What shall we make up tonight?
Here at the ±«Óătv, we are masters at distortion and lies. If there's something you'd like us to embelish, or just make up from scratch - add it here, and we'll pop it on the air.
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
The PM Privacy Commission
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
- Full Audio and Transcripts
- Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Zac Goldsmith MP
- Max Mosley
- Stephen Abell
- Hugh Grant
- Sir Charles Gray
- Alan Rusbridger
- Helen Wood
- Max Clifford
- Marcus Partington
- John Kampfner
- Christopher Graham
- Louise Mensch
- Andy Trotter
- John Mullin
- Avril Sanders Royle
- Jimmy Wales
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Well after glancing at the 'Furrowed Brow' followed by some of my own digging and glancing at the statistics here:-
Glance at the weekly prison watch figures (fascinating)
Here is Sid Cumberlands comment on the Furrowed brow :
Here's something we don't talk about, but which I think we should.
50 prisoners have killed themselves so far this year in jails in England and Wales. This is an increase on last year, and it seems likely that it is due to overcrowding.
We know these people are inadequate and vulnerable. We know the system cannot cope.
We don't have capital punishment in this country. Yet the way we deal with our prisoners comes pretty close to judicial execution. The only difference is that having led them to the gallows and put the noose around their necks, we allow them to pull the lever themselves.
There are no votes in treating prisoners humanely. Presumably that's why our leaders don't encourage discussion. I think we should talk about anyway.
Sid
And on the subject of PM broadcasting distortion and lies I now have proof.
The 15th of July was 'broadcast' as being the only decent weather day.
It was largely cloudy!
Today is beautiful however - as it generally is down here on the south coast.
Eddie...
....the ever increasing popularity of flairs and tank tops needs in depth investigation and reporting.....this will then mean most of my wardrobe will be back in fashion.
Eddie, I do believe that it's time you report on the shocking lack of trails for other ±«Óătv programmes broadcast within other programmes. After all, I think this is a topic that we all agree on...
:p
What good is PM in the AM if you don't post it before Noon?
xx
ed
Good to see ±«Óătv employees 'telling it as they see it' with regards to 'embellishing stories'.
Prahaps when you've finished doing the periodic table then you might actually do some work?
Prahaps do a piece on the Belen Report huh Eddie?
GOOD TO SEE OUR 131.50 UKP BEING WELL SPENT.
Shouldn't that read:
WHO should we make up tonight?
And in that latter category I'd suggest Rupert to be made up as Bruce Lee. Go on, you know he wants it ......
I'm often asked, "What is this 'flounder tramping' championship we see advertised down in the village?"
It's a bit complicated, but I'll explain. Palnackie was the site of the last working treacle mine in the UK, and the treacle works provided considerable employment for village folk tramping the treacle into jars. The pay wasn't particularly good, but they got their feet to lick, and, over time, folk with larger feet thrived and raised children with even larger feet. So it goes, as Darwin noted.
Eventually, following an exceptional tide, the mine flooded and the treacle became too sticky to tramp. The villagers looked around for some way to employ the advantage of oversized feet. Thus was born the Grande Internationale Flounder Tramping Championship.
This year's championship, the 34th, will occur at low tide (or thereabouts) on August 11th in the middle of the Urr Water off Glen Isle.
(as seen on TV (Coast, series 2, programme 3))
I look forward to seeing y'all there!
xx
ed
With regard the call for extension to the 28 day detainment of terror suspects, the Law Lords chaired by Lord Binghasm last week heard submissions from both the government and lawyers representing the terrorists suspects (Justice and Liberty) concerning the legality and limits of 'house arrest' under existing powers granted to the ±«Óătv Secretary.
They will publish their finding in the autumn.
Eddie, I think you should make up a story about you standing for Mayor of London.
In fact, don't make it up, just do it! (© Nike)
Make up something nice and exciting to look foward to please, becasue I'm having a right old Monday of a day today -- I'm fed up!
Jason (7) Yey! Excellent idea! Eddie in panto -- that's improved my day already :-)
Aperitif (11) & Jason (7)
Eddie..in panto all made up AND in drag as the 'Dame'.....go on, you know it makes sense!!
Get one of your "Northern" or "Scottish" correspondents to bring his/her family to London and Paris for an equivalent sporting event and compare the costs. I voted for the Olympics to be staged in Paris as it was cheaper for me to fly to Paris than get the train to London. I would like to know if I was right in assuming Paris was cheaper and how much I would have to pay to see a sporting event with my wife and two children.
There is nothing you can name that is anything like a dame. Except Eddie, apparently.
Go on, Eric, you know you'd [i]love[/i] it.
"Here at the ±«Óătv, we are masters at distortion and lies..."
I think you're overdoing praise for the 'Beeb" Eddie; I doubt "Masters" would be caught-out...
On the heaven and earth show yesterday (15 July) they had two clips about using human/animal hybreds. One had background music the other didn't. The background music was the clip pro use of these human/animal hybreds. The music was play by moby. I think this may influence people and therefore distorts the viewers view about the subject.
Some time ago, while our Eddie was still in Scotland and Allie Abassie (R.I.P) was diong the traffic updates, he announced the occurrence of an unseasonal tide which had overturned a lorrie at the treacle works, resulting in considerable delays. "A sticky situation indeed!"
A toast to absent friends:
Slainte
ed
Make up a story about a distant, but troublesome country being able to attack us within 45 minutes.
Ed Heal (15)
Which way did you think the music would move the viewers? As in our house we would probably turn off any speech with background music (after a certain age one has difficulty hearing the speech) the other case would have got a better hearing.
I've heard of this Moby music. Apparently he(?) gets a lot of hate-mail, so adds the senders to his mailing list and they then begin to receive [his] mailshots! That's what O.N. would call a neat idea.
Sorry, I'll have to miss PM on the PM; firewall disallows .ram files into our network.
Can't ever recall you making anything up. Distortion perhaps but the one crime you are indisputably guilty of is bias by ommission. It is the most used tool in your box. Especially when presented with an opportunity to pour scorn on the United States or single out Israel.
Were I not so used to it from the ±«Óătv it would make me nauseous.
Perhaps you could make up a story about the Israeli airforce destroying an entire town when only a few Hezbollah apartments were hit.
Oh wait.... you did that already.
Peter (20),
You're pretty good at this distortion business yourself:
"only a few Hezbollah apartments were hit."
/blogs/pm/images/bc.JPG
Salaam/Shalom
ed
You could make up a story that human activitiy is responsible for climate change. That would be a wheeze. Imagine the airtime you could fill if people believed it.
Ed,
Those are the apartment blocks I'm talking about. While the ±«Óătv was maintaining the whole town had been "utterly destroyed" there were Channel 4 reporters filming on the next street which was completely in tact. Israeli bombing was nothing like as extensive as the ±«Óătv would have us believe.
Hardly surprising the damage looks as bad since nothing in Lebanon is built to a decent standard.
Still, I wouldn't single out the ±«Óătv for such behavior. They're all at it.
As for Hugh Sykes, an unbiased media organisation would have sacked him years ago.
If it isn't institutional bias then it's irresponsible and vaccuous hyperbole. An affliction ±«Óătv correspondants are just as guilty of as any other media vessel.
The reason it matters when the ±«Óătv does it is that it pretends to be impartial and people take their word for it. There are no excuses given the resources we afford them.
Why don't you say we live in a democracy from House of Lords to Canary Wharf?
Peter (23),
Do you also reckon the casualty figures of over 1,000 Lebanese, mostly civilians were overstated? And the grocer and his family kidnapped by helicopter from Bekkaa just because he shared the wrong name?
