RELATED: Buffett Rule? NY Times Report Suggests Obama Plan To Ask More Of American Millionaires

“Is that a message you think that works with other people as wealthy as yourself, or is it just a small circle of friends — yourself, Warren Buffet, a few others,” the interviewer asked Gates.

“Well, I hope we can solve that deficit problem with a sense of shared sacrifice — where everybody would feel like they’re doing their part,” Gates replied. “And right now, I don’t feel like people like myself are paying as much as we should.”

Watch below via ThinkProgress:

(h/t TP)

According to the BBC, Libyan Prime Minister Abdurrahim al-Keib announced that he “trusted militia in the town to take care of [Gaddafi]” in anticipation of interrogations to begin on Sunday (Gaddafi would be interrogated in either Zintan or Misrata). Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court, which seeks Gaddafi for crimes against humanity, is sending a prosecutor to the country to aid in the trial, and concerns rise that the rebels responsible for his capture will attempt to negotiate for higher-ranking positions in the new government in exchange for Gaddafi. Keib is expected to announce his new cabinet on Monday.

RELATED: Report: Saif Gaddafi Captured By Rebel Fighters In Libya

After a photo surfaced yesterday to confirm his capture, video of Gaddafi being transferred by airplane was also released to confirm his identity. That footage, via the UK Telegraph, below:

RELATED: Michael Moore Refuses To Admit He Is Part Of The 1% To Piers Morgan
:

He did not come into office like I had hoped that he would, to do what Franklin Roosevelt did his first few months, where he came in and said, you know, “I’m in charge. This is the way we’re doing things. If you don’t like it, throw me out of office” and then he set about doing what he had to do.

Barack Obama came in and said, “What can I do to help you?”

He did add, however, that Obama and his administration do seem to be going on the offensive now in the last leg of his (First?) term. Interviewer Richard Bacon then asked Moore whether he feels Obama had initially approached his presidency with a sense of “naïveté.”

“Well, it was either that,” Moore answered, “or he actually believed in a lot of what they believe in.”

“That just may be the sad, sad part about Barack Obama,” he later added. “Not that he’s too timid or that he’s too compromising, but that he actually believes in a lot of what they believe in.” The “they” in question being, of course, his cohorts and supporters on Wall Street.

Have a look, courtesy of the BBC:

h/t BBC News

Or — as Scarborough recently shared during an Advertising Week panel with Arianna Huffington, HuffPost staff, and co-host Mika Brzezinski on moving beyond framing issues as simply “right vs. left” — he’s not terribly impressed with the current state of television outside his own “forward-leaning” network home. Joe Pompeo reports for Capital NY:

When I’m off the air, I have stopped trying to find news on TV networks other than ours. I’ll go to the BBC. Or if I’m really lucky, I’ll find Al Jazeera America on a cable network. I’m dead serious.

Later on, he added that he was disappointed not only by the partisan ideology sprouted by networks, but by the type of stories these channels choose to cover:

And a lot of information that is not fueled by screaming and rabid ideology that is just stupid. I mean, seriously. We were running a press conference of the president, and CNN… I’ll just say it, CNN, what’s their slogan? “The Greatest Name in News” or whatever the hell it is, they’re talking to the Balloon Boy’s father’s lawyer. Like, a month later!

All the days that I’m off and I look at the other channels and I look at the shit that America has to watch; these shows — I won’t name them, but they would have Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchell and brilliant people like that for the first 45 minutes, from 7 to 7:45, [and then] are onto Britney Spears!

So what’s his proposed solution? For the time-being, at least, Scarborough thinks those hungry for news would be better off seeking out The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal (two multi-platform news outlets that are themselves often framed as ideological rivals to one another)… or, he added, the Huffington Post.

And while it’s true that you won’t likely see any stories on amazing baby duckling rescues or celebrity underwear on Morning Joe, MSNBC isn’t, in the grander scheme of things, any more insulated from criticism than of its counterparts. Lockup, anyone?

