OT The "beeb" bobbling in hot water.

[Philip Dei]

Probably this is all over the news in Great Britain, but here
in the United States this new spin on the WMD story is just
starting to make its way in.

A little background as to why this relates to S.A.P.. For
almost a year we have been getting reports from the BBC
concerning paleo-anthropology some of the reports touted as
new were actually old and misinformed at that. Alot of the new
stuff was just plain bad science or interpretation thereof.
Many wondered if the BBC once a fairly well respected news
organization has been taken over by 4th graders. Well the BBC
is in very hot water right now and their brethren in the PBS
arena, NPR has taken there cast against them.

This afternoons NPR report 'talk of the nation' has taken
squarely aim at the BBC for a recent scandal concerning the
Blair government and the weapons inspectors. I their zeal to
want to uncover a coverup over WMD intelligence and reporting
they themselves have become the prey not the predator

Most notably they report that the BBC reporter, I believe the
name is Gillihan

1. Misidentified the occupation of their source as
intelligence officer not a weapons inspector.
2. Transformed Kelly's report with added misinformation
(According to both Kelly's report to cabinet officials and
to others)
3. And the reporter was found not to have been able to get his
own story strait.

NPR is all but blaming the BBC for the suicide of a well
respected weapons inspector.

Now if you have been following the numbers of recent science
reports on human evolution none of this may surprise you, but
apparently it has reached a boil, and BBC may be set for a
shakeup itself. One can expect that the Blair government,
right or wrong, will get a boost from the downing of one of
their most ardent opponents.

All I can say it "I told you so" . . . .lol.

[Pete]

Philip Deitiker wrote:

> the suicide of a well respected weapons inspector.

The CIA is killing all the witnesses. They specialise in
suicide.
http://www.nytimes.com/1975/07/10/magazine/750710OLSON.html
When they can't actually cause suicide, they can fake it.

--
pete

[Anne Gilbe]

Philip:

Not to be rude or anything, but what has this got to do with
paleoanthropology? Anne G
>
> A little background as to why this relates to S.A.P.. For
> almost a year we have been getting reports from the BBC
> concerning paleo-anthropology some of the reports touted as
> new were actually old and misinformed at that. Alot of the
> new stuff was just plain bad science or interpretation
> thereof. Many wondered if the BBC once a fairly well
> respected news organization has been taken over by 4th
> graders. Well the BBC is in very hot water right now and
> their brethren in the PBS arena, NPR has taken there cast
> against them.
>
> This afternoons NPR report 'talk of the nation' has taken
> squarely aim at the BBC for a recent scandal concerning the
> Blair government and the weapons inspectors. I their zeal to
> want to uncover a coverup over WMD intelligence and
> reporting they themselves have become the prey not the
> predator
>
> Most notably they report that the BBC reporter, I believe
> the name is Gillihan
>
> 1. Misidentified the occupation of their source as
> intelligence officer not a weapons inspector.
> 2. Transformed Kelly's report with added misinformation
> (According to both Kelly's report to cabinet officials
> and to others)
> 3. And the reporter was found not to have been able to get
> his own story strait.
>
> NPR is all but blaming the BBC for the suicide of a well
> respected weapons inspector.
>
> Now if you have been following the numbers of recent science
> reports on human evolution none of this may surprise you,
> but apparently it has reached a boil, and BBC may be set for
> a shakeup itself. One can expect that the Blair government,
> right or wrong, will get a boost from the downing of one of
> their most ardent opponents.
>
> All I can say it "I told you so" . . . .lol.