Poor Israel, so beleaguered, so misunderstood.
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Peter North (19)(20) and (23)
I find myself having to disagree with your analysis of the damage to Beirut and also the tone of ±«Óătv reporting relating to it.
It was reported that 300 Apartment blocks (in total 15,000 apartments) were destroyed, I find it hard to refer to this damage as "...a few Hezbollah apartments..." (20). Plus, considering the power of the ordnance that the Israeli's deployed, it is unlikely the civilian buildings would survive, however well built.
As for the tone and bias of the reporting, I have always found the ±«Óătv (radio) coverage to be pretty fair. The actions of the US will always receive considerable scrutiny, but as they are such a powerful nation, their actions are bound to attract more attention and comment.
As for Israel, considering their overwhelming military capability in such a volatile region, any move they make will again attract significant attention and concern.
Finally I must add that I have always found the reports from Hugh Sykes to be unbiased, thoughtful and extremely powerful. I have always heard him report from all sides of a conflict and he did so last week. I certainly hope the ±«Óătv does not sack him.
Best Regards
Otter
How about a ''garden noise'' story, surprising everyone when they find out what is making the noise?! Too many bees in a hive? Too many fountains in the water feature? You get my drift!
Oh...it seems I'm too late....someone else has already suggested it!
Otter (27), Well said.
Ed,
At least four of the photos on your link are staged, one of them punted by the ±«Óătv.
Google "Green Helmet" and while you're at it you might want to check out the story behind those ambulances. All is not what it seems.
Hezbollah and the Palestinians are experts at media manipulation and even dear old auntie falls for it on occasion.
Otter,
I'm not at all referring to the more widespread damage but am referring to a specific incident where a female ±«Óătv correspondent used disproportionate hyperbole that misrepresented the reality. One cannot say if this is in any way deliberate but given the ±«Óătv's propensity toward manipulation of news for effect I find myself questioning almost all of their news output.
You say you find their coverage to be pretty fair. For the most part what they report on is entirely fair. It is their deliberate omission of other factors that I hold in question.
Especially when dealing with the Middle East.
I'm not surprised the impression is that the ±«Óătv is entirely unbiased because its execution of its bias is extremely subtle and unless you have a deeper awareness of the issue of the day it is seldom evident to the casual listener.
This is why they have got away with it for so long.
Were you to complement your current affairs news intake with the blogosphere you may revise your opinion.
While I cannot off hand think of a specific example of Hugh Sykes bias, I find the man nauseatingly sycophantic and his broadcasts from the Lebanon war were breathtakingly shallow.
Again, the favoured tactic of lying by ommision being in full force.
Where the Middle East is concerned and indeed the European Union the ±«Óătv's bias is very well documented indeed and if even half of it is true then the UK has a very serious problem.
Who let in the troll? :)
Seriously though, of course Hezbollah use media manipulation to promote their cause. I'm sure every side in every war zone utilises the same techniques. I'm sure that when correspondents are shown staged scenes in areas of Israel where Katyusha rockets have landed.
In the wider conflict, it may be of interest to you that since the creation of the modern state of Israel, there has never been any written statement on the extent of Israel's borders. The West Bank and Gaza Strip combined make up a mere 22% of the former Palestinian mandate, yet successive Israeli governments have, either overtly or covertly, staked their claim to as much of that land as they think they can get away with, whilst simultaneously enacting various laws to make life difficult for the Palestinians. It is in the interests of the Israeli state to ensure there is no viable Palestinian state, as it could potentially pose more of a threat to Israel than the current mess. Using the security fence to create "facts on the ground" (read: borders) will only serve to reduce the amount of land area dedicated to Palestinians further. Oh, and apparently the Palestinians have a higher birth rate than the Israelis.
The suicide attacks, whilst completely unethical and bizzare, seem to be one of the only ways the Palestinians can attract the attention of the world's media. As for following the wish of the Israeli government to completely cease fighting and recognise the right of Israel to exist:
a) IIRC in almost every previous ceasefire, Israel has still launched attacks into Palestinian territories, on the pretext of disrupting movements of arms or to assassinate a military figure (plus family and any nearby civilians). If the Palestinians abandon the armed struggle, what assurances will they have that Israel won't still launch armed incursions into their territories? I doubt Israel would sign up to a bilateral cessation of violence.
b) As Israel has steadfastly refused to define its borders over the past 60 years, what's to stop Israel deciding to annexe any land it wants to at any point in time?
Here's a useful link posted by someone in an earlier thread:
It makes interesting reading...
"Who let in the troll"
Well if that isn't indicative of a ±«Óătv community then I don't know what is. Anyone who contradicts the ±«Óătv groupthink is a troll. I see.
As for the rest of your post, I cannot see how it is at all relevant to the accusation of ±«Óătv editorial bias.
Even if it is correct, and I have my doubts, it would still not be a mandate for the ±«Óătv to side with the enemies of Israel.
In all honesty I really don't mind media bias if organisations have the decency to declare or make obvious their political leanings. What is most obnoxious about the ±«Óătv is that it markets itself as the bastion of neutrality and impartiality when it is nothing of the sort.
How Humphreys still has a job given his blatant and consistent use of the AM programme as a platform with which to punt his views on Iraq, is quite beyond me.
The ±«Óătv knows about its institutional bias and certain individuals have admitted it but it still keeps up the pretense because they can get away with it.
It will not have that luxury when the UK blogosphere matures as the US one has.
All I can say to the ±«Óătv is... enjoy it while it lasts.
Peter, I think you'll find that far from "±«Óătv Groupthink" it is more the case that random members of the public like ourselves see the world differently from you and don't think the ±«Óătv are involved in some huge disinformation conspiracy.
I get tired of repeating this diatribe but here goes. Some people blame Israel for everything. Some people blame the Palestinians for everything. Some people blame the ±«Óătv for everything. None of those people are right.
All of the above groups have done right things and wrong things. All of them comprise good and bad.
You, however, seem to have a partial view. It matters not who you favour (my sensors detect it is Israel in your case) - your view is nonetheless partial. You cannot convincingly argue very far about ±«Óătv bias when you do not accept the wider story (that is, that Israeli policy and actions have their faults).
Now I fully accept that certain groups want to wipe Israel out, and I fully agree that is wrong. But I also know that Israeli actions do little to help. It has turned into a tit for tat of increasing magnitude these past 60 years.
The holocaust was probably the most dreadful thing man has ever done to man. Jews do deserve their own land and security and self-determination. But so do Palestinians. Sadly both have been used as pawns by the East and the West over the decades and no one has taken finding a solution to the problems of the region seriously.
The ±«Óătv report what happens. The only bias I detect is that they criticise who appears to be in the wrong at the time. To me that is no bias at all.
Peter North (30) and (32)
I read with interest your belief that the ±«Óătv lies through omission. I'd be interested to know a couple of examples where you think this was the case.
I still believe that the ±«Óătv provides a largely unbiased view of the world.
I appreciate there will always be examples of individual reporters, who have probably come under fire themselves and may still be shaking with adrenaline, to over react to what they have witnessed.
As for the perceived bias against the US and Israel, I still feel that the ±«Óătv have presented all the relevant facts to provide a complete picture. For example, during the 'Lebanon War' they never shied away from explaining that Hezbollah provoked the conflict and had been goading Israel for some time beforehand. They also reported the shadowy manipulation of the conflict by Tehran and Damascus.
With regard to John Humphries on 'Today', it is his job to vigorously question our leaders who hold such enormous power, including the power to take military action as in Iraq. Please don't mistake his questioning as an expression of his views.
