« Scandanavian Educational Expenditure | Main | Get Me Out of the EU, I'm English »
January 13, 2007
Gollywogs!
I receive an email about this BBC article. I have to say that I think Guy W (for it was he) has something of a point here.
A collection of golly badges on display in Westbury Manor Museum in Fareham has been criticised for its perceived racist connotations.
Dr John Molyneux, from the University of Portsmouth, said the items should not be regarded simply as a childhood pastime or hobby.
But Nick Martin who owns the collection said the exhibition had been very popular and no-one had complained.
Guy thinks the timeline went like this:
The BBC notices that there is an exhibition of gollies.
The BBC decides that it is wrong for us to like gollies.
The BBC decides that it must produce a story telling us how people
don't like gollies.
The BBC rings up the exhibition's organisers to see if anyone has
complained.
The BBC is shocked to discover that no-one has.
The BBC cannot let this go, and decides to find someone who doesn't
like the gollies.
The BBC phones obscure academic who says that gollies are evil etc.
The BBC then presents his quotes in such a way as to make it look as
if there has been an exchange of views between the exhibition's
organisers and obscure academic - ie, a 'row'.
The BBC can now be satisfied that it has presented a version of the
'truth' that fits in with its ideology.
And to think, we jail single mothers on welfare to pay for this.
Update: More from Guy W:
1. They ran the story on last night's South Today, in which they did
not have complainant, but were apparently itching to find one.
2. Now, the real meat. Check the wikipedia entry for the academic the
BBC found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
(obviously cut and paste entire link if your email prog truncates the
link)
Extraodinary. So the story is not 'row erupts over golly exhibition',
but 'BBC phones Trotskyist to make it seem as if there is a row'.
Did you know that there was a point where the BBC's web efforts employed more people than Google (and yes, this was after Google floated)? Value for money from the poll tax, eh?
January 13, 2007 in Idiotarians | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d83467aa7869e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gollywogs!:
» Who will charge The Daily Mail and BBC with Incitement ? from PJC Journal
What began as a simple human interest story in The Scotsman earlier last week was quickly picked up byThe Daily Mail then by the BBC about an exhibition, simply one persons childhood collection which has been manipulated into something ugly. [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 14, 2007 2:00:12 AM
Comments
"And to think, we jail single mothers on welfare to pay for this."
As of 30 April 2003, the number of females in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales was 4,432. There were three female fine defaulters, which represents 0.07 per cent of the total female prison population. None of the three female fine defaulters were in prison for defaulting on the payment of a fine for using television without a licence.
Posted by: Matthtew | Jan 13, 2007 6:16:42 PM
Or do you mean we jail single mothers for making up right-wing claptrap on websites? You seem to be outraged over somethat that the only evidence for it happening is in someone's mind.
Posted by: Matthtew | Jan 13, 2007 6:21:13 PM
What's more, the story originated not with the BBC but with The Scotsman newspaper three days ago. But that inconvenient fact wouldn't make for such a satisfying paranoid rant about the BBC, would it? Fools.
Posted by: Jim | Jan 13, 2007 6:33:40 PM
"insert blah-blah-blah 'you're biased' rant"
Says the guy who has managed to misspell his own name...twice!
Posted by: JuliaM | Jan 13, 2007 6:54:53 PM
Matthtew (sic): Your humour by-pass was evidently most successful. Congratulations.
Posted by: paul ilc | Jan 13, 2007 6:57:23 PM
Do you mean me? I can never get the spelling right.
But I think you have the wrong person - I didn't say "insert blah-blah' etc.
Posted by: Matthew | Jan 13, 2007 6:57:48 PM
Gosh, I can't keep up with these comments. In reply to paul ilc - I really don't think 'Guy W' was joking.
Posted by: Matthew | Jan 13, 2007 6:59:34 PM
Matthew and Jim, why defend the BBC? It is funded by a regressive tax you socialist types should find repulsive. Or because it is a bastion of the left that makes it OK.
Posted by: Kit | Jan 13, 2007 7:24:38 PM
Bloody hell. Those lefties at the Daily Mail saw the manufactured BBC article, got into Paul Dacre's Time Machine, went back three days, and wrote their own article copying the BBC's, including the same quote from the same academic, but cunningly to cover their time travel they attributed it to the Portsmouth News.
http://tinyurl.com/yjp2ra
How low will the BBC go?
It's outrageous.
Posted by: Matthew | Jan 13, 2007 7:27:57 PM
It's outrageous because we have no choice in financing the BBC.
Would you have been leaping to the defence of Fox News? I think not.
Posted by: Kit | Jan 13, 2007 7:53:50 PM
Kit, the reason I am leaping to the defence of the BBC (and though I can't speak for him, I'm pretty sure Jim too) is because Guy W and Tim W's view of events (to give it a kind description) is evidently completely wrong.
What's more, I was confident it was so, as if you read (as I'm sure you do) sites such as Biased BBC, you get to expect this level of accuracy, and also depth of research (it took me about 5 mins to find that Daily Mail story).
If you so hate the BBC you believe it should be criticised for something it hasn't done, and the fact that the critism is invented doesn't matter to you, then there's not much that can be said. It might, however, give us an idea of what you think a news provider should be like.
Posted by: Matthew | Jan 13, 2007 8:01:13 PM
Matthew, since you asked. I think a news provider should not be paid for with a tax. Why no one from the left attacks the BBC's method of funding, even thought it is a repulsive regressive tax, is telling.
And I put it to you again, if this story was carried by Fox News would you have spent 5 minutes researching and coming to their defence?
Posted by: Kit | Jan 13, 2007 8:53:44 PM
Kit - you asked 'Why defend the BBC'. The answer in this instance, which really isn't hard to grasp, is because it has done nothing wrong. If you can't understand the simple concept of truth then what follows might be beyond you.
