tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post8045674378318501970..comments2024-03-13T15:35:30.839+00:00Comments on Tabloid Watch: The 'BBC drops BC/AD' lie continues to spreadMacGuffinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16894506410560858668noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-75802955618276986522011-12-02T10:19:52.569+00:002011-12-02T10:19:52.569+00:00I wish the Mail had been around when we switched f...I wish the Mail had been around when we switched from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar. Their headline would probably have screamed something about British traditions being banned in order to avoid giving offence to Catholics!Griffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-13827085111583320152011-10-03T17:43:32.201+01:002011-10-03T17:43:32.201+01:00While we are on the subject, is it not time that s...While we are on the subject, is it not time that someone sorted out the days of the week. Few people in England believe in the Scandinavian gods, yet we still have days of the week named after them.Wodensday!? (Wednesday). Thorsday!? (Thursday). Days of the week should optionally be redesignated by the BBC as Firstday, Seconday etc. And incidentally, I understand that Christ is now believed to have been born in 4 BC, so where does that leave AD and BC?Harrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-50633015899849342602011-09-29T13:19:30.120+01:002011-09-29T13:19:30.120+01:00Anon, if, as you claim, Phillips was actually corr...Anon, if, as you claim, Phillips was actually correcting the other writers who went along with meme, then why didn't he name names? Why didn't she say "This paper, the Daily Mail, said X, but actually that's not true. Here's what's true blah blah blah"? Instead she says "apparently", not mentioning who said it, completing distorting agency - as if it was just some random rumour she picked up on Twitter.Alexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-88913523411400104932011-09-28T22:44:46.291+01:002011-09-28T22:44:46.291+01:00@Chris Marshall - She may well have been mistaken ...@Chris Marshall - She may well have been mistaken in claiming there was any kind of "edict" on any level (as far as I'm aware it was one single web editor's rarely-followed recommendation at the very most, but you know how a "recommendation" becomes a "ban" or an "edict" or - if European - a "diktat" in the hands of the right-wing press), and in my opinion she is certainly mistaken in her analysis of its significance, but the point is this post implies she made a much larger factual error (that it was BBC-wide and enforced from the top) than she actually did. If you said Vienna was in Germany you'd be wrong, and if you said it was on Jupiter you'd be wrong too, but the two levels of wrongness are not equal.<br /><br />But in any case you seem to have missed the point of my comment - I am not defending either Phillips or the Mail, I personally consider the Mail to be one of the worst things about the UK and Phillips to be one of the worst things about the Mail, but I simply don't want to see this blog either resorting to cheap tactics like that (if it was intentional) or making silly mistakes (if it wasn't) which only detract from the good work it usually does.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-45404738997354349402011-09-28T19:26:10.748+01:002011-09-28T19:26:10.748+01:00@Chris Marshall
I'm not the anonymous person...@Chris Marshall <br /><br />I'm not the anonymous person above, but the 'obscure tributary' referred to is BBC Religion. They have a FAQ answer explaining why they use BCE/CE BUT they use BC/AD on all their pages about Christianity! As you say: no edict!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-74937640723764502122011-09-28T19:11:50.294+01:002011-09-28T19:11:50.294+01:00"The omitted paragraph does make it clear tha..."The omitted paragraph does make it clear that she is aware there was no BBC-wide ban"<br /><br />There was no ban whatsoever. Yet Mel states<br /><br />"Actually, this edict seems to have been laid down merely by some obscure tributary of the BBC website rather than from on high."<br /><br />Your anonymous attempt at whitewashing the content of her article doesn't stop Ms Phillips being either incompetent or a liar. Which obscure tributary? What edict?<br /><br />If she means whoever wrote the dialogue on one programme, then surely she's talking about the decision of possibly one person. Much like BCE appeared in the Mail yesterday. I must therefore assume that some obscure tributary of the Daily Mail has made the same decision. And indeed, if we are to extrapolate, that Melanie's own behaviour reflects incompetence and or dishonesty of the whole "newspaper".<br /><br />This is of course well known to most of us, but something that you seem unable to deal with.