I am sure the blogosphere has an important place within the mix of news, but I fear that it also can fall victim to omission and bias, just as much as the more mainstream organisations.
Best Regards
Otter
Flares, DY. (3)
Oh, and I quite like Moby.
(Phew! Late at night - I
can scurry away and not get thwacked)
Peter North - I wonder where you get your information from and why you consider that what you are reading/seeing/hearing is unbiaised when you consider the ±«Óătv is not? Do you live or work in the Middle East? Do you have direct on-the-ground experience of any of the situations mentioned above?
Jason, I sympathise with your frustration where the Israeli Arab conflict is concerned. Pigheaded refusal to acknowledge fault in both sides is one on the major obstacles to peace.
My personal views on that subject are irrelevant. What matters is that public opinion is formed by mainstream media and in the UK the major player is the ±«Óătv. In that respect it has a responsibility like no other.
If one were to listen only to Radio 4, as many people do one would get the impression that Iraq is a total disaster and that our troops were not making any progress at all.
This adds to the wider public perception that all is not well which leads to calls for our premature and hasty withdrawal. A possibility many Iraqis on the blogoshere look forward to with dread.
Were you to read Michael Yon you would find the situation was not necessarily all doom and gloom.
Seldom ever do we hear any of the positive progress made in Iraq, of which there is much. The ±«Óătv doesn't bother reporting it because good news isn't news and were it to do any such reporting it would be accused of being Bush/Browns propaganda machine.
So in effect the left wing are holding editorial content to ransom... Report bad news or suffer the consequences.
That is part of it. However, if you recall the time of the inquest into the death of Lance Corporal Matty Hull, the soldier killed by friendly fire, the ±«Óătv harassed his widow looking for a butter soundbyte they could slot in their following news programme. Had she not be well instructed to deadbat such questions, which were dripping with anti-Americanism and sensationalism, the ±«Óătv would have run it as their main story.
How often do we hear an interviewer leach a juicy quote from a politician and then make it thier main story only moments later?
With regard to that incident, little was made of the MOD's negligence in not fitting vehicles with identification beacons and not at any time did any presenter remind the listener that the pilots had followed the procedure. That PM programme was perhaps the shoddyest piece of radio journalism I have ever heard.
Also interesting to note how John Bolton gets the full Humpreys grilling and Jimmy Carter gets a nice warm reception.
Sure, Bolton is widely loathed and naturally his message will be greeted with more skepticism than Carter but the ±«Óătv must serve all those who pay for it.
Why were no questions asked on behalf of the Carter critics listening to the programme?
Even the producers of the AM programme know when Humpries has gone too far because they often get a compensating 4min slot the next day to redress the balance. ie the Iraq piece the day after Gordon Brown or the return of John Bolton after his interview went world wide on the blogosphere. The world reaction was one of disgust with the ±«Óătv.
But at this point the damage is already done. Once is forgivable, twice is irresponsible, three times is institutional bias.
Radio 4 news also likes to drop in headlines like "A report published today reveals that"
It's usually Chatham House or the Lancet or some Left wing NGO written by some nobody official but they will use it because it suits the ±«Óătv agenda. Similarly with the announcement about metric and the story about the suns influence on climate theory being debunked by some random scientist. Whatever fits the groupthink agenda.
Recycling good, climate change man made, Iraq disaster, Israel bad.
In Andrew Marrs words...
"The ±«Óătv is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias",
And no it isn't the bigott3ed "±«Óătv run by jews and queers" debate. It is a mindset that runs deep and strong within the ±«Óătv.
Have a browse through these...
Like I say, even if only half of it's true, we have a serious problem.
Oh and if anyone has any doubts about the ±«Óătv providing a platform for irrelevant and sour anti American bile tune into Newsquiz and the Now show.
Satire is about bending the joke to fit the news, not vice versa.
News quiz is not a soapbox and should not be abused as such.
Sorry, Peter, but if you think Iraq is anything but a disaster then it would be a complete waste of time trying to debate any matter of international affairs with you. It is the most dangerous, most flawed folly of power exerted since the end of Vietnam. Of course the ±«Óătv reflect it as a disaster!
Re. satire. You mistake "dislike of current American foreign and environment policy" with anti-Americanism. Very similar to mistaking a dislike of Isreali actions as anti-Semitism.
I studied American politics as a major part of an A-level many moons ago and have a fascination and a love for the place, the people and their instistutions. But I pretty much hate the current policies and approach.
Similarly I have studied the holocaust and the excesses of the Nazis and have a huge sympathy for the affect Hitler and his cronies had on a whole race of people. But I hate the way Israeli policy towards it's neighbours is played out with impunity.
For me the important thing is being able to see all sides and praise and criticise where it is due. Yes, Saddam was a monster. No, we shouldn't have prioritised him over, say, Darfur or Rwanda. Yes both Palestine and Israel are at fault in their ongoing conflicts. No, neither should be supported unconditionally nor condemned.
I am sure your opinions are sincerely held but, for me, they fly in the face of reality.
The News Quiz and The Now Show are both political satire shows - their entire point is to make fun out of whoever is in power. At the moment, that happens to be new Labour and the Republicans. Added onto which many people in this country wonder why we're fighting somebody else's war - so comedy based on the main players is bound to raise a laugh.
Saddam Hussain may have been a malevolent dictator intent on making life difficult for Shias, but to a certain extent he was mellowing slightly in his final years in power - the incidents that were lined up as potential trial evidence took place decades ago, and he hadn't directly threatened another country for many years. Of course he kept up a rhetoric on his country's military capability, but rhetoric is different from capability.
And as many Iraqis have said in interviews since the war, although he was a cruel and malevolent dicator, he was predictable. For many Iraqis, it was possible to avoid drawing too much attention from the authorities. However, since the former regime was deposed, there are now several parallel conflicts running, and many Iraqis in major population centres are understandably worried about the lack of security. The catch-22 status of security doesn't help - foreign troops are part of the problem (especially in the aftermath of scandals like Abu Grahib), but the Iraqi government troops aren't sufficiently numerous or trained to take over. Sooner or later, everyone will have to sit down, negotiate with other Arab countries, and work out some form of strategy.
Likewise, despite all the rhetoric from both sides, Iran has never started a war, and various experts excel at disagreeing over when Iran could potentially have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon - ranging from 1 year to 12 years. And even if it did produce a nuclear weapon, would it use it directly or would it use its existence to force negotiations a la North Korea? Bear in mind that as most of the countries surrounding Iran have US military bases, the Iranian regime would have to be completely mad to consider attacking another country...
One final point: the Iranian president, Hamas and Hezbollah, all detested by the West, are all in power as the result of democratic elections. The current Fatah administration has no democratic mandate, as only the president was elected. So what do we value most? Democracy, or regimes we like?
mittfh,
Satire is one thing, political rants are another.
Your other points are irrelevant to this discussion. I am not here to debate the merits of the Iraq war. That is for others elsewhere. However, the same rule applies, if that if the ±«Óătv's consensus opinion then that is fine. But any pretense of neutrality should be dropped.
With regard to your question "So what do we value most? Democracy, or regimes we like?"
Democratic regimes we like. Elections do not a democracy make. Do we extend full rights to genocidal zealots/terrorists just because they won an election? Of course not.
Humphreys seems to think we should. He is entitled to voice his opinion, but not when doing his job.
Peter (41): You say Your other points are irrelevant to this discussion. I am not here to debate the merits of the Iraq war. That is for others elsewhere.
Yet in (37) above you devote entire paragraphs to it.
Tactical withdrawal?
