Questions for, and Avoidance by Paul Reynolds

Teddy Bear
Administrator

See What You're Funding

Posts: 5,456

Questions for, and Avoidance by Paul Reynolds Aug 23, 2005 20:26:23 GMT

Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 23, 2005 20:26:23 GMT

Paul Reynolds is the World Affairs correspondent for
BBC News Online. Unexpectedly he posted some comments recently at Biased BBC Blogspot
I took this opportunity to post this question which I have commented on in another topic on this forum:

Paul Reynolds - Welcome to the forum, it is good to have some feedback from 'the other side'.
I have one question for you.
One that penetrates our individual political or religious views, and confirms whether or not the way we view the output of the BBC as biased is valid or not is purely according to our own biased perspectives, or that we have our basis in truth and intelligent and informed observations. You do not need our real names and addresses to answer this question, but I can assure you regardless of what name we use EACH OF US IS REAL, and your answer will determine how we might relate to you in future.

The question is this - following the ousting of Saddam, Eason Jordan of CNN, after previously denying it, finally admitted to the NY Times that they had been guilty of bias, . He claimed it was because Saddam had threatened physical assault on their staff and closure of their offices if they didn't follow his perscribed line.
If you need a link to this article I will happily provide it, but I'd be willing to bet you are already aware of it - or should be.

The BBC operated similar offices in Iraq, but have never admitted to being subject to the same restrictions, which it is fair to assume they would have also been subject to, unless they were very happy anyway to do so for their own agenda.

WHY???
Teddy Bear | Homepage | 22.08.05 - 10:20 pm | #

His reply and my response to it was this:

To Teddy Bear: like all Western journalists, BBC reporters are at risk in Iraq and have to tread carefully physically but this does not affect what they say.
You mean like Rajeh Omarr's crawling letters to Saddam's sons? I notice since those letters were discovered, he has been given a very low profile at the Beeb. ;D
They seek simply to describe the situation for better or for worse. That was the principle established in the Second World War when truth was felt to be superior to propaganda and that the public could take the worst news in its stride. The same holds today.

Paul, thank you for taking the time to reply, but I'm very disappointed that you take us for fools. The BBC did not maintain offices in Germany during the war, otherwise they would have been subject to severe restrictions to continue there. The same that Saddam did with CNN, and without a doubt with the BBC too. So your analogy doesn't hold water. You failed to acknowledge if restrictions were placed on the BBC by Saddam, and if not, why not? If so, why hasn't the BBC come clean instead of STILL trying to have us believe that you're a shining beacon of integrity.
You (The BBC) did the same recently over the T word, first claiming that your avoidance of using it was "not to be a barrier to understanding" until Helen Boaden finally admitted it was to avoid offending your world service listeners, and we know how many of a particular persuasion that make up the majority that you are referring to. I think all of us would have a lot more respect for the BBC if you did not take us for fools.
Teddy Bear | Homepage | 23.08.05 - 12:24 am | #

Although Paul replied to various other posts from other contributors he failed to do so to mine, so I asked him another question:

Paul, I see you failed to reply to my question, except to post some non-related blurb about a time when none of us had a problem with the BBC. In fact I think it's fair to say that it is for precisely the reason that we know what the BBC 'WAS' that we are so disappointed, sickened and frustrated with how the BBC 'IS' today. In fact it uses it's past glory to aid the spread of its mostly insidious garbage that is the 'BBC agenda'.

But I'm not surprised you didn't answer the question - because you can't, at least without admitting what we already know.

So here's another one for you, perhaps you can do better with this one. Since you feel that the BBC's online pages are such a mine of information, perhaps you can explain it's failure here.

No doubt you are familiar with Omar Bakri, the cleric who just fled to Lebanon to avoid treason charges. The BBC has given several interviews over the last 5 years with this man as well as giving him ample opportunities to state his twisted point of view. (Where are the Zionists controlling the BBC when you need them?

In the first of these articles on 14/10.2000 following Bakri's appearance on Radio 4, the BBC reported that Bakri said news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/972207.stm

"A Syrian-born activist has called for Muslims in Britain to join a holy war against Israel following the outbreak of violence between Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East.
Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed said it was the duty of all Muslims to give support to the Palestinians.
"They are obliged to support their Muslim brothers in Palestine by raising funds, giving them complete moral support and even some of them going abroad to be joined with their Muslim brothers fighting against Israel," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "
Just over a year later, on 7/1/2002 they quote him as saying
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1746454.stm
'....But Mr Bakri Mohammed, a spokesman for the al-Muhajiroun group, said ..."We are an ideological, political party. We do not recruit people to go and fight on behalf of anybody or to indulge in any military activities."
totally opposite to his previous quote above, AND NO-ONE at the BBC picks up on it. If you read all of the articles, you will see that this is not the only time he contradicts himself, as the prevailing political wind demands, without seemingly any BBC ears pricking up or pointing out the real story behind this man.