<br /><br />I don't expect a reply from Phillips or some anonymous person. That would involve taking some sort of responsibility for your alleged journalism.Chris Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13799998154747514115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-65058212885096258082011-09-28T16:20:20.684+01:002011-09-28T16:20:20.684+01:00It may be making its way onto the show but obvious...It may be making its way onto the show but obviously very slowly because on Monday's University Challenge Paxman used the term BC in a question. <br /><br />This is all rather silly, isn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-48410983646951163722011-09-28T15:34:05.604+01:002011-09-28T15:34:05.604+01:00@Melanie Phillips: your argument is somewhat weake...@Melanie Phillips: your argument is somewhat weakended by the fact that your article was titled "Our language is being hijacked by the Left to muzzle rational debate". Surely the title should have been "Our language, wait, no, some BBC writers are using language at personal discretion with respect to using two different widely accepted terms to describe things, specifically, dates." That is, if you paper-thin argument wanted to stand up. Which it doesn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-33092747170118804892011-09-28T14:01:00.806+01:002011-09-28T14:01:00.806+01:00"Apparently". "Seems". Opini..."Apparently". "Seems". Opinion presented as fact. Again. I think this:<br /><br />http://www.thepoke.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/mail-tube-map-medium-large.png<br /><br />needs updating.Mr Larringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05135357223596239754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-30557711450768581392011-09-28T13:17:40.001+01:002011-09-28T13:17:40.001+01:00Perhaps someone should point out to the Mail that ...Perhaps someone should point out to the Mail that many scientists also use BP (Before Present). Obviously this is purely due to their inherently anti-Christian ways rather than because it is a useful convention when using radiocarbon dating and other modern dating methodsDavid Brightonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-70227244193466573572011-09-28T13:13:29.823+01:002011-09-28T13:13:29.823+01:00When I studied Divinity 20 years ago, most of the ...When I studied Divinity 20 years ago, most of the lecturers used BCE/CE. I'm not sure why, but I doubt they were trying to spread secularism...Richardhttp://www.bbc.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-45189793153796459882011-09-28T12:54:06.296+01:002011-09-28T12:54:06.296+01:00This is an arseingly pedantic point, by the way, b...This is an arseingly pedantic point, by the way, but if Rev Mullan actually said what he's quoted as saying above, he knows fuck all about Latin. Anno Domini means "in the year of Our Lord", not "the years of Our Lord".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-16440232308402138692011-09-28T10:34:44.607+01:002011-09-28T10:34:44.607+01:00Melanie referring to this blog as Bad journalism c...Melanie referring to this blog as Bad journalism clearly shows that she has no idea what a journalist actually is or what they do. She may claim that she is a journalist because she writes words in a newspaper and gets paid money for it, however she is as far away from being a Journalist as my duvet is. At least my duvet doesn't spread malicious lies in a national newspaper however, so I value it's opinion more.<br /><br />The owner of this blog isn't claiming to be a journalist however they do far more professional work than anyone at the Mail or indeed any other tabloid paper could ever do. It speaks volumes when people who claim to be journalists attack a website which uses real journalistic processes to expose how wrong and dangerous these fake journalists really are. This blog and many others like it use practices such as research and fact checking. Such practices are totally alien to journalists at the Mail who are just out to whip up a bit of fury over nothing and then return to their caves with money spilling from their pockets.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-27294106173485210692011-09-28T01:56:23.531+01:002011-09-28T01:56:23.531+01:00@Hannah - well, to the Mail, Europe is synonymous ...@Hannah - well, to the Mail, Europe is synonymous with the EU, and since the EU is a secular organisation (it would obviously be unworkable otherwise) and in Mail world any organisation that is not explicitly in-your-face Christian is obviously out to impose compulsory atheism or Islam (or sometimes both! all the fun of mandatory hijabs and halal chicken without any of that pesky belief in Allah getting in the way) it naturally follows that "Europe" is out to undermine Christianity. <br /><br />(It can probably be assumed that no Mail journalist or website commentor, despite all presuming to be experts on the EU and why it's full of awful bastards, has ever laid eyes on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which states: "The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States.")Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-60054645098285789502011-09-28T01:29:33.143+01:002011-09-28T01:29:33.143+01:00Phillips does make a valid point in her comment, t...Phillips does make a valid point in her comment, though - and I say this as someone who disagrees with more or less everything else she's ever written, before anyone accuses me of being a Mailite infiltrator or anything.