The idea that networks like CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC are meant to solely provide news is tested time and time again — after all, each of these features a wide range of shows and enough opinionated anchors that it is perhaps best to think of these as “infotainment” networks with a smattering of straight news programming than news networks with a touch of entertainment thrown in.

h/t Capital NY

Shortly after the interview, once everyone had gotten over his initial shock and/or righteous indignation over Rastani’s comments, rumors began trickling in that perhaps Rastani wasn’t exactly who he said he was, and that, maybe, the entire interview had been part of a well-orchestrated hoax. Some on Twitter and Facebook guessed that Rastani might be a member of the “The Yes Men,” a group whose goal, according to its website, is to impersonate “big-time criminals in order to publicly humiliate them. Our targets are leaders and big corporations who put profits ahead of everything else.”

Forbes decided to reach out to Rastani himself to get to the bottom of the rumors. Rastani told Forbes‘ Emily Lambert that “The guy who wrote [on Forbes] mistakenly wrote that I’m a Wall Street trader. I’m not an institutional trader. I wouldn’t dream of ever doing that.” He continued, telling her that he “started trading for real in 2006. And to be honest, the teaching side of it is mostly just a bit of fun. In this business you meet people who come up to you and say, ‘Can you show me how to do this?’ It’s rewarding to show people how it all works.” He then added that he is “mostly a technical trader. I look at charts. I’m not a big, huge fan of funny analysis, you know, fundamentals.”

Lambert asked Rastani various questions about his work and his background, likely designed to root out whether he had been lying about his knowledge of trading. Then, she asked what he’d thought of the mounting media interest in whether or not he is part of an elaborate hoax:

I think it’s overblown. I have no idea why I’m getting this attention. I don’t think it was news. For someone to say what I said, I thought everybody already knew this kind of stuff. The big players of funds rule the world, I don’t think that was news. And what I said about making money from a crash, obviously not everybody knows about that, you can make money from a downward market. A lot of people just got the wrong end of the foot, misunderstood what I was saying. They thought I was joyful or licking my lips about the idea of making money from people’s miseries. That’s probably the way it looked on the video. But if they watch the whole video, what I was really trying to say is people need to educate themselves about how to do that… what I was trying to say was, look, everyone should basically prepare. I was trying to be the good guy.

Lambert saved the best for last, asking Rastani if he’d heard of The Yes Men and informing him that “there’s a video of you posing as a Dow Chemical spokesman” as part of a previous hoax. Rastani insists the he’s never heard of anything like that. In any case, the men in BBC’s Dow Chemical interview and in the BBC’s interview with the supposed trader certainly have strikingly similar voices and mannerisms. Have a look for yourselves and let us know what you think – Is it the same guy?:

BBC – Dow Chemical:

BBC – Rastani:

h/t Forbes

Update:

YesLab.org has published a statement regarding Rastani:

We’ve never heard of Rastani. He isn’t a Yes Man. He’s a real trader who is, for one reason or another, being more honest than usual. Who in big banking doesn’t bet against the interests of the poor and find themselves massively recompensed—if not by the market, then by humongous taxpayer bailouts? Rastani’s approach has been completely mainstream for several years now; we must thank him for putting a human face on it yesterday.

Omaid’s older brother, Jawid, was in contact with him that day. According to Jawid, Omaid hoped to find safety from entering Taliban by hidding in the bathroom. ”Death is approaching,” he told his brother through text. And then, a few minutes later, “If I die, pray for me.”

The terms of Khpalwak’s death sound brutal — shot 11 times when he came out of hiding relived to see NATO forces. Why he was a target remains a unexplained. According to his older brother, he spoke english and carried a press card. “They thought he was a suicide bomber, but how?” NATO reports say they are confident that soldiers “complied with the laws of armed conflict and rules of engagement and acted reasonably under the circumstances.”

This tragic episode is indicative of the increasing dangers Afghans face, working alongside foreign forces and just in general. Journalists working locally often find themselves stuck between the two sides. “People are threatening me and my family,” Jawid told the Guardian. “All 10 of us are very scared of staying in Uruzgan because of this.” Omaid’s work had earned him the attention of many, including the warlord Matiullah Khan.

Khpalwak is certainly not the first journalist to be taken as collateral damage, and his death once more makes clear the incredible dangers journalists face when reporting in a war zone.

