Tag Archives: BBC

OK, enough, this has to stop

The Daily Mail is still publishing stories about the BBC’s non-banning of AD/BC from ever more bizarre sources:

Vatican

The ‘journalist’ behind this article is Simon Caldwell and if he doesn’t realise that this story is a complete lie, then he must be one of the most incompetent journalists around, or one of the most morally bankrupt. The article is just breathtakingly dishonest:

The Vatican has accused the BBC of an ‘act of enormous foolishness’ for dumping the terms BC and AD in case they cause offence to non-Christians.

The Roman Catholic Church also severely criticised the ‘senseless hypocrisy’ of Britain’s public service broadcaster for using a false respect for other religions to purge Christianity from Western culture.

Caldwell claims, despite the BBC issuing clarifying statements and the original Mail on Sunday admitting that each presenter was free to choose what terms to use, that:

The new guidance from the BBC asserts that the abbreviations for Before Christ and Anno Domini (the Year of the Lord) infringed its protocols on impartiality.

It instructs employees to instead replace them with the non-religious phrases BCE and BC – Before Common Era and Common Era.

No, the BBC have not issued any such instructions. Anybody with seconds in which to search Google knows this. Everyone who knows how the Daily Mail blusters and lies constantly to attack the BBC for the most inane reasons knows that any such story should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

How can articles like this be published? How can the Daily Mail exist in such a vacuum of truth? This story was an invention of the Mail on Sunday and it was immediately debunked – indeed people reading to the end of the Mail on Sunday article realised that is was invented because the Mail on Sunday admitted as much in the original article. Yet here we are, another myth has entered part of the national consciousness – the paranoid, ignorant and vocal minority of Daily Mail readers who our politicians feel it is so important to pander to.

I cannot clearly express how frustrated and angry I am becoming that shit like this can be published day after day when it is just a lie, a complete fucking lie. The BBC have never issued any order for presenters to abandon AD/BC and you only have to watch BBC programmes to realise that AD/BC is still used, frequently. It is beyond a joke now. People lap this bullshit up, believing it even though it seems laughable to anyone with half a brain how anyone could take this myth seriously.

We need proper press regulation because a loud minority have provided consistent evidence that they do not have the mental capacity to tell fact from fiction anymore and they must be saved from their own ignorance.

As for the Vatican: this is an organisation that can find the time to be outraged at the BBC because they are under the false impression that they are swapping one arbitrary term for another; whilst they are painstakingly attempting to cover-up years of systematic child abuse. I think they need to reassess their priorities.

George Carey: ‘Challenged’

George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, weighed in a couple of days ago (not sure how I missed it) on the BBC unequivocally NOT BANNING THE USE OF AD/BC: ‘Why are we letting the BBC abandon the Year of our Lord?’.

This myth is interesting because we’ve all been there at the inception of it – that first article plastered on the Mail on Sunday front page. We’ve all known from the off – simply by reading the whole article – that it was complete rubbish and every single idiot that has repeated it since whilst frothing away at a keyboard should hang up their rage-worn fingers in shame. If they did we could kiss goodbye to the following ‘writers':

  • James Deliingpole
  • Richard Littlejohn
  • Melanie Phillips
  • Steve Doughty
  • Boris Johnson

What a wonderful world that would be.

Anyway, Tabloid Watch has carefully documented the way this myth has been happily repeated by people who must be aware that it is a complete lie, but just don’t care. It’s even won the Tabloid Bullshit of the Month award – for which it was necessary for the award to be issued to everybody writing at both the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail.

Anyway, in wades the Bishop irrespective of all this:

Dionysius Exiguus would be dumbfounded at the attempts by the BBC to issue guidelines that amount to ditching the well-known terms in our calendar, BC and AD…

[so] why does the BBC wish to challenge and, we assume, discard this ancient usage?