<br /><br />The omitted paragraph <i>does</i> make it clear that she is aware there was no BBC-wide ban (picking at the semantics of the word "edict" is just dodging the point) and by omitting that paragraph you are misrepresenting her column and lumping her in with those misinformed commentators and publications that <i>have</i> claimed there was a blanket ban. I certainly believe that the conclusions she reaches are bollocks but her familiarity with the facts at least can't be faulted in this instance.<br /><br />I only say this because I do greatly enjoy this blog and to distort someone's views using the very tactics of the papers you criticise does undermine it somewhat. Even if it was an unintentional omission I think at least a clarifying footnote would be in order.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-3664460878946714322011-09-27T22:14:56.123+01:002011-09-27T22:14:56.123+01:00Only to respond to the above poster: "... chu...Only to respond to the above poster: "... church attendance in Spain runs at, from memory, about 14% of the population. Spain is not in fact such a religious country: it just has a particularly powerful Church." My point is not that Spain itself is particularly religious; rather it is that my grandparents <i>are</i>, and they find that Spain is a perfectly good place to celebrate their religion - so I don't know why the Mail have synonymised Europe with the secular agenda. I've certainly never seen Europe in that way. Just my two cents.<br /><br />However, this isn't nearly as interesting as the purported presence (and typos) of Ms "the national curriculum is brainwashing children into homosexuality" Phillips!Hannahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-70767654152056258892011-09-27T20:55:52.631+01:002011-09-27T20:55:52.631+01:00Perhaps Melanie might also enquire about the Daily...Perhaps Melanie might also enquire about the Daily Mail article from today which uses BCE. I notice comments are closed on said article. Why is that exactly Melanie? Surely you could ask your editor to explain why he hates Jesus so much. Perhaps you could write a column on the subject of media distortion, rabble-rousing and hypocrisy.<br /><br />I look forward to it.Chris Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13799998154747514115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-73104675693769608632011-09-27T20:52:44.385+01:002011-09-27T20:52:44.385+01:00Melanie: to my eyes the first and second paragraph...Melanie: to my eyes the first and second paragraphs above are contradictory, leaping as they do from "it (the BBC) has <i>decided</i> that the terms...<i>must</i> be replaced" to "seems to have been laid down by some obscure tributary".<br /><br />Not sure therefore that you should be accusing others of "bad journalism".the_voice_of_reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10179007944478552588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-82751245788515561412011-09-27T20:45:58.767+01:002011-09-27T20:45:58.767+01:00Hi Melanie Phillips (if it is indeed you)
Instead...Hi Melanie Phillips (if it is indeed you)<br /><br />Instead of firstly demanding others correct what you perceive to be inaccuracies in their journalism, could you please answer these points (I know you wont bother because clearly I'm a nobody and you don't like to be challenged but what the hell)<br /><br />1) You say "Apparently, [The BBC] has decided that the terms AD and BC... must be replaced by the terms Common Era and Before Common Era." <br /><br />Did you do any research yourself to find out more about this (yunno, like a proper journalist would) or did you simply read the article from the previous days Mail on Sunday and take that as the truth?<br /><br />2) You say "Actually this edict seems to have been laid down merely by some obscure tributary of the BBC website rather than from on high." <br /><br />Could you tell me more about this "edict"? Two definitions of an edict are "A decree or proclamation issued by an authority and having the force of law" or "A formal pronouncement or command". Presumably therefore, such an 'edict' would be written in the BBC editorial guidelines available to all producers. Could you please provide a link to such an 'edict' to back up your claims and provide credence to this, because that paragraph has been written as a statement of fact. Facts require evidence.<br /><br />3) As stated by another commenter above, the Daily Mail has a story that states "...that the wall that has been revealed is that which was built by King Solomon in Jerusalem in the latter part of the 10th century BCE." <br /><br />Could you tell us why the reporter would have written this? Was it an edict given by your editor? Was it the reporters personal choice?