h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In a national Dutch newspaper, I read today a big article about the fact that the BBC ("The beeb")is under heavy fire by aswell the Conservatives ("they are álways supporting Blair"), as the Labourparty ("Why don't they support Blair in his Irak campain").

This is óne of the many reasons why I do have great respect for the journalism by the BBC; their professional independence and great skill.
It is one of the fruits of Western civilisation I am proud of.

I love watching BBC World and BBC 2 and it's a sad thing we don't have Channel four at our Tele.

"Praise for the BBC!"


Greatings from Amsterdam in full awareness,

Speaking as a Brit, I am a huge supporter of the BBC.

The attacks it comes under from the Torys and the government are entirely political. The BBC is usually impartial, and this upsets people who want their own opinion given the "upper hand". In the recent war, the BBC was accused of being "anti-war/supporting Saddam" by the barking-mad contingent of the pro-war camp and of being "pro-war/broadcasting propaganda" by the barking-mad contingent of the anti-war camp.

I was pro-war, and the BBC struck me as the best channel for getting information on the conflict. Why? Because it was just telling you what was happening on the ground. Fox News (owned by the notoriously controlling and ideological Rupert Murdoch) had a pro-US slant. Channel 4 News (British news program, run by an independent commercial station) had a liberal anti-war bias. The BBC just reported the facts. From the intitial successes, to the surrenders, to the "bogged down" period, to the fall of Saddam.

Of course, some might wonder why the BBC was attacked by the pro-war zealots and not, for example, Channel 4 News. Simple - agendas. The Conservative Party are hostile to the BBC because 1) It is Public Service, not commercial and 2) It is staffed largely by liberals (although it's broadcasting, as I have said, remains largely impartial. The same was true when it was staffed by Conservatives). Also, the Murdoch media outlets (Fox News, The Sun etc) have their master's agenda on hand. Murdoch has a wide-ranging Media empire and the BBC is his biggest challenger in Britain. He wants rid of it so he can get the lion's share of UK broadcasting. Simple as that.

Yeah, this is bullsh*t.
During the whole oil grab, the BBC timidly toed the government line and showed no civilian casualties what-so-ever. The excitement among their reporters at the impending attack was as palpable as any other network. In fact, they banned conversation about the conflict from this site until it was officially over.
Dont' listen to Zagreb, he thinks that anyone that supports his own ideals is automatically correct; the only reason they're taking the government to task over their representation of the 'facts' is down to personal acrimony. To quote Zagreb;

"I was pro-war, and the BBC struck me as the best channel for getting information on the conflict. Why? Because it was just telling you what was happening on the ground."

The real reason is because it wasn't showing the aggressors in a bad light. Unbelievably, Sky news reported a more balanced program than the BBC ever did.

to paraphrase Zagreb: The Beeb is a life raft in a sea of Murdoch.

There is one chanel here that has a live feed of bbc world but because NZ is 12 hours ahead, it doesn't start 'till midnight.

Did the beep really not show dead people?

TV3 here showed loads of them.

"The real reason is because it wasn't showing the aggressors in a bad light. Unbelievably, Sky news reported a more balanced program than the BBC ever did."

No, it wasn't "showing the aggressors in a bad light" because it's IMPARTIAL!!!!! It's not a "evil Yank nazis rape helpless peace-loving arab country" propaganda station. That's what I've been trying to say. If you wanted to see only one side of the conflict, I am sure there is media that could have given you that view (ie not the true one).

For once I agree with Apparition. The beeb gives us the facts whether we want them or not. And thank god for it.

"showed no civilian casualties what-so-ever"

Rubbish, of course. The BBC was happy to report on the American missiles that went stray and hit those marketplaces killing a large number of Iraqi civilians.

Some commentators on the Murdoch stations attacked the BBC for that, because at the end of the day they didn't want anything that conflicted with their own blinkered view of the war.

Remind you of anyone?

Zag

"During the whole oil grab, the BBC timidly toed the government line"

The BBC and the British government are currently at loggerheads due to the BBC's reporting on claims that the Labour Government's dossier on Iraq may have been exaggerated. This reached the extent of Blair's spin-doctor attacking the BBC on Channel 4.

Would you like a bigger shovel?

Zag

"For once I agree with Apparition. The beeb gives us the facts whether we want them or not. And thank god for it." there have been other time, but anyway...

Contrary to what you like to think about people who opposed this war. I actualy had no opinion either way at the time your 'opinions' thread was created.

Many and varied media sources helped me form one. There turns out to be a whole lot of non murdoch outlets out there if you know the right people.

""During the whole oil grab, the BBC timidly toed the government line"

The BBC and the British government are currently at loggerheads due to the BBC's reporting on claims that the Labour Government's dossier on Iraq may have been exaggerated. This reached the extent of Blair's spin-doctor attacking the BBC on Channel 4.

Would you like a bigger shovel?"

That was covered in my original post. You have just demonstrated your selectivity, which is probably why you thought BBC coverage was impartial - you blanked out the bits you didn't see, and then accuse someone else of being blinkered.
Where would you like that shovel?

I watched alot of channels and then just ignored it all, the atual conetent was always bias at some point or another, the BBC less so than say Channel 4 or news papers but thats what you get for your pound.