Wait, sorry Mr Carey, did you just write ‘assume’? You ‘assume’ they are trying to ‘challenge’ or ‘discard’ BC/AD but surely you’ve had enough time to look into the matter? I will not bore you with the whole piece of persecution-complex drivel but I will pick out a few classic Daily-Mail-reader/writer devices/ For example, the classic ‘I’m not… but’ used here:

I am trying to be charitable to the BBC in not seeing this as a deliberate attempt to sideline the Christian faith, but I am quite sure that it amounts to a denial of our Christian heritage.

Breathtaking. Absolutely breathtaking. Just re-read that a couple of times to appreciate the mental leap it takes to join those two opposed ideas together in one sentence.

Next up, wheel out some more tabloid lies to support the lie you’re currently writing about:

The BBC changes are only a symptom of this crisis of historical memory.

We have recently seen the police investigate a cafe owner for displaying biblical texts. Street preachers have been arrested for handing out leaflets about the Christian faith. Nurses and other workers have been barred from wearing crosses.

A doctor is currently being investigated for praying with and for a patient.

The cafe owner was spoken to after the police received complaints that what was being displayed was homophobic – nothing to do with it being a Christian text. Nurses have to remove all jewelry – and a cross is not classed as being an essential part of the Christian faith – i.e. it is not standard practice to wear one, but personal choice (see Bill Hicks on why Christians should perhaps stop wearing them). Basically, tabloid stories about Christians being persecuted should always be taken with a huge dose of salt, not repeated as fact to support the lie you’re currently spreading.

To round off a thoroughly ignorant article Mr Carey finishes with a wish I’ve read all too often lately:

I would like to think that the BBC might rethink the guidelines it has sent out to its programme directors but, if that is too much to expect, is it too much to hope that presenters will use their intelligence and ignore such silly and yet potentially harmful advice?

Editorial decision rests with each producer / presenter Mr Carey, hence why the Daily Mail have also been moaning that different programmes switch between the two – and some programmes even use the terms interchangeably. I do recall watching QI on the weekend and Stephen Fry used BC. What you ‘would like to think’ about the BBC is actually the reality, had you only looked briefly into the matter you could have avoided inflicting your stupidity on the world.

For once, I will leave the (almost) last word to the utterly, utterly brilliant Mail sub who wrote this caption underneath a photo of George Carey:

Challenged

I could not think of a more fitting term.


With thanks to Metaltoast for pointing out this article to me.

Mail on Sunday becomes Daily Star

This has already been covered by Tabloid Watch, but it’s worth covering here just so you don’t miss out on the full splendour of the Mail on Sunday’s front page today:

Mail on Sunday

The article is also currently the leading story on the Mail website as well:

The article starts with some common claims:

The BBC has been accused of ‘absurd political correctness’ after dropping the terms BC and AD in case they offend non-Christians.

The Corporation has replaced the familiar Anno Domini (the year of Our Lord) and Before Christ with the obscure terms Common Era and Before Common Era.

That indiscriminate group of ‘non-Christians’ that secretly rule the world are at it again, and the BBC are clearly nothing more than an anti-Christian propaganda machine.

The truth in this matter, as Tabloid Watch points out, is very clear and contained within the article:

The BBC said last night: ‘The BBC has not issued editorial guidance on the date systems.

‘Both AD and BC, and CE and BCE are widely accepted date systems and the decision on which term to use lies with individual production and editorial teams.’

Indeed, the Mail complains that some presenters / programmes switch between the two – clearly evidencing that the BBC has made no attempt to banish AD / BC. It’s very depressing even writing about this subject given how utterly insignificant it is. It’s just pathetic that a national newspaper has nothing better to concern itself with than an embarrassing accusation about the irrelevant change in language that the BBC is merely reflecting in its programming.

But of course, this isn’t just harmless fluff because it is just part of the agenda to create an atmosphere of victimisation in which good old white Christians can’t even use AD/BC anymore because it offends ‘non-Christians’ – a term which is never going to be taken to mean atheists, but rather foreign people. Or, more specifically, as can be seen in the Mail comments section (530 and counting): Muslims.