Aren't you ashamed of this poor reporting, when the interviewer doesn't even research previous interviews, or is it that the BBC simply doesn't care what these extremists say for fear of antagonizing them?

I wish you better luck with this question.
Teddy Bear | Homepage | 23.08.05 - 9:05 pm | #

I will post any response he gives to this question but I feel he will have the same difficulty as the first.

Last Edit: Mar 25, 2013 1:28:01 GMT by Teddy Bear

BBC = Blatantly Biased Corruption AND Big Brother Coverage AND Brainwashing British Citizens AND Breast-Beating Conmen AND Bloated Baleful Calumny AND Brutish Bullying Cowards

Teddy Bear
Administrator

See What You're Funding

Posts: 5,456

Questions for, and Avoidance by Paul Reynolds Aug 31, 2005 22:13:50 GMT

Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 31, 2005 22:13:50 GMT

Finally Paul condescended to reply, after accusing me first of being abusive to him. I asked him to show me examples, but instead he gave me this answer.

Now to "Teddy Bear": You make so many ponts I have frankly lost count of which I have replied to and which I have not.

But I think the outstanding ones include:

restrctions set by Saddam: yes, there were restrictions of movement and minders tried to get in the way but all that was acknowledged at the time.
being in the other side's capital in time of war is a difficult judgment. WE were in Buenos Aires in the Falklands but I doubt if we would have been in Berlin.

The T word: this has gone round the houses. The BBC has a policy of trying to avoid it and we do not generally use it to describe many cnflicts. However, after the London bombs, you have heard it frequently so it is not dictat.

Bakri: I think that the Panorama programme caught up on a lot of this.

Paul Reynolds BBC
Paul Reynolds | 25.08.05 - 1:55 pm | #

Thanks for the reply Paul.
Re bias in Iraq. When Eason Jordan of CNN admitted to bias during Saddam's Iraq under threat of physical harm to staff there, and closure of offices, he made it clear that every story had to be approved by that regime. You imply that the extent of pressure on the BBC by Saddam was "minders 'tried' to get in the way", as if the BBC were able to thwart or evade them, and still carry on reporting in a 'fair and balanced' manner. I've no doubt that many of us here have noticed that this 'fair and balanced manner' left the BBC decidely anti war in Iraq. The real question is whether this bias is a result of pressure by Saddam, or the BBC agenda anyway. Personally I believe the latter based on the normal slant shown to be the BBC direction. I can see that you are not going to admit to the former, and you certainly are not going to change our perceptions, well documented here, and elsewhere. You say "all that was well documented at the time" - please can you refer me to what exactly was documented.

Re the T word. My point wasn't about its use or non use, which is another discussion in itself. It was about the final admittance by the BBC that the reason for its avoidance was not to offend its world service listeners. This is a disgrace since it it we who pay for it, and the BBC is supposed to represent OUR interests, not the majority of world service liseners who are Muslims. It has not gone unnoticed that much of the BBC coverage related to Muslim affairs gives them a very easy ride, probably for the same reason, including bias in Iraq, and I hope you won't dismiss this point too easily.

Re Bakri: It is all well and good finally having a programme that relates to militant Islam which has been masquerading for so long as moderate Islam. But it comes after an attack on London by militant Muslims. It also comes over 3 years since this article was written about Bakri by the BBC, which completely ignored completely contrary statements he had made one year previously to the BBC, and that by doing so allowed him to portray himself as a moderate. I notice the BBC has now recently removed this relevant article from its website , but I took the precaution of making a copy which I will be making available for view.
What all this means is that the BBC assisted these militants to present their views, which finally led up to us being attacked. You seem to think its okay to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted, but it really doesn't do.

You also said elsewhere that we only focus on the worst aspects of BBC reporting but omit the best. What does the BBC do in its Watchdog programme? If you were a car repair outfit your continual 'mistakes'would be seen to be disgraceful and dangerous. It is only the fact that you are able to police yourselves that gives you the ability to dismiss our findings so casually. I assure you we are not going to stop hammering until we bring a change in the BBC or bring it down, as it deserves at present. You will not sway us with the usual manner in which you affect public opinion. I believe you know it as well, which is probably why you take the time to post here.

