Thracian Posted 4 August 2005 Posted 4 August 2005 Today's front page of the Daily Express is headlines "Fury Over BBC's Bias to Muslims". The sub-heading reads: "They pack TV terror debate with anti-British audience." As if this is not bad enough was the Daily Express story denied? Oh no. BBC bosses admitted that on the news special programme Questions of Security hosted by Welshman Huw Edwards they deliberately set out to give Muslims a louder voice in the debate (about the danger posed by Islamic terrorists). Despite Muslims making up 2.7 per cent of the British population, 15 per cent of the audience were from the Islamic Community and many of the remainder represented other ethnic and religious groups. Millions watched the programme (which offered simply by being screened, a perfect example of the media benefits of staging terrorism in this country) but the questions I would ask (cos I don't intend to detail the Express story any further) are (and I bet I don't get honest answers): Which party did Huw Edwards support at the General Election and how active is he politically?. How many employees at the BBC are politically active? How many and what proportion of BBC journalists are Muslim? How many and what proportion of BBC administrators and production staff are Muslims? How many and what proportion of BBC staff are English nationals? How many and what proportion of BBC staff are Christians? How many and what proportion of BBC staff are Labour activists. How many and what proportion of BBC staff are Labour sympathisers Who is independently responsible for overseeing the fairness of BBC broadcasting?. Who was responsible for the distinct bias of Huw Edwards' programme and will he/she be made to answer for it? Fifty-two innocent people were killed and 700 injured in the London bombings before the BBC provided their latest forum for Islam in response. All the families of the killed and injured have a right to receive answers to those questions. Why? Because the BBC is required under Royal Charter to ensure that programmes are presented with due impartiality. Is it all a one-off. You must be joking. I notice bias almost daily (just as I noticed the louder playing of television adverts before it was publcised) but, after the recent bombings, BBC news presenters were reportedly instructed "not to use the word terrorist when referring to the suicide bombers (a claim that has not been denied)." And, in 2001 Greg Dyke, then Director General of the BBC, was forced to apologise and concede it was inappropriate to broadcast a Question Time programme two days after the September 11 atrocities which was riddled with anti-American opinions. The BBC are taking advantage of their unique position to load programmes according to their own agendas, those of the Government for whom they are invariably puppets and for others whose torch they would seem to carry. It is a disgrace and it is time they were closed down or made to be genuinely independent.
Hullfox Posted 4 August 2005 Posted 4 August 2005 Today's front page of the Daily Express is headlines "Fury Over BBC's Bias to Muslims". The sub-heading reads: "They pack TV terror debate with anti-British audience."That will be the right wing Daily Express then will it? It must all be true then. As if this is not bad enough was the Daily Express story denied? Oh no. BBC bosses admitted that on the news special programme Questions of Security hosted by Welshman Huw Edwards they deliberately set out to give Muslims a louder voice in the debate (about the danger posed by Islamic terrorists). Why not? Don't Muslims deserve a platform to discuss issues that affect how people see them, specifically at emotive times like this? Despite Muslims making up 2.7 per cent of the British population, 15 per cent of the audience were from the Islamic Community and many of the remainder represented other ethnic and religious groups. As the terror was purported from the off to have been carried out by Muslim Extremists, who would you have preferred to see there, The Tweenies? Millions watched the programme (which offered simply by being screened, a perfect example of the media benefits of staging terrorism in this country) but the questions I would ask (cos I don't intend to detail the Express story any further) are (and I bet I don't get honest answers): Which party did Huw Edwards support at the General Election and how active is he politically?. How many employees at the BBC are politically active? How many and what proportion of BBC journalists are Muslim? How many and what proportion of BBC administrators and production staff are Muslims? How many and what proportion of BBC staff are English nationals? How many and what proportion of BBC staff are Christians? How many and what proportion of BBC staff are Labour activists. How many and what proportion of BBC staff are Labour sympathisers Why ask, what's the point? Are you saying people should only be given jobs at the BBC on the based upon the Demographic, religious and cultural diversity within the country as advised every 10 years through the National Census? Who is independently responsible for overseeing the fairness of BBC broadcasting?. Who was responsible for the distinct bias of Huw Edwards' programme and will he/she be made to answer for it? Fifty-two innocent people were killed and 700 injured in the London bombings