Peter (37),
"Recycling good, climate change man made, Iraq disaster, Israel bad."
As Lord Reith might have said, "Anything wrong with that?"
Jason and Mittfh,
I have little to add. You two have said all I might have, and perhaps better, with the possible exception of not noting that the natives of Palestine had NOTHING to do with the European Holocaust.
It is dangerous to state that the Jews 'deserve' their own land without emphasising that this does not justify them (or their supposed proxies, the zionists) seizing someone else's land and expelling and dispossessing the inconvenient majority.
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Jason, I'm not debating policy or strategy with you, only the ±«Óătv's reporting methods and standards. I referred to a specific case of ±«Óătv bias and not the wider political scenario.
Ed, Anything worng with that? Plenty. The groupthink analysis is entirely superficial.
Hmm, Much as I enjoy both the News Quiz and the Now Show, utterances therein often do jar and I have to agree with these points:
Satire is about bending the joke to fit the news, not vice versa.
News quiz is not a soapbox and should not be abused as such.
They lose their power to motivate and inform if they 'bend the news'.
Appy (45): They lose their power to motivate and inform if they 'bend the news'.
I am clearly shallow then because I just want them to make me grin and occasionally giggle!
I don't really see either show as overly biased (except in the "anti whoever is in charge" way mentioned above). Nor do I see them as particularly influential of public opinion...compared, say, to the way Spitting Image managed to inadvertantly reinforce Thatcher and destroy Kinnock and the two Davids.
But then, I'm biased ;-)
There's bias in the "anti whoever is in charge" way and then there's spite and bile spouted by C list celebs who have no clue what they are talking about.
Perhaps you are right in that it is not particularly influential of public opinion and I should give the average listener more credit for itelligence. Not that it is particularly evident here. (but then it is a corporate blog). I know I reach for the off switch more often than not these days.
In fact I might go as far as saying there is no bias at all in the ±«Óătv. Only superficiality and ignorance which equates to similar if not worse offences.
Peter (44),
"Ed, Anything worng with that? Plenty. The groupthink analysis is entirely superficial.
"
Recycling IS good.
Climate change IS (largely) man-made.
Iraq IS a disaster.
Israel IS a very bad country, ignoring all the rules and obligations of UN membership.
And all of these, which are, of course, merely opinions, are FAR from the result of "shallow" analysis. Quite the reverse.
Would you care to tell us why recycling isn't good?
Or cogently argue that the present climate change has little to do with human activity?
Or demonstrate (beyond simple assertion) how Iraq is not a disaster?
Or would you care to attempt to justify Israel's behaviour? The driving out and dispossession of the bulk of the native population? The refusal to comply with UN resolutions? The apartheid wall? The killing of women, children and non-combatants? The kidnap or assassination of political adversaries?
I await your constructive contribution to the debate with interest.
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Peter -
If evidence of intelligence is so lacking on this blog why are you engaging in debate on its pages? Please don't get personal, it only serves to undermine your own comments.
Jason (46), Oh don't get me wrong, I do enjoy them and I do want them to make me laugh, but comedy does serve a wider purpose than merely entertainment. And for the very things you say about Spitting Image, I think all satirical shows ought to take care, that's all. Getting a laugh out of "the easy insult" informed by a lazy, inaccurate statement spoils these programmes for me when it happens.
Peter North (47) One really does devalue ones argument when one stoops to insult. I find the PM blog contributors a pretty intelligent and thoughtful bunch. Minority views, such as I believe yours to be in terms of this forum, are generally respected and engaged with here. Your manner of expressing yourself may cause you to be treated with less tolerance. And I guess it would be deserved.
Peter North.
I have to agree with everything you so eloquently say. Unfortunately, the ±«Óătv as a whole are not prepared to take any positive critisism on board under any circumstances.
Why do some individuals consider it rude or insulting to tell the truth on this blog?
More truth telling is healthier than some of the sycophantic grovelling i've seen displayed on this blog.
Paul (52) "Truth" is a contested concept. Rudeness is much easier to recognise.
Aperitif. In that case why is that when 'outsiders' or should I say people who aren't core users are sometimes described as 'Trolls' etc. It seems to me that there are many unspoken rules which apply to this site. Obviously, we shall have to agree to disagree on your point.
It appears Peter and Paul have forgotten that my troll comment was suffixed by a smiley emoticon, indicating I wasn't being serious.
I'm sure you're just honestly posting your own opinions, and getting slightly frustrated at the overwhelming negative responses to your posts.
However, as you are probably discovering, your opinions on the topics discussed in this thread are markedly different from the majority of contributors - who, as fans of the PM programme (and probably Radio 4 as a whole) unsurprisingly don't take kindly to negative comments on nature of the programme / station / organisation.
In the light of this, perhaps you can understand how your posts may be misconstrued as trolling (the practice of deliberately posting comments at odds with the majority opinion on a forum in order to spark a flame war).
If you have concerns about a specific report within PM, feel free to post to the relevant "Glass Box" thread. The "Glass Box" threads are routinely read by the PM production team, and if you're lucky you may get a response outlining their editorial decisions.
Once a week, there is also a "Furrowed Brow" thread, for the discussion of other newsworthy stuff not necessarily related to the programme content.
And finally, if you want to convince us you're only human, the weekly "Beach" is a light-hearted off-topic thread.
Peter North;
A few quotes from you.
"Were I not so used to it from the ±«Óătv it would make me nauseous". Here's the sickbag.
"only a few Hezbollah apartments were hit". If the figures Otter quotes are correct (and you don't dispute them) then you're saying that all 15000 apartments were Hezbollah? There were no ordinary Lebanese people living in them?
"an unbiased media organisation would have sacked him years ago".
"irresponsible and vaccuous hyperbole".
"Hezbollah and the Palestinians are experts at media manipulation". So is Israel, so is Downing Street, so is the White House.
"complement your current affairs news intake with the blogosphere". Good grief. That well-known, well-informed and entirely impartial source of news and current affairs. I'd sooner read the 'Daily Sport' and believe that it was factual news. Everyone in the Blogosphere is biased, usually massively so. Impartial is one thing it ain't.
"I find the man nauseatingly sycophantic and his broadcasts from the Lebanon war were breathtakingly shallow". And "I should give the average listener more credit for itelligence. Not that it is particularly evident here." Those comments are enough to hang the Troll title around your neck. Personal and unprovoked attacks are the classic hallmark of the Troll. Damned by your own words.
Incidentally, I'm part of no ±«Óătv mindset, nor do I subscribe to Groupthink. In the matter of the Israel/Palestinian conflict I pour scorn on both sides, which I see as being as bad as each other. I very often have serious disagreements with most of the commentators on this Blog. But I never descend to personal attacks, I concentrate on the facts they present and highlight what I think are faults, backed by facts. You could try it sometime.
To concentrate on your central point of ±«Óătv bias. A lot of the regulars around here are, shall we say, mildly left of centre. I'm somewhat right of centre. I detect no bias whatsoever in the ±«Óătv news output. I chortled when Humphrys and Paxo gave Tory politicians some grief a few years ago. The politicos were plainly obfuscating, swerving and trying to conceal the truth and desrved what they got.
Iraq IS a total disaster. I've got a few old acquaintances and chums serving thereabouts and they give much the same picture as the ±«Óătv. They are being attacked and killed in ever-increasing numbers. They get little or no supprt from the locals and the poice and military are throughly riddled with militants. Hardly a raging success.
"Irresponsible and vacuous hyperbole" is a fairly accurate description of your many contributions to this thread, which contain much heat, little light and no facts worth naming.