[Philip Dei]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:08:46 GMT, "Anne Gilbert"
<avgilbert@prodigy.net> wrote:

>Philip:
>
>Not to be rude or anything, but what has this got to do with
>paleoanthropology? Anne G
>>
>> A little background as to why this relates to S.A.P.. For
>> almost a year we have been getting reports from the BBC
>> concerning paleo-anthropology some of the reports touted as
>> new were actually old and misinformed at that. Alot of the
>> new stuff was just plain bad science or interpretation
>> thereof. Many wondered if the BBC once a fairly well
>> respected news organization has been taken over by 4th
>> graders. Well the BBC is in very hot water right now and
>> their brethren in the PBS arena, NPR has taken there cast
>> against them.
>>
>> This afternoons NPR report 'talk of the nation' has taken
>> squarely aim at the BBC for a recent scandal concerning the
>> Blair government and the weapons inspectors. I their zeal
>> to want to uncover a coverup over WMD intelligence and
>> reporting they themselves have become the prey not the
>> predator
>>
>> Most notably they report that the BBC reporter, I believe
>> the name is Gillihan
>>
>> 1. Misidentified the occupation of their source as
>> intelligence officer not a weapons inspector.
>> 2. Transformed Kelly's report with added misinformation
>> (According to both Kelly's report to cabinet officials
>> and to others)
>> 3. And the reporter was found not to have been able to get
>> his own story strait.
>>
>> NPR is all but blaming the BBC for the suicide of a well
>> respected weapons inspector.
>>
>> Now if you have been following the numbers of recent
>> science reports on human evolution none of this may
>> surprise you, but apparently it has reached a boil, and BBC
>> may be set for a shakeup itself. One can expect that the
>> Blair government, right or wrong, will get a boost from the
>> downing of one of their most ardent opponents.
>>
>> All I can say it "I told you so" . . . .lol.
>>
>>
>

[Philip Dei]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:08:46 GMT, "Anne Gilbert"
<avgilbert@prodigy.net> wrote:

>Philip:
>
>Not to be rude or anything, but what has this got to do with
>paleoanthropology?

ANNE, are you suddenly worried about topic worthiness. I
explained in the top paragraph its tangential relationship.

Yes, and if you were wondering, it was directed at you,
because seemed to have been a constant source of 'beeb'
misinformation.

[Deowll]

"pete" <pfiland@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F1D207F.55BA@mindspring.com...
> Philip Deitiker wrote:
>
> > the suicide of a well respected weapons inspector.
>
> The CIA is killing all the witnesses. They specialise in
> suicide.
> http://www.nytimes.com/1975/07/10/magazine/750710OLSON.html
> When they can't actually cause suicide, they can fake it.
>
> --
> pete

So who developed this first, the CIA or the FBI? Of course
they both might have come on the idea independently. They've
never worked together all that well.

[Deowll]

"Anne Gilbert" <avgilbert@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:2%mTa.6232$4o1.4116@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> Philip:
>
> Not to be rude or anything, but what has this got to do with
> paleoanthropology? Anne G

The beings under discussion are hominids?

[Anne Gilbe]

Philip:

> ANNE, are you suddenly worried about topic worthiness. I
> explained in the top paragraph its tangential relationship.
>
> Yes, and if you were wondering, it was directed at you,
> because seemed to have been a constant source of 'beeb'
> misinformation.

Um, I was wondering, because you are about the *last* person I
would expect to post here with something so OT. And, well,
let's just put it this way: I've seen enough of what the
"beeb" produces re paleoanthropology to view its contents with
a fairly skeptical eye. Anne g

[Philip Dei]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:55:57 -0500, "deowll"
<deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>The beings under discussion are hominids?

Are you sure you want to consider Tabloid Journalist, Laywers,
and Used Car Salesmen as 'hominids'? ;^).

[Philip Dei]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:53:51 GMT, "Anne Gilbert"
<avgilbert@prodigy.net> wrote:

>> Yes, and if you were wondering, it was directed at you,
>> because seemed to have been a constant source of 'beeb'
>> misinformation.
>
>Um, I was wondering, because you are about the *last* person
>I would expect to post here with something so OT. And, well,
>let's just put it this way: I've seen enough of what the
>"beeb" produces re paleoanthropology to view its contents
>with a fairly skeptical eye.

Then why have you presented so many links to similar 'bad'
journalism? This issue is not WMD, its hyping up shit to sell
a story, which is alot of what the Beeb does today. It has
become the British version of Fox Network.

