The British Media - By Pat Condell

[Lozzer]

I'm disappointed with him, really. The BBC and The Guardian are two of Britain's only media institutions with a respectable integrity, and intelligence. They're the vehicles of endorsing diversity, encouraging tolerance and promoting the arts in the country. What else would he recommend for 'impartiality' in their stead, the Daily Mail?

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm disappointed with him, really. The BBC and The Guardian are two of Britain's only media institutions with a respectable integrity, and intelligence. They're the vehicles of endorsing diversity, encouraging tolerance and promoting the arts in the country. What else would he recommend for 'impartiality' in their stead, the Daily Mail?

So, being unbiased means "endorsing" - "encouraging" and "promoting"?

[Lozzer]

I'm disappointed with him, really. The BBC and The Guardian are two of Britain's only media institutions with a respectable integrity, and intelligence. They're the vehicles of endorsing diversity, encouraging tolerance and promoting the arts in the country. What else would he recommend for 'impartiality' in their stead, the Daily Mail?

So, being unbiased means "endorsing" - "encouraging" and "promoting"?

When you're a nationalised television network subsided by a pluralised population of many different sexualities, religions, ethncities etc, then yes.

[Coito ergo sum]

Gotcha - encouraging, endorsing and promoting certain things is unbiased news, rather than simply reporting accurately what happened. Gotcha.

[Robert_S]

"Multi-culti pricks" is an anger-inducing epithet and the bits about the once great BBC in decline is fear-mongering.

I'm not criticizing his actual message so much as the tone of both of his words and his delivery. On first listen they overshadow any points he might be raising. It's off-putting and I don't see it as really being able to reach the so-called multi-culti pricks. Those people seem to be more afraid (probably unreasonably) of being bigoted themselves than of allowing a bigoted outside culture to have it's way.

[Lozzer]

Gotcha - encouraging, endorsing and promoting certain things is unbiased news, rather than simply reporting accurately what happened. Gotcha.

Erm no, it's just the BBC is more stringent and eager not to cause 'offence' when reporting, or discussing certain matters. It's much more euphemistic than 'biased'.

[Coito ergo sum]

Gotcha - encouraging, endorsing and promoting certain things is unbiased news, rather than simply reporting accurately what happened. Gotcha.

Erm no, it's just the BBC is more stringent and eager not to cause 'offence' when reporting, or discussing certain matters. It's much more euphemistic than 'biased'.

That, I think, is the gist of what Condell is on about. Modifying one's reporting such that one does not offend CERTAIN people. Clearly, offending Geert Wilders and/or his supporters is not among the issues that the BBC is worried about. Offending them is just fine.

[Lozzer]

Gotcha - encouraging, endorsing and promoting certain things is unbiased news, rather than simply reporting accurately what happened. Gotcha.

Erm no, it's just the BBC is more stringent and eager not to cause 'offence' when reporting, or discussing certain matters. It's much more euphemistic than 'biased'.

That, I think, is the gist of what Condell is on about. Modifying one's reporting such that one does not offend CERTAIN people. Clearly, offending Geert Wilders and/or his supporters is not among the issues that the BBC is worried about. Offending them is just fine.

Modifying suggests an intentional manipulation of the truth, where as the BBC just subtly moderates its language, but retains accurate reporting. Geert Wilders is considered right-wing by many people, and calling him 'far right' is hardly significant in the grand scheme of media bias, particularly in comparison to the flagrant disregard for reality by Murdoch's press.

[The Red Fox]

So...you agree with him about the BBC, but you just think it's too obvious for him to complain about?

The problem with Condell's adorable rant is that he suggests the BBC no longer represents the views it used to (white British imperialism) and is therefore a biased organisation. It's the same complaint everyone makes about the BBC on all sides of the political spectrum. Depending on where you stand they're either "left-wing multi-culti middle class pricks" (as Condell so ineloquently put it), or the darling of the establishment propping up the status quo, and a mouthpiece of right-wing capitalism. In other words, the BBC was only ever impartial when he agreed with it. That's not how impartiality works and Condell sorely needs to learn that lesson.

Instead of a nuanced critique of probable biases in BBC reporting, which in itself tends to be fairly accurate on most issues which aren't politically sensitive such as drugs, Condell just launches into a tirade of a perceived take-over of a once fine bastion of British supremacy by those awful humus eating lefties. I can almost guarantee that Condell is on the BBC almost daily looking for news and complaining about the articles. The now defunct Have Your Say section was mostly filled with people exactly like him complaining about the very organisation giving them their bloody news! Hypocrites.

Just out of curiosity, who has accused the BBC in the last 25 years of being a mouthpiece of right-wing capitalism?

It's by no means as common, but I think the SWP are the biggest critics of the BBC from that perspective. Why? Because they're further to the left than the BBC. It's all down to perspective. Pat Condell has little perspective and can't see beyond his narrow political opinions.

[Callan]

Thanks for posting this, CES - I needed a giggle.

[Audley Strange]

That's not paranoia regarding Islam. If anything, that's paranoia about the multi-culti dicks, or whatever he called them.

You don't have to go through "all his tedious videos." It's just this video that you said was paranoia regarding Islam. So far, you haven't taken issue with what he said about Islam in this video.

He hasn't said anything about Islam that Sam Harris hasn't also said. Dawkins and Harris both say that various moderate forces in the world "provide cover" for the extremists, and I've heard Sam Harris state unequivocally that the liberal left also provides such cover. And, I've heard Hitchens suggest that the multi-culti left "carries water" for extremist Muslims.