UPDATE: James ‘wrong about everything, ever’ Delingpole has found himself part of the ‘Rightminds’ team and has come up with this: ‘How the BBC fell for a Marxist plot to destroy civilisation from within’. Seriously:

When you mention to a Muslim or Hindu that the year is 2011, do you ever feel a twinge of guilt about your closet religious chauvinism? When you watch the old Raquel Welch film One Million Years BC, do you blushingly avert your gaze from the title sequence? When you catch your children reading 2000AD, do you furiously insist that they read something less offensive, such as The Beano or The Dandy, instead?

Well, the BBC thinks you should and it is taking action on your behalf. No longer will its website refer to those bigoted, Christian-centric concepts AD (as in Anno Domini – the Year of Our Lord) and BC (Before Christ). From now on, it will use initials which strip our traditional Gregorian calendar of its offensive religious context. All reference to Christ has been expunged, replaced by the terms CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before Common Era).

He continues:

And so yet another small part of our tradition, language and culture takes a step closer to extinction. We didn’t ask for it; we didn’t want it; yet still it’s happening because a tiny minority of politically correct busybodies have wormed their way into institutions such as the BBC and taken control.

This then leads him to this nugget:

Their goal is to create a world where Left-wing thinking – on ‘fairness’, on race, on sexual equality, on the role of government – becomes the norm. So far, they are doing brilliantly.

Rightminds, again, demonstrating that it will happily publish any old rubbish, even when the basis of the entire dribbling, foam-mouthed rant is a complete fiction.

HT @LissyNumber

Melanie Phillips: in her own little world

Melanie Phillips. Mad Mel. Someone who I recall was once memorably described on Twitter as ‘batshit, faeces up the wall insane’. It says something that even in the reality vacuum, outrage baiting world of Daily Mail columnists, Melanie Phillips can still pull out a column so deranged that you have to re-read its title over-and-over whilst punching yourself in the face just to make sure your eyes are not deceiving you. Today she gets stuck into the Phone Hacking scandal with her own unique perspective: ‘If Miliband is such a hero, why won’t he tackle the REAL threat to our way of life – the BBC?’.

Seriously. ‘If Miliband is such a hero, why won’t he tackle the REAL threat to our way of life – the BBC?’.

And why, you might reasonably ask is the BBC a ‘threat to our way of life’ (whatever Phillips’ might mean by ‘our’)? Well, because the BBC:

is a media oligarchy which exercises far more power in Britain than News International…

The BBC’s monopoly over the media is indeed a running scandal. After all, just imagine if News International had been given the legal power to levy a tax on everyone who bought a newspaper in order to fund the Murdoch empire.

So, ignoring the fact that the News of the World has closed down after constant allegations / revelations over phone-hacking, police corruption and political collusion / blind-eye-turning at the highest level we should ignore all of that – and the wider role of News International in creating a culture in which this is all fine – and instead focus on media monopolies as if this is what the story is really about. Even for Melanie Phillips this is stretching credibility beyond breaking point.

She continues:

Indeed, since it is a direct competitor of BSkyB, the disproportion and relish with which the BBC has been reporting the News of the World scandal — allowing it on some current affairs shows to drive out all other news — leaves a very bad taste in the mouth. Moreover, the BBC’s role in all this is even more questionable when you factor in the real reason for Miliband’s double standard.

For his motives surely have precious little to do with any criminal behaviour or monopoly power. No, the real reason is that for the past three decades the Left has been desperate to bring Murdoch down.

For such people, he is a hate figure of diabolical proportions. The venom and hysteria he inspires are truly irrational.

Isn’t it strange to read this version of history about ‘the left’ when I seem to recall Murdoch switching allegiance to Labour when it was clear the Tories were finished in 1997 and Murdoch and Tony Blair having a very cosy relationship. I don’t recall any politician of substance (perhaps because there are so few of them) trying to take down Murdoch or even discuss it. It seems Melanie is just making stuff up to fit her warped world view in which the BBC are the Labour party or more generally ‘the left’ simply because they don’t take the same frothing right-wing editorial line as the Daily Mail or indeed they don’t subscribe to Phillips’ fantasy version of Britain. From what i’ve read – and I could of course be wrong – the real darkness of this scandal is that almost every politician irrespective of party has been either in bed with News International or to fearful to ever question it and that has led to the current situation.