-- DoctorMO --

The fact, that British politics want to denationalize the BBC, makes their critical, skillfull and independant attitude - within a Western/British background of course - even more brave.
And they have a great sense for style.(In the whole range of their programs.)

And because of the historic "Empire", the BBC still gets everyone for the camera/microphone whom they want and that is a great surplus. I have seen discussions at BBC world ,at sunday, between Palestinians and Israëli's, that were of unique quality.

The same thing happened in their program "how the world sees America"

Yes, they deserve my admiration.


Greatings from Amsterdam,

"That was covered in my original post. You have just demonstrated your selectivity, which is probably why you thought BBC coverage was impartial - you blanked out the bits you didn't see, and then accuse someone else of being blinkered."

The BBC coverage was impartial. What are you accusing them of hiding? As I said, they covered US blunders and deaths of Iraqi civilians. It seems to me you are upset because the BBC wasn't anti-war. It's not there to bang a drum, it's there to report the news. That's why I think we should be proud of it. The idea that they "timidly" toed any sort of line is utter nonsense, as the current acrimony between Alistair Campbell and the BBC demonstrates.

And what on earth do you mean by I "blanked the bits I didn't see". If I didn't see them how on earth could I blank them?

"Where would you like that shovel?"

I think you can guess where I'd like you to stick your shovel.

"blanked the bits I didn't see".
should have been "blanked the bits you didn't want to see."
Impartial? I'm afraid you're labouring under an illusion if you think *anyone* can be impartial.

"It seems to me you are upset because the BBC wasn't anti-war."

Not really.

"The idea that they "timidly" toed any sort of line is utter nonsense"

Hence the banning of discussing the war on this, a bbc run site?

"I think you can guess where I'd like you to stick your shovel"

I think a wooden spoon would be more appropriate. Give us a shout when your testosterone levels out a bit.

""blanked the bits I didn't see".
should have been "blanked the bits you didn't want to see.""

It still doesn't make any sense. You're basically insinuating that I was exposed to some "great truth" about the war and chose to ignore it. Nothing of the sort, I only saw what the BBC and various other media reported (including the liberal anti-war media who had journalists on the ground). I didn't "blank" anything.

"Impartial? I'm afraid you're labouring under an illusion if you think *anyone* can be impartial.""

Oh, it can't be *perfectly* impartial, I know. What I meant is that there was no concious prejudice either way. I stand by that, and I've seen nothing to suggest that the case was anything but.

As I said before, you seem to be insinuating that there was a whole different war that the BBC covered up. Where is the evidence and how "impartial" are the sources?

Zag

"Hence the banning of discussing the war on this, a bbc run site?"

Since this is a BBC site, any "misrepresentation" or controversial information posted here during the war could have been used to attack the BBC by it's critics - eg "this was posted on a *BBC* website" or "this went uncensored by the BBC". You can call it "timid", the Beeb would probably call it sensible, given that they have so many enemies out there. And I repeat, the current face-off between the Beeb and the Government makes a nonsense of your claim that they are subservient to Blair and co.

A broadcasting company that is named these days "Bagdag Broadcasting Company" by one group and at the same time "Blair Broadcasting Company" by another, must be ,in the end, a great compliment.

The BBC are as incapable of impartiality as Huw Edwards is of not bringing his inimitable sarcastic tone to his reporting, or Jeremy Paxman is of not demonstrating his abject contempt for any politician incapable of answering a simple yes or no question.

I'm leaving Britain in 3 weeks, for America, and for personal reasons I am forcing myself to downplay all the sentiments I have found myself having about British culture and this institution in particular, with the understanding that whatever social/moral standards and practices the Beeb needs to defend, are simply a demonstration of the need to maintain the livelihoods of its constituents.

I've said a lot of crap about the BBC for all sorts of reasons, but it's all been founded on marketing strategies nicked from the U.S. and contorted into British sizes and shapes under the Cool Britannia concept, which was as far as I'm concerned, a secret plot between Blair, Hirst, Gallagher et al to sex up a nation that has lost its grasp on empire, and needs to find a way to be relevant again internationally; hence the insurgence of the mentality, 'Lock, Stock' 'Loaded' 'fcuk' 'BritArt' 'BritPop' 'Chris Evans' and such.

I maintain that style has consumed content to that end, but in the light of the recent furore over Alistair Campbell's 'sexing up' of the WMD agenda and the Beeb's resolute refusal to capitulate to his whining, I can no longer accept that the BBC is 'pro-government' or 'has its own agenda' and have to accept it's only an institution kept together by individual human beings, who need to make a living and choose to do so in that industry, the best they can and within the standards they've been expected to uphold by the Shoreditch contingent.

That said, I have no compunction in stating that much of Auntie's output these days is Brainf*ckingly Bathetic Crud, but I will in the States have constant, piping hot Radio 4, mercifully.

And it goes on and on; attacking the BBC.

A new era seems to have begun, now the owner of the DAILY TELEGRAPH - Lord Black - has personally written an attack in his own newspaper, asif it's his own agenda.

And the Sun and The Times got instructions from their owner, mr. Rupert Murdoch to discredit the National Broadcasting Company.

They seem to anticipate on a great discord within the BBC.


All acording to a Dutch, national Newspaper, De Volkskrant ("Labour").

I say: "Keep the Beep!"

Greatings from Amsterdam