Paul;
Eloquent he isn't. And what amongst all this outpouring of "sour ... bile" constitutes positive criticism exactly?
It's not necessarily the content which is rude, but the way it is expressed. Rude can be an attiude as well as a profane word.
As to why 'mittfh' used the Troll tag... perhaps you'll get a reply. But I think I presented the evidence earlier in this post.
Si.
Simon,
I read on a previous blog something you had written. It was from a cotributor with a different point of view to your own who was challenging one of your co-contributors. You said 'don't feed them'. referring to contributors who do not share the views of yourself and the core users who are considered to be Trolls or something ridiculously inane.
Intellingence is not just about reciting facts it is about being perceptive and in my opinion Peter North is extremely perceptive you are not.
It seems to me that the core users of this corporate blog who do indeed display a ±«Óătv mindset and subscribe to groupthink appear to decide themselves on what is 'evidence' and what is not according to their own views.
Peter North you are both perceptive and eloquent in your comments.
Surely the whole point of debate in a free society is that everybody makes up their own mind which side to stand on, based on their interpretation of the evidence presented before them.
This blog was created for fans of the PM programme on Radio 4 - hence a significant part of the evidence that contributes to the majority point of view on this blog comes from Radio 4 output. This will be supplemented by output from other ±«Óătv channels/media (e.g. TV, web), other media organisations (e.g. ITN) and newspapers; possibly even searching websites for other views on the debate, or reading the Wikipedia entry (chances are, if editing by new users is locked, it's a hotly contested and controversial topic).
Feel free to state your own views on a particular topic, but do not allow yourself to get heated up to the extent of insulting other posters, either en-masse or individually. That is a key ingredient in starting a flame war, and could lend to accusations of trolling (in which case the accuser is also guilty - of fanning the flames, so to speak).
And finally, "I agree with everything x has said" contributes very little to the debate unless you supplement it with a justification of your agreement, or cite additional sources that support your argument. Sources such as governments, international organisations, and recognised news agencies will be regarded significantly more highly than somerandomperson@blogspot.com. Remember - blogs are diaries, so contain the author's own interpretation of events - most blogs are not 100% verifiable statements of fact.
P.S. Some advice for the heated proponents of both sides' arguments': To misquote Michael Winner: "Calm down dear, it's only a blog!"
P.P.S. Still feeling tense? Why not find "The Beach", read it and post something there, then return here when you're in a calmer state of mind.
P.P.P.S. As it's now five to one am, I think I'd better stop finding things to add to this post and get some shut-eye...
Paul;
There are no 'core users' here. Nor am I a 'co-contributor'. I comment as I see fit, not as part of some wider group. This has often brought me into opposition with others, such as yourself.
Peter North's contributions on this thread are highly polemical and one-sided, that's fine. But as he has the right to do that, so others have an equal right to respond and challenge him. He offers scant proof or evidence to support some serious accusations. That's not good enough.
Reasoned debate based on demonstrable evidence is always to be welcomed. Harsh opinions, pronouncements and judgements based purely on a personal bias are not to be welcomed, indeed they need to be challenged. It won't change the viewpoint of either protagonist, but one of them will come out looking a complete fool.
Peter's opinions (and that's what they are, not facts) are his, no problem with that. That he seeks to ridicule anyone with a different opinion to his own is pretty poor really. The ±«Óătv and other organs of the media do not exist to serve the highly biased opinions of one person.
A better approach would be to produce the evidence and let it be examined. Then people can make their own minds up.
He seems to think that the news out in the Blogosphere is the most reliable form available, which is living in cloud-cuckoo land. That source is highly biased, often hearsay from a single source and unsupported by fact.
The contributor you refer to on a previous thread was, of course, yourself. You had made certain assertions which were also unsupported by evidence. When you were challenged to produce the proofs you immediately reverted to personal insults. That's the hallmark of a Troll, which is why I commented "Don't feed them". If the cap fits, wear it.
The commentator who had challenged you was Ed Iglehart. He did so repeatedly and you failed in every case to produce the proof of your argument. Now Ed and I rarely see eye to eye on anything. We have had some 'interesting' debates on this Blog in the past. I do not follow his ideas of the way things should be. I have said to him on more than one occasion that I think his beliefs are pie-in-the-sky and disconnected from reality.
Our most fervent clashes have usually been over the existence of Israel. This seems to be a matter of interest to yourself, Peter and Ruth (who has also popped up here to support Peter) and one or two others in the last week or so.
My view is that Israel has the right to exist as enshrined in UN res 181, within certain borders. I also believe that it has exceeded that mandate and conducted highly illegal land grabs and continues to do so. Ed has a somewhat different view on the matter, which he may wish to set down in a couple of sentences, as I have done.
But I absolutely respect his right to hold that view and he does produce facts to back up his assertions. Neither of us has ever decended into petty name-calling over differences of opinion.
To imagine that I share the viewpoint of the other 'core users' (as you describe them) is, as you put it, inane. I'm very often in opposition to the majority of them and have to fight my corner. But I try to do so with a degree of grace, I produce sources to back up my view and I never stoop to personal insults.
You're correct to state that intelligence is not about reciting facts. Intelligence is about letting the other guy have his point of view, if you are confident that yours is correct. If you can't convince him through the force of your argument then walk away.
But any argument which leaves the facts behind when they become inconvenient to a bigoted and partisan viewpoint is not worth taking part in.
Anyone can make allegations of the kind that Peter has indulged in. Now he can either produce examples and sources to support his opinion or he can risk looking like a narrow-minded and highly opinionated idiot.
Si.
Some of the points here illustrate my point.
If you rely on the ±«Óătv as your primary source of news you will most likely form the recieved opinion that Iraq is a disaster.
Were one to read military blogs or correspondants from commanders in the field who are in place long after the media caravan has packed its bags will tell you a much idfferent story. See here...
You going to tell me now that pulling troops out is a good idea?
Recycling is also another unchallenged piece of groupthink...
Also mans contribution to climate change is not a done debate. There is no "scientific consensus" as Radio 4 constantly asserts.
As for the blogosphere being biased, of course it is but the crucuial difference between it and the ±«Óătv is that it does not pretend otherwise.
My observation that intelligence was not evident was not based on others having differing opinions, only that certain contributors seem unable to grasp the actual point of this debate.
In the end there is no such thing as an unbiased view. There are only opinions derived from pictures and words. If the ±«Óătv does wish to be impartial then it must make an effort to show the positive effects of our foreign policy.
The reason it won't do such things is because it doesn't want to be seen to be promoting the military presence in Iraq. Perversely, its attempt at presenting itself as neutral has prevented it from presenting a full picture. This is why it must abandon the attempt and declare its bias. We would actually get more balanced news. Report that which is newsworthy and not that which demonstrates the neutrality of the ±«Óătv.
There is a lot to be critical of where our strategy and tactics are concerned but consistantly presenting the bad news skews the debate and condemnation becomes dangerously unhinged.
I do not believe for a moment ±«Óătv news editors are interested in providing a full picture because they were always against the Iraq war and their credibility depends on being proved right. If they can sway public opinion to force a failure they will.
In that respect, should our troops have to abandon their vital mission of security and reconstruction, the blood will be on the hands of the media.
Blogs aren't the most reliable sources in the world and you have to choose them carefully but writing them off is effectively wrting off the sum of human experience and knowledge ouside of the ±«Óătv bubble. Yes they are prone to exaggeration and disortion but you have to think for yourselves and never assume the ±«Óătv has done it for you.
They will tell you what they want you to know and nothing else.
It's not what they say. It's what they don't say.
