now

I wasn't refering to Britain in that particular instance. I was refering to Theo Van Gogh's assasination.

That was outside britian things are different here. Even our muslim terrorists use explosives.

Which was incidental, really. How many times did the IRA actually cite doctrinal differences in order to defend their actions? I never recall it.

that would have left them in the aquard position of risking excomunication or haveing to explain their dissagreement with the pope.

Sinead O'Connor never had to worry about IRA hit men whacking her for tearing up a picture of the pope on SNL.

Well no the IRA would not have been stupid enough to compermise a major source of funding like that (I belive there is an internal split over the issue of abortion. How important is it to make sure people are fully born before blowing them up?)

On the other hand what is the normal reaction to flag burning in the US?

 

[Ziggurat]

The satanic verses (Salman Rushdie is a muslim)

OK, we'll take that as an equivalent. What happened to the artist who created Piss Christ? Nothing. What about Rushdie? He had to go into hiding, and still has to live a very careful life because of a rather large bounty on his head and a quite serious risk of assasination.

On the other hand what is the normal reaction to flag burning in the US?

The normal reaction? Disdain, and not much else. In fact, if the US flag gets burned in another country, there's even a significant portion of our population that takes it as a sign that WE did something wrong, rather than that someone else is unfairly dishonoring us.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Or say putting Bobby Sands in room 101 would have an interesting effect.


...snip...

Or the Welsh....

I find this so called "Islam can't be touched" rather funny - I've been watching "Mock the Week" over the last few weeks and someone must have forgotten to tell that comedy show.

There is also another reason why there isn't that much humour if you like "against" Islam in the UK - it's pretty much irrelevant to most of the UK population -of which around 97% are not Islamic. Making "Islamic jokes" would exclude 97% of your audience who is not going to get the Islamic references (and I am excluding racism and bigotry dressed up as a joke in my use of the word joke).

 

[Didaktylos]

The Daily Mail gave approving coverage to Drosnin - 'nuff said.

 

[a_unique_person]

Those weak kneed lefty bleeding hearts. You'll never get "Fair and Balanced" Fox to admit to ****.

 

[stamenflicker]

I think its unfair to accuse the BBC of anti-Americanism. Mostly they are reporting on the actions of the US government, which is not the same as "America".

Bush is largely a figure of fun in Britain. And he is way too right wing to stand any chance of getting elected over here. Even the Daily Mail isn't what you would call a Bush supporter. No one over here will admit to being that. The BBC tends to reflect the sensibilities of the British people on this.

If Bush represents America then I'm rabidly anti-American. But he doesn't and I'm not.

Do you live in Venezuela?

Look Bush has some real issues. They are different from our last President's issues, but they are real. But I'll say this, if the world's pre-Iraq invasion attitudes and activities represent the globe, then I'm anti-non-American governments.

Vapid, 12-year long discourse in the face of intelligence, even bad intelligence, is unacceptable.

The refusal to reprimand Sadaam was just as much about oil as the decision to reprimand him. Something the Libs won't admit.

 

[Jocko]

Someone needs to tell them that the left bias of the media is all a myth.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

They didn't "admit" it, they proudly declared it. As would the spawn of Turner, if they had any cojones whatsoever.

 

[gtc]

Those weak kneed lefty bleeding hearts. You'll never get "Fair and Balanced" Fox to admit to ****.

Darat brought up the issue of homosexuals.

How do you feel about the Age outing Alan Jones so publically on the weekend?

 

[a_unique_person]

Darat brought up the issue of homosexuals.

How do you feel about the Age outing Alan Jones so publically on the weekend?

I've already raised the issue in other thread I started. It wasn't The Age that outed him, it was the book "Jonestown". IIRC, the author of the book is himself gay.

 

[Darat]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/index.html

For a start, this wasn’t a secret meeting... it was streamed live on the web. The meeting was made up of executives, governors and lots of non-BBC people like John Lloyd from the FT and Janet Daley from the Daily Telegraph. It was planned as a serious seminar to investigate and understand better the BBC’s commitment to impartiality in an age in which spin and opinion riddle much of the world’s journalism.

...snip...