before the BBC provided their latest forum for Islam in response. All the families of the killed and injured have a right to receive answers to those questions. Why? Because the BBC is required under Royal Charter to ensure that programmes are presented with due impartiality. Is it all a one-off. You must be joking. I notice bias almost daily (just as I noticed the louder playing of television adverts before it was publcised) but, after the recent bombings, BBC news presenters were reportedly instructed "not to use the word terrorist when referring to the suicide bombers (a claim that has not been denied)." And, in 2001 Greg Dyke, then Director General of the BBC, was forced to apologise and concede it was inappropriate to broadcast a Question Time programme two days after the September 11 atrocities which was riddled with anti-American opinions. The BBC are taking advantage of their unique position to load programmes according to their own agendas, those of the Government for whom they are invariably puppets and for others whose torch they would seem to carry. It is a disgrace and it is time they were closed down or made to be genuinely independent. For real biased reporting, I suggest that you take time out to view the Fox Channel in the USA or maybe even Al Jazeira. Impartiality in a rolling 24 hour news broadcaster is going to be nigh on impossible, the BBC on the whole do a good job imo. 149821[/snapback]
Knighton Matt Posted 4 August 2005 Posted 4 August 2005 I have to admit when I read the title of this topic I was amazed that Lush wasn't the author! (sorry Thracian! )
lush Posted 4 August 2005 Posted 4 August 2005 Which party did Huw Edwards support at the General Election and how active is he politically?. At a guess, i`d say he didnt vote. If asked by his BBc boss, he`d probably say Labour, regardless, because he`d fear losing his job Thats the mentality of those working for us. How many employees at the BBC are politically active? ALL OF THEM, well maybe 99.9% . The BBC is a seemingly free platform to preech liberalism in the form of marxism to the WORLD. How many and what proportion of BBC journalists are Muslim?How many and what proportion of BBC administrators and production staff are Muslims? It doesnt really matter, if they do their job correctly. Who is independently responsible for overseeing the fairness of BBC broadcasting?. Us, collectively. If we dont complain, they`ll assume we like the rubbish they produce. Apparently folk are fed up with repeasts, so there cutting down on them to a bare minimum, or none i think. Who was responsible for the distinct bias of Huw Edwards' programme and will he/she be made to answer for it? Again, the BBC is only responsible to us, a MASS of us. Because the BBC is required under Royal Charter to ensure that programmes are presented with due impartiality. The problem with that that i see, is YET again, if WE dont instill that we know what they should be doing, they`ll just carry on `breaking the law`. And, in 2001 Greg Dyke, then Director General of the BBC, was forced to apologise and concede it was inappropriate to broadcast a Question Time programme two days after the September 11 atrocities which was riddled with anti-American opinions. Thankfully, that marxist was SACKED!! The BBC are taking advantage of their unique position to load programmes according to their own agendas, those of the Government for whom they are invariably puppets and for others whose torch they would seem to carry. In dependantly, they`d die, because they dont have a strong enough production team. They ONLY rely on political ``up-hill garderners`` from far left politicians. the BBC R.I.H. 149821[/snapback]
lush Posted 4 August 2005 Posted 4 August 2005 I have to admit when I read the title of this topic I was amazed that Lush wasn't the author! (sorry Thracian! ) 149948[/snapback] I know, that bloody Thracian beat me to it
Thracian Posted 4 August 2005 Author Posted 4 August 2005 149872[/snapback] a) The Daily Express is openly right wing. The BBC is supposed to be unbiased. b) Of course they deserve a platform but not a loaded platform. And not if the manner of questioning results in "the victims of the bombings, as well as the wider public, commuters etc (being) so played down". c) Flippantly insulting. I would liked there to have been fair and balanced debate between all interested parties without anyone's view being played down. d) Because if an organisation has a Royal Charter which demands "due impartiality" then the composition of its workers might well be important. In particular the politics of the questioner might be decidedly important and I bet he has no comment at all to make on which way he votes but I would hazard a guess that I would bet on. Were I a BBC journalist I would be quite happy to reveal my politics - I have already said I have no political or religious allegiance on this forum (although I am small c Christian) - but, being from the John Prescott stronghold of Hull can you honestly say you have no axe to grind. I ask because if the BBC is a Government Broadcasting Corporation (nothing unusual in that) it should say so and stop trying to pretend it is unbiased and independent. Or don't you care? As for Fox Channel and Al Jazeira I think they perfectly represent why it is so important that our broadcasting flagship is fair and impartial.