[Bob Keeter]

"Anne Gilbert" <avgilbert@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3RATa.2688$cW.783@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> Philip:
>
> > ANNE, are you suddenly worried about topic worthiness. I
> > explained in the top paragraph its tangential
> > relationship.
> >
> > Yes, and if you were wondering, it was directed at you,
> > because seemed to have been a constant source of 'beeb'
> > misinformation.
>
> Um, I was wondering, because you are about the *last*
> person I would
expect
> to post here with something so OT. And, well, let's just put
> it this way: I've seen enough of what the "beeb" produces re
> paleoanthropology to view its contents with a fairly
> skeptical eye. Anne g

Now, Anne, you must by now know the first axiom of
Deitikerism. . . . .

If he said it, it must be:

True On topic Amazingly insightful Worthy of engraving in
stone tablets

Not that Im really all that good at playing his game
either. 8-)

Regards bk

ps: Keep on keeping on, big guy! Doing good!

[Ross Macfa]

Philip Deitiker <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
news:<j4vthv4ehk4o9gcqcp8slpv01c6459s5vi@4ax.com>...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:53:51 GMT, "Anne Gilbert"
> <avgilbert@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >> Yes, and if you were wondering, it was directed at you,
> >> because seemed to have been a constant source of 'beeb'
> >> misinformation.
> >
> >Um, I was wondering, because you are about the *last*
> >person I would expect to post here with something so OT.
> >And, well, let's just put it this way: I've seen enough of
> >what the "beeb" produces re paleoanthropology to view its
> >contents with a fairly skeptical eye.
>
> Then why have you presented so many links to similar 'bad'
> journalism? This issue is not WMD, its hyping up shit to
> sell a story, which is alot of what the Beeb does today. It
> has become the British version of Fox Network.

Rubbish. No one with any experience of US & UK media could
claim that. The BBC may have got it wrong this time (in my
opinion they aren't as far in the wrong as the UK government,
but that's beside the point), but they are a publically funded
independent broadcaster of the highest quality, & having no
particular axe to grind. None of which is true of any media
outlet owned by Rupert The Not Aussie.

The BBC produces television content of the highest quality of
any organisation in the world. That includes news, current
affairs, entertainment & documentaries, although Walking With
Cavemen is an obvious and glaring exception to the latter. PBS
is the only US broadcaster with any pretensions to such a
level of quality, but simply hasn't the resources to get close
to the BBC.

Ross Macfarlane

[Philip Dei]

On 23 Jul 2003 21:00:29 -0700, rmacfarl@alphalink.com.au (Ross
Macfarlane) wrote:

That includes news, current affairs,
>entertainment & documentaries, although Walking With
>Cavemen is an obvious and glaring exception to the latter.
>PBS is the only US broadcaster with any pretensions to such
>a level of quality, but simply hasn't the resources to get
>close to the BBC.

I think if you look at their track record in the last year it
isn't that good, the material they have published is well
below what they have published in the past.

[Ross Macfa]

Philip Deitiker <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
news:<mc00ivg2o6hcp0pvoqfs0f88v2b6nrqm96@4ax.com>...
> On 23 Jul 2003 21:00:29 -0700, rmacfarl@alphalink.com.au
> (Ross Macfarlane) wrote:
>
> That includes news, current affairs,
> >entertainment & documentaries, although Walking With
> >Cavemen is an obvious and glaring exception to the latter.
> >PBS is the only US broadcaster with any pretensions to such
> >a level of quality, but simply hasn't the resources to get
> >close to the BBC.
>
> I think if you look at their track record in the last year
> it isn't that good, the material they have published is well
> below what they have published in the past.

You've leapt to judgement on the basis of only 2 instances so
far, unless you want to add to your list. The list of what the
BBC has done right is a lot longer & stretches back a lot
further than 1 year.

The Life Of Mammals & Walking With Beasts are 2 recent pluses
on the nature documentary side, but wide you like to try a
side-by-side comparison of the US vs UK networks' coverage of
the Iraq war?