The BBC report accompanies the tales of those trapped in the Rixos that have been rolling in all day, both being trapped and escaping from the hotel. Price reports that they ate from what they found in the food storage of the hotel in the time being, having very few connections to the outside world. They slept in their armor, lined in the hallways, and lived in fear of being used has human shields for most of their stay there. Perhaps most frustrating for the journalists was explaining to the pro-Gaddafi forces in the hotel the goings-on outside of them, which they had not seen nor heard about aside from the reports of their captives.

The fascinating report via BBC below:

Rupert Wingfield-Hayes observed that the mood in Tripoli was relatively calm, and spoke to groups of rebels celebrating their resistance against Gaddafi’s forces. Hayes and his convoy decided to follow the Libyan rebels. They soon found themselves being fired on by pro-Gaddafi forces targeting the rebels. Hayes recounts the experience thusly:

We ran straight into an ambush. We saw a 20-millimeter anti-aircraft cannon firing directly in the front of their convoy.

Watch the video below, courtesy of the BBC:

h/t YouTube

He then observed the result and recorded what he’d noticed:

The thing that stands out the most in comparison to the nytimes is how the BBC’s editors behave more placidly in their content curation. Where the nytimes crams its homepage with as much information as possible, the BBC picks the most important story of the day and runs with it.

I suspect this difference comes down to a dramatic divergence in the sheer volume of content both organizations feel the need to showcase. Where the BBC is happy to file short, factual pieces, the nytimes house style seems to force them into multi page arrangements. Where the nytimes quantifies the BBC strives for brevity.

Another difference? The NYT‘s main page, Mendonça-Vieira noticed, features a lot more US-centric news than the BBC does UK-centric. He is careful to note, however, that the Times does feature a global section not recorded in the video, and that the televised, UK version of the BBC tends to feature stories that are quite literally closer to home.

Take a look at the videos for yourselves! Here is the BBC version:

And, below, the NYT:

For more videos (and more on Mendonça-Vieira’s thoughts about what the information comparing the two sites means for the online presentation and curation of news in general), be sure to visit his site. And do leave the sound on as you watch — the music adds a nice touch to the experience!

h/t Phillip Mendonça-Vieira

As quickly as some of London’s neighborhoods collapsed into chaos, cleanup brigades have sprung to life–thousands of them being guided into action via Twitter and Facebook. “The footage last night of high streets and independent shops burning was terrifying to watch and I wanted to find a way to help that was quick, simple and practical,” Dan Thompson, an artist, told the BBC. Thompson created a Twitter campaign, @riotcleanup, that’s already amassed 70,000 followers and has inspired a host of similar efforts in other cities:

He said seeing hundreds of people in Clapham waving brooms in the air was a symbol of what Londoners and the British stand for, “It’s phenomenal,” he said.

He added that when Boris Johnson visited the area this afternoon there were cries of “Boris where’s your broom?” before the London Mayor got stuck in to help volunteers.

For many Londoners, the cleanup effort has brought a shared spirit of community back to neighborhoods shaken by the sudden–and senseless–violence. BBC journalist Michael Hirst said about 300 to 400 people had gathered for a cleanup effort organized online. “Sunshine, high spirits, lots of joking and a community vibe,” he said. One participant described it as “London at its best.”

Watch the story, from the BBC:

Oh, that fast-action karma. It’s so entertaining. One of the hooligans arrested in London? A schoolteacher. Yup. Delightful. It’s a wonder some of the kids are turning out the way they are with such fantastic role models, you know? Anyway, this teacher, Alexis Bailey, was brought before a judge and on his way out of court decided it’d be a great idea to hide his face behind a newspaper as cameras moved in–and got shots of Bailey as he walked right into a lamppost.

I mean sometimes life is just so wonderful. The BBC reports Bailey had just pleaded guilty to burglary for stealing from an electronics store during rioting in Croydon. Perhaps picking up some school supplies?