To keep us all on our toes, a rich variety of formats was used during the day. I was on a "Hypothetical" – where a panel of people in charge is given a series of mounting “real life” crises and asked how they would handle each of them. It was fun, occasionally illuminating, and often very challenging.

There was for example a heated debate about the whether or not a Muslim newsreader should be allowed to wear a headscarf. Jon Snow was all in favour. BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb was vehemently against. I had deep reservations because I felt a scarf would be a distraction from the news but pointed out - in the interests of debate - that if we banned the headscarf, how would we justify that cross which I was sure I had once seen Fiona Bruce wearing. From this discussion emerged the wholly untrue newspaper story that the BBC had banned Fiona’s cross.

...snip...

The point of the Hypothetical is to generate discussion, debate and ideas. The situations aren’t real; the discussions aren’t binding and they certainly don’t define BBC policy.

...snip...

There was discussion of the BBC’s culture and some provocative points were made.

...snip...

I remembered an incident about 15 years ago when a freelance reporter working for me on a programme about bullying in Feltham Young Offenders’ Institution asked me if it was acceptable to broadcast what they had discovered: that most of the bullies in Feltham at that time were black and most of the victims were white. Not only was it acceptable, I told the reporter, if he had evidence of this he had a duty to report it. And so we did.

...snip...

 

[DaChew]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/index.html

It's interesting what she doesn't respond to. First though,

For a start, this wasn’t a secret meeting... it was streamed live on the web. The meeting was made up of executives, governors and lots of non-BBC people like John Lloyd from the FT and Janet Daley from the Daily Telegraph. It was planned as a serious seminar to investigate and understand better the BBC’s commitment to impartiality in an age in which spin and opinion riddle much of the world’s journalism.

Not a secret meeting? Great! Where and when will the transcripts published. It was web cast? Great! Where and when will the replays be posted?

Her links don't work. My link still takes you right to the story but hers don't. Interesting.

Here are some claims not addressed from the Daily Mail:

One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'

Did a veteran BBC executive say that or not? Of course, we'll know when the transcripts and the video of the webcast from this non-secret meeting are made available.

Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.

Did nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agree they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.? Of course, we'll know when the transcripts and the video of the webcast from this non-secret meeting are made available.

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Did Justin Webb say that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports? And did Webb add that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'. ? Of course, we'll know when the transcripts and the video of the webcast from this non-secret meeting are made available.

 

[back2basics]

Right wing biased paper declared BBC admitted its liberal bias!

The "Liberal media" crowd just all over it! Because they want to believe it.

Only to find it wasn't actually true.

Then they shout conspiracy!

It's all just a war on Christmas or the Daily Mail if you ask me. The BBC are just trying to defame the good name of the Daily Mail by denying it.

Maybe the BBC is just representing the broad section of society that pay for it, and people who claim bias are looking at a slim section of it’s programming. No of course not that would be preposterous!

 

[DaChew]

Only to find it wasn't actually true.

Evidence?

Then they shout conspiracy!

Who shouted conspiracy? Specifically please. Provide a link.

Maybe the BBC is just representing the broad section of society that pay for it, and people who claim bias are looking at a slim section of it’s programming. No of course not that would be preposterous!

and maybe they are in fact biased and they did admit it? Possibly? There has been no denial of what was quoted.

 

[DreadNiK]

All you need to know about the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/healthy_living/complementary_medicine/

(oh yeah and they make some good TV)

 

[RyanRoberts]

Right wing biased paper declared BBC admitted its liberal bias!

The "Liberal media" crowd just all over it! Because they want to believe it.

Nick Cohen, the famous arch conservative commented on it some time before the Mail. As it is, the mail (typicaly) screwed up a perfectly reasonable story.

You don’t have to believe it, you just have to convince yourself that serious people can hold it for good reasons. You will then notice something disconcerting about most BBC presenters. Although they subject opponents of, say, abortion to rigorous cross-examination, their lust for ferocious questioning deserts them when supporters of abortion come on air. Far from being tested, they treat upholders of the liberal consensus as purveyors of an incontestable truth.

...

The way out for the BBC is not to swing to the right - it is not an advance to replace soft interviews for Menzies Campbell with soft interviews for John Reid - but make a tactical withdrawal from the opinion business.