To view a copy of the now deleted BBC webpage where Bakri denies ever urging his followers to fight against any regime click here www.geocities.com/teddy_123bear/BBCNewsUKterrortargetclaimdismissed.html

Update 21/9 - It appears that the BBC have replaced the missing page. But I'll keep a copy (just in case)

Last Edit: Sept 21, 2005 22:26:22 GMT by Teddy Bear

BBC = Blatantly Biased Corruption AND Big Brother Coverage AND Brainwashing British Citizens AND Breast-Beating Conmen AND Bloated Baleful Calumny AND Brutish Bullying Cowards

stinkerr
New Member

Posts: 3

Questions for, and Avoidance by Paul Reynolds Sept 15, 2005 3:25:45 GMT

Post by stinkerr on Sept 15, 2005 3:25:45 GMT

A good idea to copy Beeb articles. It makes for proof when they are stealth edited or somehow

disappear into cyberspace. When I find something like that I also make copies. Either screenshots or pdf files do nicely.

Teddy Bear
Administrator

See What You're Funding

Posts: 5,456

Questions for, and Avoidance by Paul Reynolds Nov 13, 2005 23:25:55 GMT

Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 13, 2005 23:25:55 GMT

Paul Reynolds recently tried to defend the BBC by a blog posted by Scott Burgess of 'The American Expatriate'. He let us at Biased BBC Blogspot know by posting this:
I sent Scott Callahan, the American Expatriate, my response on Friday afternoon and am looking forward to seeing it on his site. I have called it the "Callahan Calumnies."
Paul Reynolds
Paul Reynolds | 12.11.05 - 8:35 am | #

My observation of this announcement was:

Must be nice to know your views will probably be posted exactly as you wrote them - available for all to see. Imagine how frustrating it is when one tries to post something on the BBC site that doesn't follow the BBC agenda, and so more often than not, is just binned.
That's who you work for.
Teddy Bear | Homepage | 12.11.05 - 5:47 pm | #

Scott did indeed post his reply, and also his own response, which you can read at the above link for Saturday 12th November. After reading Scott's reply, I then wrote this:

Well, now Paul has had his expectations rewarded, and seen his reply on Scott's site.I somehow doubt, judging from Scott's reply to it, that he is looking backward with quite as much enthusiasm with which he was looking forward to it. However, I respect Paul for at least trying to uphold the BBC, even if he has yet to fully realise that he represents an organisation that is truly on the moral lowground.

Paul, you tried to extricate the BBC from another of its misrepresentations, thinking the one you chose, among the many levelled at them that you prefer to ignore, would be a simple matter. So long as your bosses want to try and convince the public of 'The Emperors New Clothes', even an 8 year old child will still be able to see the Emperors nudity, and easily defy the lies that you would make true. So long as you maintain the BBC course, you will always be on the losing side, morally, logically, and reasonably, unless you are trying to win a Machiavellian award.

BBC = Blatantly Biased Corruption AND Big Brother Coverage AND Brainwashing British Citizens AND Breast-Beating Conmen AND Bloated Baleful Calumny AND Brutish Bullying Cowards

indikit
BBC Hater

Posts: 104

Questions for, and Avoidance by Paul Reynolds Jul 1, 2007 0:09:18 GMT

Post by indikit on Jul 1, 2007 0:09:18 GMT

I just took the time to read Paul Reynolds jumping in among what he must have considered the Hoi Polloi to defend his employment and ignore all of the probing questions.

He just came off as a snotty, humourless, self-important bully. All the hallmarks of top BBC management.

Teddy Bear
Administrator

See What You're Funding

Posts: 5,456

Questions for, and Avoidance by Paul Reynolds Jul 1, 2007 22:07:01 GMT

Post by Teddy Bear on Jul 1, 2007 22:07:01 GMT

You sum him up pretty well Indi', at least in this kind of exchange.
I really think he was so convinced of the 'correctness' of the BBC, that he felt he wasn't going to encounter any real threat to his view. I know I was being abrasive, but only because he was continually ducking the points being made to him. He wasn't there with any kind of open mind, and when examples were given that he couldn't rebut with any degree of success, he used the tack 'of being insulted' to evade them.

BBC = Blatantly Biased Corruption AND Big Brother Coverage AND Brainwashing British Citizens AND Breast-Beating Conmen AND Bloated Baleful Calumny AND Brutish Bullying Cowards

djfearross BBC Hater Posts: 160	Questions for, and Avoidance by Paul Reynolds Jul 24, 2010 18:31:25 GMT Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by djfearross on Jul 24, 2010 18:31:25 GMT well... at least he made an effort to make a few comments. Dialogue is always good, no matter how small.

Questions for, and Avoidance by Paul Reynolds

Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 23, 2005 20:26:23 GMT

Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 31, 2005 22:13:50 GMT

Post by stinkerr on Sept 15, 2005 3:25:45 GMT

Post by Teddy Bear on Nov 13, 2005 23:25:55 GMT

Post by indikit on Jul 1, 2007 0:09:18 GMT

Post by Teddy Bear on Jul 1, 2007 22:07:01 GMT

Post by djfearross on Jul 24, 2010 18:31:25 GMT