Watch it here, from YouTube:

A reality series that aired in the U.K. on the BBC and in the U.S. on the Travel Channel faces charges producers faked scenes and deliberately mistranslated interviews in an attempt to portray members of an Amazonian tribe as “sex-obsessed, mean savages.” The charges, reported today in The Guardian, involve a six part series called Mark & Olly: Living with the Machigenga, which was shot in the Amazon rainforest. According to the Guardian, “the show has been called “staged, false, fabricated and distorted” by Dr Glenn Shepard, an anthropologist who has worked with the tribe for 25 years and speaks their language fluently, and Ron Snell, who grew up with the tribe as the son of US missionaries and also speaks their language.”

The BBC has said it will not air the show again after Dr. Shepard described the show as an example of reality TV “reaching new depths of irresponsibility.”

“I am shocked by Mark & Olly’s narcissistic antics, their gross misrepresentations of Matsigenka culture, and their disregard for consequences inflicted on native communities,” said Shepard. “I wonder what Living with the Machigenga was modelled on. Borat comes to mind.”

Like all good stories about political satire, this one involves none other than The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. In England, if you want to watch the program, you can either catch it online or watch the televised “international edition.” This edition of The Daily Show airs once a week, and is comprised of the best segments of the previous week’s shows. So naturally, when segments were being chosen for this week’s installment, one of the highlights was the show’s coverage of Rupert Murdoch‘s testimony before Parliament last week on allegations of phone hacking taking place at News Corp. tabloids.

Here’s a piece of the segment to refresh your memory:

However, this week’s international edition was mysteriously unavailable for viewers, so TV writer Graham Linehan tweeted Channel 4 and asked why the episode was not being aired in its normal timeslot. This is what Channel 4 tweeted back:

Yes, you read that right. In England, it is illegal to use footage from Parliament for satirical purposes. Just think about that for a second. Could you imagine if we had a law on the books saying it was illegal for late night shows to use CSPAN footage to mock politicians? That would be a fundamentally undemocratic principle.

When we think of media censorship, we think of totalitarian governments stifling dissent through violent means and cutting off access to services like Facebook and Twitter. However, satire is a very effective way to criticize those in power, and even if you live in a free society, by banning its expression in one form or another you are setting limits on dissent (and proving you have a sh*tty sense of humor).

England is not the only democratic nation indulging in these odd legal tactics. Last year, Brazil effectively banned its satirists from mocking presidential candidates leading up to the election. Here is the argument advocates of the ban made:

Proponents say the restrictions keep candidates from being portrayed unfairly, help ensure a level playing field and encourage candour by those seeking to replace centre-Left President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

Oh, yes, God forbid comedy shows portray politicians unfairly.

This is vaguely reminiscent of a 2007 New Zealand ban that essentially serves the same purpose of the current ban in England: satirists cannot use footage from Parliament to mock politicians.

I have to highlight two important points about the New Zealand ban, but be warned: after reading them you may be inspired to bang your head on the nearest desk and shout “Can you believe these idiots?!” at the nearest person or domestic animal. Behold:

On Thursday night MPs voted overwhelmingly to amend the current rules to ban shots which satirise or denigrate MPs – like footage of them yawning, or nodding off in the House.

And this is from former MP Dover Samuels:

“The problem is when you [the media] take a photo of me, you always take it of my bad side.”

Again, this argument was accepted as valid in drafting the law. If you are sensitive about people getting your bad side, here’s a tip: DON’T ENTER POLITICS. This is essentially the political equivalent of punching your little sister because she’s laughing at you. Just because you are overly sensitive does not give you the right to overreact.

Of course, there are more devious reasons why satire is banned. Here’s some perspective to consider: last year, the government of Pakistan banned the satirical play Burqavaganza. As Mediaite’s Jon Bershad pointed out at the time, “the idea that the play was performed at all and that there is debate over whether it should pe performed again seems downright hopeful” considering Pakistan’s appalling human rights record.

And two years ago in Kuwait, information minister Al-Sheikh Ahmad Abdallah al-Sabah shut down a satirical program called Sawtak Wasal after only three episodes on the air. (Geez, and NBC pulled The Paul Reiser Show after only two episodes.)

Reporters Without Borders’ 2010 Press Freedom Index ranks Kuwait 87th (tied with the United Arab Emirates and Tonga) out of almost 200 on the scale, while Pakistan comes in at 151. In the spirit of fairness, I should point out that New Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom are ranked higher on the index than the United States, so I am not arguing that we are necessarily a freer nation than them merely because of their restrictions on satire.