lush Posted 4 August 2005 Posted 4 August 2005 That will be the right wing Daily Express then will it? It must all be true then. blairs right wing, he won a 3rd term, whats the problem? The islamic terrorists are far right. Some of their sympathisers were/are the topic of this thread. Why not? Don't Muslims deserve a platform to discuss issues that affect how people see them, specifically at emotive times like this? Yes of course they do, but the BBC produced a unproffessional pro muslim show, that we all pay for, thats imorally wrong. Surely it should be a more democratic show? Why ask, what's the point? Are you saying people should only be given jobs at the BBC on the based upon the Demographic, religious and cultural diversity within the country as advised every 10 years through the National Census? It should be on ability to work for us. For real biased reporting, I suggest that you take time out to view the Fox Channel in the USA or maybe even Al Jazeira. Impartiality in a rolling 24 hour news broadcaster is going to be nigh on impossible, the BBC on the whole do a good job imo. I`d LOVE to hear why? 149872[/snapback]
Thracian Posted 4 August 2005 Author Posted 4 August 2005 I have to admit when I read the title of this topic I was amazed that Lush wasn't the author! (sorry Thracian! ) 149948[/snapback] Let me make perfectly clear that I am asking that the BBC be seen to be "fair and impartial". I have already on this forum praised brave Muslims for standing up to extremism and for many acts of kindness and public spiritedness and I would no sooner want a biased and politically driven programme against Muslims than against anyone else. If you are going to have a truly integrated society it must be fair to ALL (not all but the ethnic English) and there must be free and fair debate of anything (not stifled and politically or idealogically slanted debate). Our course perfection is impossible. But the calculated bias of the BBC is disgraceful and it makes me ask if they would ever dare to reveal the texts of telephone calls they have received just to convince me they haven't been threatened (either by the Government or others). Sorry that I ask such awkward questions. But it would be nice to have some of the questions answered if only to douse my cynicism.
Hullfox Posted 4 August 2005 Posted 4 August 2005 a) The Daily Express is openly right wing. The BBC is supposed to be unbiased.Ermm, missed point I think. b) Of course they deserve a platform but not a loaded platform. And not if the manner of questioning results in "the victims of the bombings, as well as the wider public, commuters etc (being) so played down". Matter of opinion based upon your interpretation of the format. I'm not sure but I'd wager a bet that Kinga's masturbation on BB6 attracted more public complaints than this show. c) Flippantly insulting. I would liked there to have been fair and balanced debate between all interested parties without anyone's view being played down. But why were'nt the Tweenies there? They have a right to be heard. Were the views played down or challenged? Again individual interpretation comes in to play d) Because if an organisation has a Royal Charter which demands "due impartiality" then the composition of its workers might well be important. In particular the politics of the questioner might be decidedly important and I bet he has no comment at all to make on which way he votes but I would hazard a guess that I would bet on. Still don't see that it matters. Were I a BBC journalist I would be quite happy to reveal my politics - I have already said I have no political or religious allegiance on this forum (although I am small c Christian) - but, being from the John Prescott stronghold of Hull can you honestly say you have no axe to grind. John Prescott represents Hull East which is just one of many contituencies within the catchment area of Hull and your comment shows your ignorance of both me (I was born in Leicester) and East Yorkshire and it's political make up. He represents a major Labour stronghold which a brainless fat oaf of a tosspot wearing a red rosette would win. (See last few elections). I actually live within the constituency of the Right wing Tory David Davies who has a healthily increasing majority and helped me out on a personal basis. - Now are you so sure which side of the axe I have to grind? No because you don't know me, what I'm thinking or the inference behind my comments above. I ask because if the BBC is a Government Broadcasting Corporation (nothing unusual in that) it should say so and stop trying to pretend it is unbiased and independent. Or don't you care? No, not at the moment. Because I think rather like MDV's shooting that you are way off the mark. As for Fox Channel and Al Jazeira I think they perfectly represent why it is so important that our broadcasting flagship is fair and impartial. And moreso exactly how good the British Broadcasting Corporation actually are. 149960[/snapback]
