Monday, May 25, 2009

BBC allegedly reports on Bolivia

It is now official that the BBC is its own worst enemy. How do one manage to screw up a newstory when you have a good field reporter willing to shoot straight about race and politics in Bolivia?

Refusal to do a 30 second Google search fact check. I am fucking serious.

Candace Piette has been vainly trying to explain to the BBC editors the signifance of yesterdays march through Sucre by indigenous supporters of Evo. That there was this disgustingly racist humiliation of indigenous campesinos in the same spot one year prior. But according to the BBC that is just like her opinion, man. "Rival marches in Bolivian capital"

Indians were allegedly picked out and beaten, some stripped and publicly humiliated, the BBC's Candace Piette in Sucre reports.

Hmm, how could one find out if that were true? I don't know, maybe type into Google "Sucre, racism, humiliation, May 24". Or maybe check Youtube:

So now you guys at BBC look like a bunch of racist jackasses because you are lazy idiots. How would you feel if I wrote:

The Twin Towers in the northern city of New York were allegedly attacked and some three thousand people killed, allegedly, the Abiding in Bolivia's Walter Sobchak in the United States reports.

Seriously, if you really think the beatings, stripping, and humiliation were only alleged, tell that to these folks who marched through Sucre yesterday at the exact spot of their prior humiliation.


Bina said...

Damn straight, there is NO "allegedly" about it.

Walter Sobchak is a nice touch, too. "It's Erev Shabbas, dammit!"

dailysketch said...

Thanks for posting this. It inspired me to make a formal complaint to the BBC:

"This isn't 'feedback' it is a complaint.

In the online article "Bolivia marks freedom bicentenary" the BBC has blatantly mis-infomed the public.

You state that "Bolivians marked the 200th anniversary of their country's uprising against Spanish rule with rival ceremonies in different parts of the country." You later then state "Meanwhile, the opposition held parades in the constitutional capital Sucre."

Firstly, the Bolivian government had approved "a decree that establishes May 24 as the Day of National Battle Against Racial Discrimination in remembrance of the outrage and humiliation of campesinos in Sucre."
Nowhere do state this nor do you state anywhere that some of the demonstrations in Bolivia were under this banner.

Secondly, you state "President Morales made his speech in a remote Andean village", yet you do not state the name. Why? Where exactly was Morales' rally? Was this remote Andean village anywhere near Sucre? Yes, it is. In fact it's only about 35 kms from Sucre. Why weren't we told?

It wasn't only the opposition that held parades in Sucre itself as you imply in your report.

But the main complaint about the report is this sentence:

"Police in Sucre had been on high alert, following last year's violent attacks, when Indians were allegedly picked out and beaten, some stripped and publicly humiliated. "

Why is the word "allegedly" in this sentence? These are not allegations but facts as these videos show:

I'm sure your correspondent in Bolivia, Candace Piette, will confirm this.

Please delete the word "allegedly" from your report. If you refuse then will the BBC now refer to the attack on the Twin Towers in the city of New York on 11 Sep 2001 as 'alleged' ? Or to the approx. three thousand people killed as 'alleged'?

Why then do we have to put up with this bias just because its about Bolivia? "

Sent today via the BBC Complaints website:

If anyone else has the time and energy please do make a complaint.