<br /><br />4) Finally, how do you square the BBC statement of "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." with the article in the Mail on Sunday on which you base your comment piece? Presumably since the two sides of the story are contradictory someone is lying. Who is it? The BBC or The Mail on Sunday? If the BBC is lying then I once again ask you to provide evidence of any editorial "edict" or plot to gradually remove BC/AD from BBC broadcasts.<br /><br />After all, you're the journalist/columnist/talking head on no doubt a nice fat salary. I doubt you will find any of these requests particularly taxing to answer assuming you have evidence to answer them with...blablablanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-43387584136831632292011-09-27T20:45:19.793+01:002011-09-27T20:45:19.793+01:00"Actually, this edict seems to have been laid..."Actually, this edict seems to have been laid down merely by some obscure tributary of the BBC website rather than from on high."<br /><br />"By deliberately omitting the second of these paragraphs, you have given the misleading impression that I said the BBC had laid down a blanket edict"<br /><br />Mel, there's been no edict at all, except in the imaginations of twisted writers in repulsive publications. We must assume that you are either utterly incompetent or extremely dishonest.<br /><br />Which is it Ms Phillips? We would appreciate clarification.Chris Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13799998154747514115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-35964058476316145572011-09-27T18:47:24.868+01:002011-09-27T18:47:24.868+01:00In response to Mad Mel's comment above, the mi...In response to Mad Mel's comment above, the missing' 2nd paragraph refers to an 'edict' that doesn't even exist!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-85723390819887768892011-09-27T18:42:05.209+01:002011-09-27T18:42:05.209+01:00My grandparents are both Spanish Catholics. They r...<i>My grandparents are both Spanish Catholics. They return to Spain several times a year for religious occasions because such events are celebrated to a much greater extent over there. I'm not sure where this idea of a secular Europe comes from.</i><br /><br />Might be worth noting (a resident of Spain writes) that church attendance in Spain runs at, from memory, about 14% of the population. Spain is not in fact such a religious country: it just has a particularly powerful Church.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-67154113221891752912011-09-27T17:07:53.197+01:002011-09-27T17:07:53.197+01:00Its tabloid rubbish and perhaps not even worthy of...Its tabloid rubbish and perhaps not even worthy of responding to, but I really wish the BBC would just grow a pair and DEFEND ITSELF! Fair enough they issued a statement but it is quite clear that this is either being ignored or buried away, so why doesnt the BBC spend a few minutes posting a rebuttal of all this nonsense on its news website? The right wing gutter press are out to destroy the BBC through lies - why wont the BBC provide the truth to the public itself instead of burying its head in the sand and allowing its reputation to be damaged by those who want it destroyed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-65222681540548138012011-09-27T16:03:51.582+01:002011-09-27T16:03:51.582+01:00Gotta say thi: I just don't give a shit. Only ...Gotta say thi: I just don't give a shit. Only tards and people looking for a laugh or a pair of tits to oggle go on the Mail's website or read the paper version, and as for whether the BBC uses/doesn't use BC/AD- who honestly, truly cares? Christianity will still march on (deadenlingly boring though it is- who the hell goes to church these days anyway?!) and the Muslim folks (with a religion just as boring as Christianity) will still remain in the minority.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-78229672275624223072011-09-27T15:50:03.244+01:002011-09-27T15:50:03.244+01:00In my Daily Mail column yesterday, I wrote:
'...In my Daily Mail column yesterday, I wrote:<br /><br />'The latest manifestation stars once again that all-time world champion of political correctness, the BBC. Apparently, it has decided that the terms AD and BC (Anno Domini, or the Year of Our Lord, and Before Christ) must be replaced by the terms Common Era and Before Common Era.<br /><br />'Actually, this edict seems to have been laid down merely by some obscure tributary of the BBC website rather than from on high.<br /><br />'Nevertheless, the terms CE and BCE are now increasingly finding their way onto news bulletins and on programmes such as University Challenge or Melvyn Bragg’s Radio Four show In Our Time.'<br /><br />By deliberately omitting the second of these paragraphs, you have given the misleading impression that I said the BBC had laid down a blanket edict when I expressly observed that this was not so. Moreover, by associating me in this post with remarks published elsewhere about this issue you have further falsely implied that I suggested the BBC had banned the use of the terms BC and AD.<br /><br />Will you now acknowledge your bad journalism and correct your mnisrepresentation of what I wrote?Melanie Phillipshttp://melaniephillips.comnoreply@blogger.com