I doubt either of the Ws, Tim or Guy, would ever attack Fox News, and if they did so I wouldn't immediately think they were wrong, as there's no form there.
But if, say, you pointed it out that the allegation was clearly wrong, let me assure you that I wouldn't ignore your comments, or think that it was still OK for the untrue allegations against Fox News to be made. I've spent about 20 mins of my time having this pointless argument with you, so I could spare 5 mins for Fox News.
Posted by: Matthew | Jan 13, 2007 9:20:28 PM
This I fear was designed to be a diversionary tactic by the Scotsman to draw away much of flack expected from the Gordon Brown story, which the BBC re-wrote no less than 4 times to keep it in the headlines and feed burners.
Unfortunately it was a story looking for an outraged public, and as they found, no-one found them to be racist, just what they were, childrens toys.
Posted by: IanP | Jan 13, 2007 11:14:28 PM
If the comments are true, then surely this is a case for prosecution. Attempting to incite racist views is very illegal, which the police are very quick to use on individuals.
Or are the BBC immune?
Posted by: Ian | Jan 13, 2007 11:24:51 PM
Matthew, if you look at the story a little more closely, you will see the BBC say:
"Dr John Molyneux, from the University of Portsmouth, said the items should not be regarded simply as a childhood pastime or hobby. "
So they present him as an academic expert, and are attempting to imply that the story is racist because this expert says so.
Yet the Portsmouth newspaper that this came from
http://www.portsmouthtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=457&ArticleID=1965313
says
"University lecturer John Molyneaux, Portsmouth convener for the anti-racist Respect political party, said: 'This is very much to be regretted as the golly, or golliwog, has very strong racist connotations"
In other words the BBC have deliberately omitted the far-left agenda of the complainant, even though they knew full well that he had one.
So while they didn't actually phone him up, they did set out to make him appear like an academic expert who had greater credibility on the subject than just some random vox pop walking by.
I had a quick look at the guy's blog, and this is the first paragraph.
"What is Socialism?
So far this column has been dealing mainly with what Marxism has to say about capitalism and how it can be overthrown. But, of course, Marxism is not only against capitalism, it is also for socialism and now seems a good point to say something about the kind of society Marxists aim for and struggle to bring into being."
So he's a far-left extremist of the most radical kind, talking about the "overthrow of capitalism", and the "struggle".
Do you think the BBC would look to the BNP for quotes when a black guy had been racially attacked?
No?
So why do they listen to extremist nutcases like this guy for stories like this?
Edit: He's even more of a nucking futcase. The stuff about overthrow was written for a North Korean newspaper.
That's North Korea as in murderous lunatic dictator only slightly less batty than Adolf himself.
Posted by: moo | Jan 14, 2007 1:18:41 AM
Just cf. the following:
"Dr John Molyneux, from the University of Portsmouth"
and
"University lecturer John Molyneaux, Portsmouth convener for the anti-racist Respect political party"
The BBC description:
* gives him his doctorate, adding credibility.
* describes him as "Dr John Molyneux, from the University of Portsmouth"; in other words they are further enhancing his credibility by implying that his views are spoken with the authority and blessing of the University, and implying that he is speaking on behalf of the relevant department at the university. The Portsmouth Today story simply refers to him as a university lecturer, without implying that he is speaking with the backing of the University.
* they omit any reference to his far-left extremist politics.
Posted by: moo | Jan 14, 2007 1:23:32 AM
Kit,
"why defend the BBC?"
I think what you mean to say is, "Why not make up stories smearing the BBC?". Or at least that's what you appear to think we should be doing since you attack people who point out when they're accused of something they didn't do. Here's a thought - genuine complaints against the BBC would have much more force if they didn't get lost in a thicket of paranoid fantasies such as that put about by Tim and the mysterious Guy W.
Posted by: Jim | Jan 14, 2007 3:12:05 AM
"Moo" - the BBC almost certainly picked up the story from the national press, which omitted the Respect angle. Here's the far-left Daily Mail, in the article written on January 10th either by using their Time Machine or before the BBC's:
John Molyneux, senior lecturer at the University of Portsmouth's school of art, design and media, told the Portsmouth News: "This is very much to be regretted as the golly, or golliwog, has very strong racist connotations.
Posted by: Matthew | Jan 14, 2007 9:59:45 AM
A BBBC commenter points out that Molyneux's hero Marx seemed not to like gollies either (if, as Molyneux asserts, they are representations of black people). Look at what he had to say about his rival Lasalle's hair and his cranial configuration :
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.htm
Posted by: Laban | Jan 14, 2007 12:34:58 PM
that's all very well, Matthew to say it came from the Daily Mail, but:
http://living.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=60332007
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=golliwog-display-in-race-row-&method=full&objectid=18442708&siteid=94762-name_page.html
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23381214-details/Golliwog+collector+defends+'racist'+museum+display/article.do
http://www.portsmouthtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=457&ArticleID=1965313
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/dmstandard/article.html?in_article_id=427926&in_page_id=1766
Five stories, zero mentions of the 'Dr.'. So the BBC clearly knew exactly who this man was, as they gave him the credit of 'Dr.', but yet somehow omitted to mention the rest of his backstory.
Posted by: moo | Jan 14, 2007 2:37:34 PM
"that's all very well, Matthew to say it came from the Daily Mail.."
For some, that is all it needs to be dubbed incontrovertibly wrong, no matter what the evidence...
Posted by: JuliaM | Jan 14, 2007 8:54:40 PM
Matthtew (sic), what was the subject of 'Dr' Molyneux's doctoral thesis?
Posted by: Allan@Aberdeen | Jan 14, 2007 10:15:29 PM