Thracian Posted 5 August 2005 Author Posted 5 August 2005 Well said Hull Fox! :thumbsup: 150099[/snapback] Thanks. I feel like a boxer who's won 80 per cent of the rounds and been declared the loser. Shouldn't be surprised really. Have noticed I'm in the minority in most of the polls on this forum. Comes as quite a shock to realise how far my thinking is from that of the majority. Now you know why I laugh at people who suggest, kindly but misguidedly, that I should be a leader. If I can't defend fairness and freedom of speech there isn't much joy down that path.
Guest Posted 5 August 2005 Posted 5 August 2005 If I can't defend fairness and freedom of speech there isn't much joy down that path. 150175[/snapback] Surely then, the BBC can report whatever they want? I can see what they are trying to do, whether one agrees with it or not is another matter.
Knighton Matt Posted 5 August 2005 Posted 5 August 2005 Thanks. I feel like a boxer who's won 80 per cent of the rounds and been declared the loser. Shouldn't be surprised really. Have noticed I'm in the minority in most of the polls on this forum. Comes as quite a shock to realise how far my thinking is from that of the majority. Now you know why I laugh at people who suggest, kindly but misguidedly, that I should be a leader. If I can't defend fairness and freedom of speech there isn't much joy down that path. 150175[/snapback] That's probably a lot of people being PC and voting what they think they should vote for and not what they honestly believe. For the record Thracian I think a lot of your points hold weight and I always welcome your opinion on various topics.
Darth Fox Posted 5 August 2005 Posted 5 August 2005 What about Ewoks and Wookies, shouldn't they have an opinion.
lush Posted 5 August 2005 Posted 5 August 2005 Thanks. I feel like a boxer who's won 80 per cent of the rounds and been declared the loser. Shouldn't be surprised really. Have noticed I'm in the minority in most of the polls on this forum. Comes as quite a shock to realise how far my thinking is from that of the majority. Now you know why I laugh at people who suggest, kindly but misguidedly, that I should be a leader. If I can't defend fairness and freedom of speech there isn't much joy down that path. 150175[/snapback] Most people in our society just go about their business without learning what you have. In our individual personal lives, weve never had comfort so good. "were" blind to most of what is happening on our streets, because of the above. Who has got atleast a few of the following comforts in life: A car + garage Home (bought or mortgage) Atleast one good holiday per year A decent bank balance Internet (all?) Plasma screen or decent quality tv entertainment/video/dvd player Home music system MP3 player A decent job or better Devoted love of another human Eat out atleast once a week How many have 3 4 or 5 or more of these? i`d say the average person in britain has atleast 5. We dont really care about most of the bad things in our society, because we have many good things in our lives, UNTILL those bad things affect us personally. On 7/ 56 died. It didnt stop millions of people in London using the transport system, because although their lives were at more risk, they had something worth living for that meant alot. 20+ years ago, miners had jackshit = strike action and near poverty. They had no choice but to learn the bad society had to offer. SOME people (maybe be Thracian, certainly me) have learnt of bad things in our society that DO affect me/us, enough so, that im/were prepared to speak out about them to the general public, you guys, probably because we think you`d like to know. If you dont wana know because you have a good life, fine, but dont critisize someone for giving their thoughts on a forum DISCUSSION website. Thracian is a good bloke.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.