Phillips continues – in an extremely influential right-wing newspaper that holds – in the words of Nick Davies – ‘outstanding political influence':

Murdoch’s real crime in the eyes of the Left-wing intelligentsia is simply that he has stood in the way of their total capture of the culture.

The dominance of Left-wing ideas has been such that even among so-called conservatives, many of them have become accepted as mainstream. And one of the most powerful architects of that shift has been the BBC.

Yes, the Left-wing and their cultural dominance. That cultural dominance so widely-expressed through the Guardian and the Daily Mirror and… well, that’s it. It always amuses me when the overwhelmingly right-wing press claims to be the victim of some kind of left-wing, liberal conspiracy to stop them getting their own way. As far as I can determine the only mass of people capable of stopping right-wing ideas gaining complete dominance is the public. As much as it would pain Phillips to admit, the reality is that (shock horror) her ideas are only supported by a minority of blinkered Daily Mail readers. It isn’t a left-wing liberal elite that is preventing her ideas from spreading, but the fact that her ideas are so utterly repellent and stupid that the public as a whole just ignore her.

She finally does get to the point about why the BBC is the ‘real threat to our way of life':

the BBC’s output rests upon certain articles of faith.

For example, traditional Christians are all fundamentalist bigots; the science of man-made global warming is settled; opponents of mass immigration are racist; Eurosceptics are swivel-eyed fanatics; and all who oppose these opinions and more are Right-wing extremists.

And then to add insult to injury, the BBC forces people to pay for the privilege of being told day in, day out that their own views are stupid or prejudiced.

So, in short, because the BBC has a different opinion to her (even if it is based on science or facts etc) it is a threat to ‘our’ way of life (by which she really means ‘her view of the world’). Wonderful stuff indeed. It really puts the Daily Mail into sharp perspective when you consider it sees fit to pay Melanie Phillips a wage for writing this moronic, self-indulgent drivel.

If you want the full ‘glory’ of the article, you can read it here via istyosty.com.

Hypocrisy (again)

Sometimes you just need a screenshot to demonstrate how hypocritical the Daily Mail is:

Daily Mail Hypocrisy

So, the BBC is criticised for showing something that the Daily Mail takes great pleasure in raking over for the delight of morbid readers. As for the question ‘Can TV stoop any lower?’ I can only refer to the words of Charlie Brooker on this one:

if TV broadcast the kind of material you see in the press – if it paid women in lingerie to recount graphic celebrity fuck’n’tell stories, or shoved its cameras up the skirts of girls exiting taxis so viewers could wank to the sight of their knickers, or routinely broadcast grossly misleading and openly one-sided news reports designed to perpetuate fear and bigotry – if the box in the corner smeared that shit on its screen for 10 seconds a night, it’d generate a pile of complaints high enough to scrape the crust from the underside of Mars.


UPDATE:

The Daily Mail is now leading with this story:

Hipocracy once again from the Daily Mail

In the media spotlight

Last month the Daily Mail wrote a worried piece titled: ‘How will children ever grow up if schools won’t let them take risks?‘ which was followed by the following in bold: ‘A passionate attack on politically correct nannying by the inspirational teacher sacked for allowing pupils to go’. Not only does this highlight Stewart Lee’s point that a lot of people confuse ‘political correctness’ with health and safety legislation. The teacher in question – Richard Tremelling who was Head of Technology at Cefn Hengoed School in Swansea – has received coverage from all major media outlets for allegedly being sacked for taking some students sledging without carrying out any form of risk assessment.