Peter, your reasoning is a breathe of fresh air. I have long held the opinion that the ±«Óătv skews it's newsreporting in order to support it's own political agenda. Since the publication of the report on bias commissioned by the ±«Óătv it has become apparent that one of the critisisms levelled at the ±«Óătv was indeed that the they behave like a political party.
I use this blog to register my opinion on issues I find of interest. Inevitably, if they don't fit in with the ±«Óătv groupthink mentality on for example, America, Israel, Jews, Iraq you are greeted by many core users attemting to intimidate and bully. For instance, they would argue that they present valid evidence and condemn yours as rubbish.
Many people have become alienated from the ±«Óătv as a rational source of current affairs. As a public broadcasting corporation this is unacceptable, especially when certain sections of the community are left without fair representation in current affairs and other communities are over represented.
Gosh, what extraordinary outposts abound here!
As a matter of interest, contribution to this blog is entirely self-selecting, and there have been some very lively arguments and debates over time - of which some more recent contributors are clearly unaware. In its nearly 12 month history, I've certainly seen a wide range of very diverse opinion, and unless people get 'personal', objection isn't usually made or taken.
However - and this is a big 'however' - it is not the way of regular contributors to slate other contributors, nor to make sweeping statements about the nature of the blog, without good cause. Recent contributions are pushing this particular convention to its limit, and coming very close to being defamatory.
If you don't like the PM Blog, perhaps you'd like to decamp to one which meets your own criteria?
I'm not at all surprised people here do not detect ±«Óătv bias. Like I say, it's very subtle and you do have to know what you're looking for.
It's also difficult to spot because in among the background noise there are some stonking pieces of television journalism that still uphold the ±«Óătv ideals. While I believe that the ±«Óătvs line taken during the Lebanon war was just as sloppy and shoddy as every other news vessel, some of it's coverage of the latest clashes in Gaza have been nothing short of excellent and rounded pieces of journalism.
However, while it has its flagship pieces it can point to, it is the ordinary every day news. The stuff that slips past the net unchallenged. The pernicious planted stories, the glaring omissions, the unasked important questions and the concealment which amounts to little more than propaganda.
None of which you can press the pause button on and say Aha! Gotcha! None of it is outright lies but its presence or lack of presence is designed to tilt opinion to the left.
And why does the ±«Óătv have such plausible deniability? Because the mindset and brainwashing runs so deep they couldn't even spot themselves at it.
Of course there are other times they are accused of bias when you can more likely put it down to indifference and ignorance. I've lost count of the number of Today programme interviews where some minister is defending harmful new regulation and not at any point does the presenter remind the listener that the minister is only doing as he is instructed by Brussels. Why? Bias? nah. Ignorance. But it all displays a lack of journalistic professionalism which the ±«Óătv seems somehow comfortable with.
It takes a deeper understanding of journalism than most possess to spot it. I get suckered in the same as anyone when someone falsely reports that which we want to believe. Everyone has their own narrative they like to reinforce and while we all pay lip service to the possibility that we might be wrong we seldom ever honestly admit it to ourselves. The ±«Óătv and its proponents, while they like to think otherwise, are no different.
Many people are under the illusion that the ±«Óătv hires the brightest and the best. To an extent it does but only the ones who agree with their editorial line. Dissent is usually frozen out. Sure it might be tolerated online but who but the saddest of us bothers with the Radio 4 blog. So long as it has the monopoly on the minds of the ovine herd who never stray beyond the safety of the ±«Óătv primetime bubble there is no real threat to its reputation.
Of course we know about its more public underhanded methods. We know audiences are vetted for Question Time, we know that editors chop up interviews and omit vital points and we know they couldn't be more Europhile if they tried. They've been called out on it but the rest of it is so subtle it's difficult to prove. But after a while of looking for it you develop an instinct for it. It's there alright. It's hardly a co-incidence that the left defend the ±«Óătvs output. The ±«Óătvs line is exactly what they wish others to be subjected to so they don't think for themselves. Classic totalitarianism of the left.
So why am I not backing these assertions up? Well we know what the results will be if I do. I post a blog and then we get the "it's only a blog" routine. Essentially those who wish to believe the ±«Óătv is unbiased want to continue doing so and will insulate themselves against evidence to the contrary by "questioning the source". While it is important to question the source, it should never cause you to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But that might cause you to question the basis of your faith in the Beeb.
I do not agree with the Guardians editorial line but to write off its whole output would be foolish. The same goes with the ±«Óătv. However, I am alarmed by peoples propensity toward placing the ±«Óătv on a pedestal where impartiality and objectivity is concerned. It's like eating only apples because apples are good for you. Your media diet must be balanced and you cannot expect all the nutrients you need from one source.
That is why I prefer media outlets and blogs who do have an obvious bias because you can compare and contrast with the opposite views. And even the ones who are spinning news to the left or right of the spectrum, unlike the ±«Óătv, at least have the common courtesy to admit it.
But the ±«Óătv will never come clean while they regard themselves to be the embodiment of humanism, fairness and dignity. It's the same self-righteous and pious demeanor of any left wing individual or organisation who cannot possibly conceive that their big hearted sentiment could possibly be damaging or wrong.
What I find frustrating is this.
If I take some stance on something and the majority of others who choose to post agree with me then it is seen as some kind of conspiracy. If I disagree with someone about something it is seen as some kind of conspiracy.
The point (if any) of a space like this is to air views and opinions and exercise ideas and debates. Just because many on here agree about something means only one thing - they agree on that thing.
Now you can convince me that the sky is purple if you have a strong enough argument. But that doesn't make the sky purple, does it?
Peter (61),
"My observation that intelligence was not evident was not based on others having differing opinions, only that certain contributors seem unable to grasp the actual point of this debate."
Huh? Please clarify the meaning of this "sentence"
"If the ±«Óătv does wish to be impartial then it must make an effort to show the positive effects of our foreign policy." A task worthy of sisyphus.
"His points were many. For instance, packaging saves resources, reducing food spoilage. Fast-food meals generate less trash per person than do home-cooked meals. The cheapest way to dispose of garbage is in a landfill. Modern dumps incorporate a range of safeguards and take up a minuscule amount of space."
With respect, 1. Packaging saves resources? Laughable, and not backed by any facts 2. Fast food produces less trash per person? Possibly true, because the trash is incorporated into the nuggets and burgers. 3. Modern dumps take up vast amounts of space, and are constantly trying to expand or find new holes to fill.
A big hole, sure enough, but not big enough:
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.
--Kenneth Boulding
xx
ed
Jason Good wrote: "Now you can convince me that the sky is purple if you have a strong enough argument. But that doesn't make the sky purple, does it?"
It does if the ±«Óătv says it, even if the argument is pathetic ... blue simply becomes relabelled "purple", in the same way that there is a "consensus" on the science of global warming, that Blair signed a treaty in Brussels in June (instead of just agreeing a mandate), that the European Council meeting is a "summit" and that the Galileo satellite navigation system is a "success".
Paul (62),
"For instance, they would argue that they present valid evidence and condemn yours as rubbish."
I haven't seen any "evidence" from you to condemn.
;-)
ed
All,
A note from today's inbox which seemed particularly apt for our discussions:
xx
ed
You dont need suggestions from members of the public on what to make up; if its anti-conservative, anti-Monarchy, anti-Christian, there's no shortage of ±«Óătv staff looking to drop their draws on the ±«Óătv Charter and get promoted to the TODAY programme.
I'll leave the ±«Óătv bias angle of the debate to others...