However, another example of the British press being influenced to reveals yet another wing of media corruption as of yet not addressed in the current News Corp. investigations.

Remember the royal wedding? Well, if you’re reading this you have access to an electronic device, which means you probably remember it. This story involves Australia, and to understand this story, we all need to remember that Australia is part of the British commonwealth. For its royal wedding coverage, ABC (the Australian Broadcasting Company) wanted to bring on the popular comedy group The Chasers to offer their unique brand of tongue-in-cheek comedy to the proceedings.

ABC was directly confronted by the BBC about this decision. The BBC threatened to pull their feed to ABC unless they struck the satirical coverage. This was part of a larger policy decreeing that absolutely no footage of the royal wedding could be used for any satirical purposes whatsoever. The key difference between this ban and the ban on using Parliamentary footage for satirical purposes is that the royal wedding ban was international. Australia couldn’t use the footage to make fun of it, and as Jon Stewart revealed to Keira Knightley in a May interview, neither could American broadcasters.

And according to an ABC article on the matter, the BBC was acting on behalf of Clarence House. What exactly is Clarence House? The official residence of Prince Charles, his son Prince William (the groom), and several other members of the royal family.

Or to put it another way, the royals said “Jump!” and the BBC said, “How high?” The BBC was heavily criticized by anti-monarchists for a perceived bias in favor of the royal family, described by the advocacy group Republic as “beyond sycophancy.” Republic is a political organization calling for the abolishment of the monarchy, and it argued that the BBC’s coverage of the wedding was not objective in any sense and equal time should be given to republicans to present their views. The group’s campaign manager explained their efforts thusly:

“When we met Helen Boden, the BBC’s director news, there was some positive engagement with our request for more balanced coverage, but no concrete commitment. We can now see the result of this. We will be taking it up with the BBC Trust and the director general.

“ITN, ITV and Sky ignored us, yet they too have an obligation to be objective and impartial. Opinion polls regularly find that one fifth of the population describe themselves as republican, yet that was not at all reflected in the coverage of the royal wedding.”

Right now Parliament is currently investigating ties between politicians and the press. Prime Minister David Cameron made it clear that this inquiry will not just look into News of the World and other News Corp. subsidiaries, but all of British media, including the BBC. Cameron said the BBC’s near-monopoly of UK broadcasting is worth looking into and having an open discussion about.

However reluctant some MPs may be to investigate News Corp. due to their own personal ties to Murdoch’s company, can you imagine how skittish they would be to even consider expanding the inquiry to the royal family’s influence over the press?

Here’s one key similarity between the Murdoch empire and the royal family: both are groups of unelected officials that wield power over the press and can influence media narratives. Politicians fear both, and up until recently, neither came under much political scrutiny.

As much as pundits in this country would like to complain about media censorship, take heart in the fact that dissent is not actively stifled in such a calculated, devious manner. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert do a lot more than just mock politicians speaking in the Capitol, they mock them to their faces. While interviewing the leader of the free world on a basic cable comedy show, Stewart ribbed President Obama for using the politically-toxic phrase “heckuva job” to talk about his economic advisors.

Of all the arguments you can make for banning/limiting/restricting satire, none of them seem to particularly persuasive. Satire has existed in many different forms. Nations that profess to be free should not be in the business of deciding what can and cannot be used to make fun of those in power.

Rather than ending with a satisfying conclusion summing up the main points of my argument, I’ll just leave you with my favorite piece of British political and media satire. MPs might want to relax and have a sense of humor about themselves. Just don’t have things getting silly.

That “smoking gun” that was supposed to link CNN’s Piers Morgan directly to phone hacking and other outrageous practices of the U.K. tabloid press? Well, not so much. As we reported Tuesday, a British blogger claimed to have a recording of Morgan that–he said–”contracts” Morgans flat denials that he ever “hacked a phone, told anybody to hack a phone or published any story based on the hacking of a phone.” As it turns out, that recording’s a 2009 interview Morgan gave to the BBC, appearing on a radio show, Desert Island Discs.The host, Kirsty Young asked Morgan about “all that nasty down-in-the-gutter stuff” that Morgan was exposed to by being a tabloid newspaper editor. He never says that he personally was involved in any of it.