Obviously the school in question has now been on the receiving end of a large amount of angry correspondence from people who were encouraged by certain newspapers to contact the school about such an outrageous decision. The deputy head – Geoff Brookes – has now responded to this correspondence he has received in a humorous manner and confirms that ‘the reality of the case was much more complicated than that and I can’t go into it now for legal reasons’. What he finds ‘fascinating’ is the response he has received from those encouraged to contact the school:

It could have been quite hurtful if it wasn’t so bizarre. Clearly, there are people out there who have far too much time on their hands, along with access to old typewriters – still the instrument of choice in some of the remoter areas – while the skill of corresponding in capital letters using a blunt pencil clearly continues to thrive in Essex.

It is disturbing that there are those who accept everything they read at face value. If it appears in their newspaper of choice, then it must be true. So the letters are based on half truths, incomplete understanding and assumptions. A tabloid headline seems to confirm the fears of the confused elderly about the state of the world and draws out their prejudices along with lined paper and a grubby brown envelope.

One writer seems to regard ‘Allo ‘Allo! as a wartime documentary. Apparently, if we had been in charge “between 1939 and 1945 we’d all be speaking German now, doing the double-time goose step and calling each other Fritz and Heidi”. Another letter tells me it is my fault that “the country is full of queers, tramps, no-goods, dossers and what have you”. No wonder my performance management document is published in chapters.

“You should bow your head in shame,” another letter tells me and I could hardly disagree, given the fact that I am responsible for raising “wimps in a litigious society”. It is something I can tell my grandchildren, I suppose. “No wonder the country is in such a mess.” In fact our purpose is to “grind the planet to a standstill”. This explains why I am so tired at night.

The attitudes that underpin some of the letters are very disturbing and primitive. Our leadership team is described as half-wits “who speak a language no one outside of Wales can understand or would want to”. How do they know? A writer from Bristol addresses the headteacher helpfully, saying that “one characteristic of the female mind which I have recognised from observation during my lifetime is that women placed in positions of authority lack the ability to use the judgment that men could make”. Sadly, the rest of the letter isn’t quite as reasoned or well balanced.

I urge you to go and read the rest and consider, once again, just what impact newspapers do have on people. As easy as it is to think that no-one really believes what they read in the papers, there is a lot of evidence that they do. And when they do, it is those at the center of the story have to face the consequences.

The Unacceptable state of medical reporting

A recent study found that when compression-only CPR was conducted by bystanders with the assistance of a dispatcher the survival rate of victims suffering from cardiac arrest improved. The NHS Behind the headlines team point out that the researchers ‘do not advocate from their findings that people should make a deliberate decision to avoid mouth-to-mouth resuscitation without guidance from the emergency services’. Furthermore:

Importantly, all the incidents included in this study were of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to heart-related problems; the researchers say that other studies have found that standard CPR is better for cardiac arrest with non-cardiac causes (e.g. drowning, trauma and asphyxia, which would be the case in most arrests in babies and children). [emphasis is mine]

The NHS try to make clear that this is important, ‘well-conducted research’ but that the ‘findings only apply to this population in these specific circumstances, and do not apply to the general public in all circumstances’. They even point out that ‘many emergency medical dispatchers in the UK make recommendations to bystanders of an adult cardiac arrest that are broadly consistent with these findings anyway’.

So, how did our responsible media report these findings?

First up the BBC goes with: ‘Study backs chest compressions in resuscitation‘. They start with:

Concentrating on chest compressions rather than mouth-to-mouth when giving emergency resuscitation can produce better results, says research published in The Lancet.

Although they give plenty of information they fail to really gets to grips with the specificity of what the researchers found and the reader is probably left with the impression that avoiding mouth-to-mouth when performing CPR is always likely to produce ‘better results’. Therefore the article is, to a certain extent, misleading.

Next up the Telegraph chooses to go with: ‘Skip the ‘kiss’ when giving the kiss of life doctors recommend‘. The article starts with:

Skip the ‘kiss’ when giving the kiss of life, doctors advise, as study reveals performing only chest compressions is more effective at saving lives.