"No scientific consensus on climate change"
Please define consensus. I would say that the evidence that the global climate is changing is unequivocal. The debate is over the extent to which human activity contributes to this - specifically, the combustion of fossil fuels since the start of the industrial revolution in 1750. During that time, the human population has increased, the combustion of fossil fuels has increased, and global tree cover has decreased. Therefore it seems likely that the global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased over the past 250 years - although the extent to which this affects global temperature is again debatable.
FYI, here's a quick quote from Wikipedia on the number of scientists involved in compiling the IPCC report on climate change:
---
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, the report of Working Group I...was produced by around 600 authors from 40 countries, and reviewed by over 620 experts and governments. Before being accepted, the summary was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments during the 10th Session of Working Group I, which took place in Paris, France, between 29 January and 1 February 2007.
The Working Group III Summary for Policymakers (SPM) was published on 4 May 2007 ...with the participation of over 400 scientists and experts from about 120 countries. At the full IPCC meeting on May 4, agreement was reached by the larger gathering of some 2,000 delegates.
---
As for recycling, surely it's a good idea to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill? Landfills are ugly, smelly, potentially hazardous to both humans, animals and groundwater, take up vast amounts of land, take decades/centuries to decompose and produce a significant quantity of methane. Recycling also conserves resources, as each plastic bottle recycled reduces the amount of oil used in plastic manufacture, and each metal can recycled reduces the amount of ore that needs to be extracted/processed to make it. In fact, a lot of climate change mitigation strategies work by reducing the quantity of Earth's resources we use.
And one quick word on Iraq - I once heard that out of the people that have written in to the ±«Óătv to complain about its coverage, about half claimed it was too pro-government, about half it was too anti-government. On that basis, I'd suggest its balance is about right. As Ed Inglehart quoted at SB70, "We usually see only the things we are looking for - so much so that we sometimes see them where they are not."
Humans excel at creating self-fulfilling prophecies - if you form the opinion that organisation X has a bias Y, then every time you hear output from organisation X, you will subconsciously associate it with bias Y. This serves to reinforce your belief, and eventually you reach the "fundamentalist" stance whereby nobody can persuade you to change your views.
mittfh,
I can't be bothered to deconstruct the regurgitated climate change groupthink. It takes more time than I have. The ±«Óătv on the other hand has plenty resources enough to do some proper investigative work on the matter. Rather a shame it would prefer not to.
You could probably start here if you care to challenge your own received wisdom.
Whatever extend mankind is responsible I'm sure you'll agree that there is nothing anywhere near a legitimate "scientific consensus".
Similarly do you appear to have swallowed wholesale the mainstream and ignorant line on landfill. "landfill is baaad m'kay!"
It can be used to generate renewable energy more reliably than many other types including wind and solar. Methane gas from landfill can be used indefinitely and proper siting and ground preparation ensures the safety of the water table.
It need not take up vast amounts of land and there's nothing stopping using old mines and quarrys. That would actually go a long way toward restoration of land damaged by strip mining.
But damaging the land with wind farms is a more visible statement with less stigma so it's easier to punt that as the solution.
Similarly with recycling, the amount of energy used in processing, transportation and manpower more often than not negates any value in it and were it not for business crippling EU regulatory obligations and subsidies no-one would bother.
It's not economically viable and it does not reduce environmental impact. It just shifts the impact elsewhere.
As I said, the Landifll bad, recycling good mantra is superficial and demands more scrutiny.
One would like to see the ±«Óătv take up the challenge. I won't hold my breath.
What a classic example of "group think" from mittfh, which rather goes to prove the point.
"As for recycling, surely it's a good idea to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill? Landfills are ugly, smelly, potentially hazardous to both humans, animals and groundwater, take up vast amounts of land, take decades/ centuries to decompose and produce a significant quantity of methane."
Re-lable "landfill" as land reclamation, an inform people that the use of such sites is central to the economics of gravel and aggregate quarrying, and tell people that methane recovery from tips accounts for five percent of our renewable energy production.
Then remind people that landfill is not only the most economic method of waste disposal, but also - for a large proportion of our waste - the most energy efficient with, therefore, the lowest "carbon footprint".
Then show people a modern, professionally run landfill site, and remark on how free from odours and nuisance it is, and you might conclude that it is a highly efficient and safe means of disposal.
But you won't get anything of that from the Beeb, and thus does the Beeb mindset pervade the chattering classes ... oooooh... stinky landfill is baa baa baaad.
Pah!
Richard (73) I wish you could go and see the tip next to the village where I used to live. It has recently been given permission to extend, so in that sense of the word it is indeed ''modern''.
It is not land-fill, it is not reclamation - it is as I described it - a tip, on open ground, where there has never been any quarrying. It is every bit as bad as mittfh descibes. The methane escapes into the atmosphere through a forest of pipes sticking up in the air. It is indeed smelly and a nuisance, and a haven for gulls who bring their own nuisance with them.
Richard, I speak from experience. Unlike you, I will not insult you simply because you have an opinion which is based on......?What is your opinion based on? Where is this model tip you speak of?
there's an invisible and completely undetectable dome over n.ireland protecting it from global warming (put there by giants a very long time ago!)
how do we know? well look at the temperature record from armagh observarory - there's clearly no warming effect in n.ireland (between 1796 an the present)
link to observatory
and to graph
One swallow does not a summer make. For pics see here:
Your problem, in part, is that most of the tips in the country have been closed down, leaving a massive shortage of capacity. That means the existing tip operators have the regulators over a barrel. The regulators find it difficult to take robust action or the operators will pull out and you end up with potentially embarrassing (and dangerous) waste mountains.
Another part of your problem is that the regulation of landfill has been taken over by the grotesquely inefficient and unaccountable Environment Agency, which is not doing its job at all properly. If anything, with the above, we are seeing a classic example of "regulatory capture".
Now, those are real issues, and ones that a responsible broadcaster would address – talk to some of the people who have been trying to get some of the bad tips closed down, and about the stonewalling from the EA. But you will never get that from the Beeb. The Environment Agency is one of the darlings of the media, “protector of the environment”, and all that – so it cannot be projected as venal and inefficient, if not downright incompetent.
But that does not alter the basic premise. Landfill, professionally managed, is everything I say it is. For sure, inadequately controlled landfill is a nightmare, but then so are refuse incinerators. Try living next to one of those, or even a refuse transfer station, where the carts dump their contents to be repackaged for the slow boat to China in the name of recycling.
There is another story .. how much of your luvverly "recycled" material actually ends up in a tip in China? Again, not a story you will get from the Beeb.
there's an invisible and completely undetectable dome over n.ireland protecting it from global warming (put there by giants a very long time ago!)
how do we know? well look at the temperature record from armagh observarory - there's clearly no warming effect in n.ireland (between 1796 an the present)
link to observatory
and to graph
Well this is fun! Anyone here care to offer a definition of 'bias'?
For example, is 'bias' deliberate or accidental? Is it the result of policy or does it arise from honest - but faulty - interpretation?
And we should be very careful to separate opinion from verifiable facts.
Chuck Unsworth: I don't think you're close. The most pernicious bias is what is known as "selection bias", which manifests itself in the choice of material used.
Very often, the bias is in what is NOT said, rather than what is. Therefore, a story can be perfectly accurate and entirely factual - as broadcast - but still heavily biased by virtue of painting an incomplete picture.
The classic example of this is the "elephant in the room" syndrome, where the Beeb often "forgets" to tell its listeners and viewers that a particular issue it is reporting has an EU dimension.
It treatment of the waste/recycling issue is one such, where you often have to search quite hard to find any reference to the fact that the whole of our waste policy is dictated by the EU.