I'm sensitive to this subject because the Australian Minister
for "Communications" is attacking the ABC over its Iraq
coverage, which was vastly better & less jingoistic than the
commercial networks riding the Coalition Of The Wallies
bandwagon. He's threatening to bring in an panel to review
complaints of "bias", because the ABC knocked back 66 out of
68 of his whinges.

It could be because he really wants "independent" review of
the national broadcaster, or it could be that he is, as he was
described on the ABC's youth radio network this morning, "A
pig-rooting right-wing bastard".

End of OT rant...

Ross Macfarlane

[Philip Dei]

On 24 Jul 2003 16:58:25 -0700, rmacfarl@alphalink.com.au (Ross
Macfarlane) wrote:

>You've leapt to judgement on the basis of only 2 instances so
>far, unless you want to add to your list. The list of what
>the BBC has done right is a lot longer & stretches back a lot
>further than 1 year.

No there have been about 10 articles I can think of on their
site that were truely crap.

>I'm sensitive to this subject because the Australian Minister
>for "Communications" is attacking the ABC over its Iraq
>coverage, which was vastly better & less jingoistic than the
>commercial networks riding the Coalition Of The Wallies
>bandwagon. He's threatening to bring in an panel to review
>complaints of "bias", because the ABC knocked back 66 out of
>68 of his whinges.

US ABC gave the best coverage I think of any news
organization, and they managed also to get fewer reporters
killed doing nut-job things.

PBS gave good coverage but they are often distal and use
reports from freelance journalist. PBS still maintains a
reasonably good reputation but this "Kleinistic" documentary
they gave in spring really sucked so bad I couldn't watch
it.

[Deowll]

"Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
news:dcvthv4hq03tmks0o1tf1s8f1p2atanujj@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:55:57 -0500, "deowll"
> <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> >The beings under discussion are hominids?
>
> Are you sure you want to consider Tabloid Journalist,
> Laywers, and Used Car Salesmen as 'hominids'? ;^).
>
>
>
You got me. I think they belong to pan. None of them are
posting in the group to defend themselves.

[Deowll]

"Ross Macfarlane" <rmacfarl@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:18fa6145.0307232000.2ddf9936@posting.google.com...
> Philip Deitiker <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
news:<j4vthv4ehk4o9gcqcp8slpv01c6459s5vi@4ax.com>...
> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:53:51 GMT, "Anne Gilbert"
> > <avgilbert@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> Yes, and if you were wondering, it was directed at you,
> > >> because seemed to have been a constant source of 'beeb'
> > >> misinformation.
> > >
> > >Um, I was wondering, because you are about the *last*
> > >person I would
expect
> > >to post here with something so OT. And, well, let's just
> > >put it this
way:
> > >I've seen enough of what the "beeb" produces re
> > >paleoanthropology to
view
> > >its contents with a fairly skeptical eye.
> >
> > Then why have you presented so many links to similar 'bad'
> > journalism? This issue is not WMD, its hyping up shit to
> > sell a story, which is alot of what the Beeb does today.
> > It has become the British version of Fox Network.
>
> Rubbish. No one with any experience of US & UK media could
> claim that. The BBC may have got it wrong this time (in my
> opinion they aren't as far in the wrong as the UK
> government, but that's beside the point), but they are a
> publically funded independent broadcaster of the highest
> quality, & having no particular axe to grind. None of which
> is true of any media outlet owned by Rupert The Not Aussie.
>
> The BBC produces television content of the highest quality
> of any organisation in the world. That includes news,
> current affairs, entertainment & documentaries, although
> Walking With Cavemen is an obvious and glaring exception to
> the latter. PBS is the only US broadcaster with any
> pretensions to such a level of quality, but simply hasn't
> the resources to get close to the BBC.
>
> Ross Macfarlane

If they are human they have a point of view and an ax to
grind. It can't be helped. It is always easier to see it in
somebody that is foolish enought to say something that you
don't agree with of course than those who are wise enough to
agree with ones self. ?8^)