Again, the article fails to mention the specificity of the results and is accompanied by a photo of two female lifeguards, one performing CPR on the other on a wet beach. Clearly the photo is illustrating the resuscitation of someone who has drowned, a situation in which traditional CPR (with the ‘kiss’) is better according to the NHS (see above). The article is broadly the same as the BBC in that it is misleading because it generalises very specific findings – in particular the Telegraph’s assertion that ‘doctors advise’ people ‘skip the “kiss” when giving the kiss of life’ is a complete invention given the very limited set of recommendations given in respect to a very specific set of circumstances.

Finally, the Daily Mail went with: ‘Kiss of death: Does mouth to mouth put lives at risk?‘. As usual the Daily Mail feels the need to sensationalise the headline to a frankly ludicrous degree and the start of the article continues the trend:

It may be called the kiss of life, but mouth-to-mouth resuscitation could actually be anything but.

According to experts, the treatment can in fact hinder heart attack patients’ chances of survival.

As with the other two articles the Mail fails to gets to grips with the specificity of the researcher’s findings, preferring to concentrate on implying that this ‘kiss of death’ technique is being taught to a legion of potential killers:

Doctors are so concerned they are calling for the technique to be left out of CPR guidelines for the condition.

This technique is widely taught in schools, offices and to those who help at big sporting events.

Clearly the Daily Mail is attempting to make people panic, implying that if they have a cardiac arrest in school, at work or at a sporting event someone may attempt to kiss them to death. Not surprisingly the Daily Mail coverage of this story has by far the most panic-inducing tone and imagery, a tone which as usual is contradicted later in the article by some details that make the headline look distinctly wrong. These two sentences towards the end of the article for example:

However, mouth-to-mouth shouldn’t be removed from the first-aid repertoire altogether, as it can still be effective if a patient stops breathing, but their heart is still beating.

This could include those who are choking, are near to drowning, victims of carbon-monoxide poisoning or those who have taken a drug overdose.

These two lines seem to contradict the initial claims the article makes that it is the ‘kiss of death’ and acknowledge that mouth-to-mouth can still be ‘effective’ – although they fail to mention that traditional CPR with mouth-to-mouth is actually more effective in these cases. I think the primary reason for this is that mentioning this fact would catch them in a nightmarish loop – they would have to write a second headline declaring ‘can CPR without the kiss of life kill?’ simply because CPR with mouth-to-mouth is more effective in certain circumstances.

This quandary just demonstrates the utterly irresponsible, simplistic and fear-inducing headline that the Mail has gone with. The truth is never simple, but the Daily Mail insists that its articles must be, hence the huge discord between the original findings of the researchers and the black-and-white reporting of the Daily Mail. The result – headline declaring that mouth-to-mouth is a potential killer, end of the article declaring that it is still effective and important in some cases – can only lead to confusion. People walk away from the article unsure about whether mouth-to-mouth is or is not safe to use – and cynical about the researchers involved (just read some of the comments posted) because they blame then for the contradictions rather than the reporter.

There is no excuse for this kind of journalism, given that the NHS Behind the headlines team can explain it so effectively and rationally.

The BBC repeats health and safety myths

The BBC are not as gleeful as the Daily Mail in reporting that the Tories intend to ‘reduce the health and safety burden’ but they are equally culpable of repeating myths. The article currently on the BBC News website actually takes myths created by tabloid newspapers and repeats them as fact:

It follows a number of well-publicised cases – such as this year’s official cancellation of a 200-year-old cheese-rolling event in Gloucestershire, due to safety concerns.

This myth has been thoroughly debunked because the event was cancelled due to the event outgrowing its location, the HSE had nothing to do with it. Likewise, the first accompanying photo contains another classic health and safety myth:

Conkers and goggles

The Health and Safety Executive featured this in their Myths section in 2007 and even produced a free poster to reassure schools that wearing safety goggles to play conkers was ridiculous:

This is one of the oldest chestnuts around, a truly classic myth. A well-meaning head teacher decided children should wear safety goggles to play conkers. Subsequently some schools appear to have banned conkers on ‘health & safety’ grounds or made children wear goggles, or even padded gloves!