Then there is the total omission. How many people know that yesterday, the EU commission (part of our government), published its strategy for water shortages and droughts in Europe (during the wettest summer on record in the UK) - offering as its main policy option compulsory water metering?
Well, you certainly didn't get it from the Beeb!
Richard(79) Do you listen to the Beeb? If so, why?
I do not so much "listen" to it as monitor it. I stopped relying on it as a source of news years ago.
"I stopped relying on it as a source of news years ago."
That's ok. It stopped being a news source years ago.
Ed (70)
Nice little ditty. Especially if you are a lemming.
Peter North (82)
"It stopped being a news source years ago".
Well said. I hear more spin, speculation, character assasination and inuendo than news. As I chose not to have a television I just listen to the headlines on the radio then switch off.
Peter North, you arrived at 20 and wrote (I assume addressing the ±«Óătv as a whole rather than Eddie Mair in person: this is Eddie's blog, not a site run by some vast ±«Óătv conspiracy, and the contributors here are not on the whole anything to do with the ±«Óătv organisation, so the second person is rather too indeterminate to be a sensible mode of address unless one specifies as I have above to whom it is that one is speaking)
'...the one crime you are indisputably guilty of is bias by ommission. It is the most used tool in your box. Especially when presented with an opportunity to pour scorn on the United States or single out Israel.'
Are you by any chance an academic of the school that holds that it is what the author of a text (if one allows that the text is written by a single individual rather than being written by each individual reader) did not write that is what the text is actually about? Or is this just a statement of your personal belief that the ±«Óătv is anti-Israel and therefore doesn't report all the nice things they do for the children in Palestine and all the money they spend on food-aid, medical care and water provision in the West Bank and Gaza?
Either way I don't see how one can pour scorn on someone or something out by omitting to mention them or it. So how does the ±«Óătv mange both to omit the USA and at the same time *especially* to pour scorn on it?
I know it was a long time ago and you have probably forgotten what you meant, but if you would be kind enough to cast your mind back and clarify that particular sentence, it might make slightly better sense and not be so open to the criticism that it is internally inconsistent to the point of being essentially meaningless.
Ruth @ 84 wrote
'I hear more spin, speculation, character assasination and inuendo than news. As I chose not to have a television I just listen to the headlines on the radio then switch off.'
This person listens to the headlines on the radio, switches off, and then hears more spin, speculation, character assasination and inuendo than news.
Where from? Can't be the ±«Óătv, that's been switched off after the headlines.
Clearly lots of people think the ±«Óătv is unbiased and generally great, (Ed Otter etc).
Good for you.
I don't object to the fact that you like the ±«Óătv anymore than I object to the fact that my sister likes the Guardian.
But why should I have to subsidise your TV stations of choice?
Why not extend the concept and have a reading licence so that a state book publisher be formed?
Or how about a fashion tax so we can have a state clothes manufacturer that produces the correct clothes for us to wear?
Or a tax on going to the cinema to pay for a state film company to make films with a correct message?
If these ideas sound crazy to you then why why why do I have to pay 135 pound to the ±«Óătv if I own a telly or a broadband internet connection??????
How would you like it if you were forced by Law to pay for Fox News?
That is thew choice more and more people are making.
The ±«Óătv should give its audience a bit more credit while it still has one. In fairness I tried to come up with a decent case in favour of the ±«Óătv and now I find myself being unable to make a decent case for television at all.
Alan Johnson @ 87, those of us without a haunted fishtank nor any desire to own one don't pay for the wretched stuff on the visual side of the ±«Óătv, and are quite glad to have radio in the car.
I don't think the ±«Óătv radio coverage of events is perfect, but I prefer it to some of the alternatives. Certainly I would rather have information from Radio 4 than from for example some random blog: Radio 4 gets a *lot* of scrutiny, whereas some nut voicing his opinions on the internet is hardly being watched for inaccuracy in quite the same way.
Remember the sort of twit who used to say 'I read it in the paper so it must be true'? It seems nowadays that if something came off the internet it gets taken as accurate by some idiots who don't check sources properly. Gracious heavens to Betsy, what a daft way to go about one's life!
Chris Ghoti at (85) complains of "criticism that it is internally inconsistent to the point of being essentially meaningless."
The general meaning was perfectly clear, despite loose phrasing. Not everyone can aspire to the excellence of expression of the ±«Óătv (or its groupies) but it is precisely your sort of pedantry that will ensure that the argument goes nowhere.
Like the ±«Óătv in handling complaints, it picks up on the detail and fails to address the substantive points, thereby providing the perfect smokescreen. Nice tactic - in the short term. In the longer term we walk away, determined, when the opportunity arises, fatally to damage the ±«Óătv.
You and your ilk can ignore criticism for so long but, in the end, it will catch up on you. The ±«Óătv is building up too many enemies for its own good. Its current flim-flam convinces no-one who is already (rightly) convinced that the institution is corrupt that we will ever see meaningful reform.
Win the argument with studied pedantry, by all means, but you will loose the war. We will be back.
Chris & Richard,
"your personal belief that the ±«Óătv is anti-Israel and therefore doesn't report all the nice things they do for the children in Palestine"
, they released 11 minors from detention without charge! How generous and benevolent!
Perhaps they might even get around to releasing a few more of the 105 women, 359 children, and 40 Palestinian Legislative Council members they are still holding?
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Is this the Ed Iglehart who has a pin-up of Osama Bin Laden in his hideaway?
Odd choice of hero - when al Qaeda terrorists (Oh! sorry, militants - this is a ±«Óătv blog) indiscriminately murders women and children with car and truck bombs.
But if you really want evidence of how terrible the Israelis are, try this:
Another thing you won't learn from the Beeb.
All those slagging off Auntie Beeb, and assuming that those who post to this site regularly are '±«Óătv groupies' and other similarly-phrased epithets calculated to endear them to their audience:
Have a look at the bottom of the 'comments' box (the bit into which I am typing this). It says in small but perfectly-formed letters
'The ±«Óătv is not responsible for the content of external internet sites '
I am not now nor have I ever been employed by the ±«Óătv in any capacity whatsoever.
Had I been in the country on Wednesday I might well have been arguing the side of this debate that you have collectively espoused -- I'm assuming that there's more than one of you on this occasion, though there have been times when identical styles of spelling, grammar and intellectual standard, occurring in posts purporting to be from several different people, have made it clear that they were at best clones. It is my view that the ±«Óătv collectively often behaves quite badly, though rarely as badly as politicians of every stripe, and that the ±«Óătv is frequently guilty of telling the truth but not necessarily the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
However....
By the time I looked at this site on Friday, the style and standard of both manners and reasoning that had become clear in the posts of those taking that side of the argument had become so offensive as to put me firmly in the 'pro-±«Óătv' camp, if such a thing can be said to exist. I tend to be choosy about my allies. I don't really enjoy association with boors, bores and bullies.
Congratulations: you have taken a potentially friendly neutral and made an enemy.
If that 'we will be back' means you are now leaving, this will become a pleasanter place again. Mind the step.
Richard (92),
"Odd choice of hero".
Ever hear of ?
Good link, though!
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Where did Richard's comment (formerly #92) go?
I hope we weren't being protected from his sarcasm? We can take care of ourselves, Nanny.
xx
ed
Nanny knows best ...
Richard (96)
I see you've been introduced to the great white intellects aka Chris Ghoti and Ed Inglehart.
If you look on the Twitters site under the purple logo top right hand side you'll see Eddie Mair's Twitters (Twits) favorites list. It gives a good insight into the corporate nature of this blog.