Perhaps it's Condell's tone of voice that bothers you more than the substance of what he said?

No it's not just his video that I said was paranoia regarding Islam. Read what I wrote again. As for Dawkins, Harris. I'm not particularly interested in their POV's about multi-culturalism any more than I would be the Home secretary's opinions on biology or Philosophy, I don't know why you chose to invoke them as authorities on the matter. Hitchens is a different matter, but I do disagree with him on this point to a great extent.

It's not Condell's tone of voice that bothers me, it's his exaggeration of problems to alarmist proportions and blaming people for those problems who have very little to do with them. I'm not a fan of the Guardian nor the BBC, but contrary to what Condell would have you believe they are not shy of criticising things like sharia law, honour killing, radicalisation of Islamic youth by crazy Imams nor the treatment of women within that religion.

He goes off on one because the Newsreader referred to Geert Wilders as (correctly as) Right Wing (since his party is a right centrist conservative party.) as if the BBC was calling for Jihad against the infidel. They did not compare Geert Wilders to the Nazis, Condell did that then used his erroneous thinking to whine about the lack of impartiality of an organisation that has never been objectively impartial. Perhaps he doesn't like the fact that he is a right wing reactionary, though why, when he's whining about the left, I have no idea.

Condell is fucking moron and I've wasted enough of my time discussing him. Feel free to disagree.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's not paranoia regarding Islam. If anything, that's paranoia about the multi-culti dicks, or whatever he called them.

You don't have to go through "all his tedious videos." It's just this video that you said was paranoia regarding Islam. So far, you haven't taken issue with what he said about Islam in this video.

He hasn't said anything about Islam that Sam Harris hasn't also said. Dawkins and Harris both say that various moderate forces in the world "provide cover" for the extremists, and I've heard Sam Harris state unequivocally that the liberal left also provides such cover. And, I've heard Hitchens suggest that the multi-culti left "carries water" for extremist Muslims.

Perhaps it's Condell's tone of voice that bothers you more than the substance of what he said?

No it's not just his video that I said was paranoia regarding Islam. Read what I wrote again. As for Dawkins, Harris. I'm not particularly interested in their POV's about multi-culturalism any more than I would be the Home secretary's opinions on biology or Philosophy, I don't know why you chose to invoke them as authorities on the matter.

Because they've said the same things that Condell is saying, albeit in different tones of voice, but are not called fear or hate-mongers, etc.

Hitchens is a different matter, but I do disagree with him on this point to a great extent.

It's not Condell's tone of voice that bothers me, it's his exaggeration of problems to alarmist proportions and blaming people for those problems who have very little to do with them.

Like what? I hear him blaming Islam for the things that Islam does and the ideas it fosters.

I'm not a fan of the Guardian nor the BBC, but contrary to what Condell would have you believe they are not shy of criticising things like sharia law, honour killing, radicalisation of Islamic youth by crazy Imams nor the treatment of women within that religion.

That I would like to see.

He goes off on one because the Newsreader referred to Geert Wilders as (correctly as) Right Wing (since his party is a right centrist conservative party.)

FAR - right wing, and the reason they do that is to marginalize and demonize Wilders.

as if the BBC was calling for Jihad against the infidel. They did not compare Geert Wilders to the Nazis, Condell did that then used his erroneous thinking to whine about the lack of impartiality of an organisation that has never been objectively impartial. Perhaps he doesn't like the fact that he is a right wing reactionary, though why, when he's whining about the left, I have no idea.

I don't know - it seems like the name calling "right wing reactionary" and such just winds up being a way to discount all of what a person says. It seems to be a common thing from the far Left - smear the person, and refuse to acknowledge the truth of even the most mundane claim, because one does not want to be accused of agreeing with an unsavory character.

Condell is fucking moron and I've wasted enough of my time discussing him. Feel free to disagree.

He's funny. He has a funny way of putting things and cutting to essential truths.

[The Red Fox]

I'm not a fan of the Guardian nor the BBC, but contrary to what Condell would have you believe they are not shy of criticising things like sharia law, honour killing, radicalisation of Islamic youth by crazy Imams nor the treatment of women within that religion.

That I would like to see.

I've seen a fair few articles in the Guardian about these subjects over the years, I don't think I've once seen an article defending any of those things. I'm not a massive fan of the ideology underpinning the Guardian, but it tends to be more even-handed about matters than most papers. Here are just two examples of Guardian articles criticising Islamism:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... NTCMP=SRCH

A frail, ill-looking Zawahiri stabbed the air repeatedly as he delivered his barbaric message to new audiences that are now operationally accessible for al-Qaida in Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Pakistan and Somalia...My hope is that before Zawahiri feels safe enough to relocate to an Arab country, the US armed forces will annihilate this adversary, too.

How pro-Islamist can you possibly get?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... NTCMP=SRCH

Hasan defends the Federation of Student Islamic Societies against claims of not doing enough to challenge extremist ideology by saying that, in holding a conference on campus extremism, they have done their bit. One wishes it was so simple. Many of these societies have over the years invited odious, hate-filled speakers who are virulently antisemitic, anti-gay, anti-west and ideologues of terror. Unchallenged by a liberal academia who prefer to view such activity through the prism of academic debate and free speech, is it any wonder that such an environment has produced people like the alleged transatlantic bomber, Umar Abdulmutallab, ex-president of the University College London Islamic Society?