Realistically the risk from playing conkers is incredibly low and just not worth bothering about. If kids deliberately hit each other over the head with conkers, that’s a discipline issue, not health and safety.

Even the Daily Mail has recognised that this story is a myth – although they still happily report fearful headteachers who insist on the measure and wrap it up in ‘elf ‘n’ safety’ and ‘nanny state’ overtones when it clearly is nothing of the sort – it is another classic misleading headline from the Mail, but at least they point out that the HSE poster and dismissal of the matter. The next picture repeats the cheese-rolling is banned myth:

cheese rolling

The BBC then repeats Cameron’s claims at the time:

When he launched the review in December, Mr Cameron cited cases of children being told to wear goggles to play conkers, restaurants being banned from handing out toothpicks and trainee hairdressers being banned from using scissors as examples of silly practice.

Without challenging any of the examples. For the record the HSE myths section mentions the ‘toothpick banned’ myth, ‘cheese-rolling banned’ and I work in a college in which hundreds of trainee hairdressers happily handle scissors and cut real hair on real people with them.

A few people being daft enough to ban something within their small jurisdiction – their shop / school / restaurant / hair salon – should not shape government policy on health and safety and nor should it make the HSE such a mocked and hated organisation. The HSE have nothing to do with these individuals and as they made clear in April this year, they ban very little:

We’ve said it all before, but there are still too many reports that HSE and health and safety law are responsible for all sorts of bans – cheese-rolling events, knitting in hospitals and even toothpicks!

In reality HSE has banned very little outright, apart from a few high-risk exceptions like asbestos, which kills around 4000 people a year.

Too often health and safety is used as a convenient excuse, but it’s time to challenge this and remind people to focus on the real risks – those that are still causing people to be killed, injured or made ill at work.

Challenge the myths, tackle real risks!

It seems we are still a long way from doing this and the BBC should be ashamed of today’s article.

One rule for the BBC…

Tabloid Watch has already covered the Daily Mail’s hilarious attack on the BBC over their ‘voyueristic’ coverage of Wimbledon and pointed out that when it comes to voyeuristic coverage of Wimbledon the tabloids are streets ahead. Yet I’ll mention it here because I have access to a print edition of the Daily Mail and it provided an stark reminder of just how hypocritical the Mail is. Here is a double-page spread dedicated to fans ‘furious over “voyeuristic” camerawork’ (complete with plenty of pictures in case you’re not sure what voyeuristic camerawork looks like):

BBC Voyeurism at Wimbledon
Click to Enlarge

Yet, just flick a few pages on and you are greeted by this:

Daily Mail hypocrisy
Click to Enlarge

Presumably the picture of the half-naked women is absolutely integral to the story? Er, no:

A confidence trickster who claimed to be the son of one of IBM’s founders invented a show-jumping team to defraud leading members of the horse-riding set.

George Schouten, 36, rented fast cars and an opulent country house in an attempt to convince suppliers and trainers to invest thousands in his ‘elaborate fantasy’ that he was heir to a fortune.

The Dutch conman even hired Britain’s leading female showjumper, Laura Renwick, 35, to front his team, and promised to pay her husband John to ‘provide riding lessons and services’.

The picture is of Laura Renwick, presumably the only picture the Daily Mail could find of ‘Britain’s leading female showjumper’ just happened to be this one, and presumably readers couldn’t understand the concept of the conman hiring a female showjumper without said showjumper being shown in her underwear. I know pointing out hypocrisy in the Daily Mail is a pretty simple and almost unlimited task, but when such hypocrisy coincides with an attack on the BBC is does tend to piss me off, given that the BBC in one day gives more culture to the world than the Mail has since its first edition.


If you have enjoyed reading this blog then please vote for me in a competition I have entered to win my bride an amazing holiday, it only takes 30 seconds and I cannot win without your support. Click here to vote, click here for more information.