Here’s his answer from 2009:

To be honest, let’s put that in perspective as well. Not a lot of that went on. A lot of it was done by third parties rather than the staff themselves. That’s not to defend it, because obviously you were running the results of their work. I’m quite happy to be parked in the corner of tabloid beast and to have to sit here defending all these things I used to get up to, and I make no pretence about the stuff we used to do. I simply say the net of people doing it was very wide, and certainly encompassed the high and the low end of the supposed newspaper market.

In a statement to Mediaite, Morgan says there’s nothing in that interview that contradicts what he’s said about hacking:

Millions of people heard these comments when I first made them in 2009 on one of the BBC’s longest -running radio shows, and none deduced that I was admitting to, or condoning illegal reporting activity. Kirsty asked me a fairly lengthy question about how I felt dealing with people operating at the sharp end of investigative journalism. My answer was not specific to any of the numerous examples she gave, but a general observation about tabloid newspaper reporters and private investigators. As I have said before, I have never hacked a phone, told anyone to hack a phone, nor to my knowledge published any story obtained from the hacking of a phone.

Here’s the original interview, from the BBC, via Newsweek/The Daily Beast:

The Daily Beast initially reported the story with the headline “Piers Morgan Admits to Phone Hacking in Nearly Forgotten Interview on BBC Radio Program,” though that isn’t entirely accurate (they’ve since then edited it to reflect that Morgan admits to “Dodgy Practices,” but not any in particular). That Morgan does not admit to the unethical behavior du jour in a two-year-old interview does not make the clip not newsworthy, however, as he openly admits to what his interview describes as “nasty, down in the gutter stuff.” “I’m quite happy to be parked in the corner of tabloid beast and to have to sit here defending all these things I used to get up to,” he tells the anchor.

He notes that his recklessness in youth “brought a sense of slight abandonment about the reality of what you were doing to people,” and while unspecified suspicious behavior went on, “not a lot of that went on… a lot of that was done by third parties.” He goes on to say that, as the tabloids benefited from the behavior, this did not exonerate them, and that it went on in both “the high end and low end of the newspaper market.”

The interview also has Morgan discussing a fascinating meeting with a teenaged Prince William, who demanded to know why the tabloids had treated his mother they way they did. He says he told the Prince that he was “public property” and had to learn to deal with it. “He didn’t know that his mum used to ring me up on a daily basis to give me stories on her rivals… its a two-way street,” Morgan argues.

It may not have delivered what the Daily Beast originally intended it to, but the interview is certainly a must-listen to understand Morgan’s perspective on the matter, and highlights the pervasiveness of the sort of behavior that may take down News Corp. Listen to the clip (via Daily Beast) below:

First Grant went over the story as well as some of his most disturbing findings:

“[McMullen told me] how high, extensive, industrial-scale phone-hacking went on at News of the World, particularly under Andy Coulson, how it wasn’t just the News of the World, it was all the tabloids, how money regularly passed hands between News International and offices of Metropolitan Police, how Margaret Thatcher was the first prime minister to realize it was very hard to get elected in this country without the backing of the Murdoch press. So she was the first one to become an undignified sycophant to that organization, to that media tycoon, a pattern that’s been followed by every Prime Minister since including the current one.”

McMullen was then brought on and, while the conversation seemed relatively friendly at first (McMullen joked that the only thing missing from Grant’s story was that he still owed him money for the drinks), the sparks started flying when McMullen defended the practice of phone hacking.

“You should try real journalism,” Grant said. “Because you’re not an idiot. You could probably do it.”

Grant is set to testify in the case.

Watch the clip from the BBC below:

(h/t Hollywood Elsewhere)

In the video clip below, Conservative party member George Osborne is reacting to news from the Office of National Statistics that Britain’s economy saw 0.8% growth between July and September 2010. If you listen very closely, he adheres to his talking points very carefully, repeating the same lines about “getting a double dose of good news,” Britain’s credit rating, and pretty much everything else.

Say what you will about American politicians, but at least they’re not this bleeding obvious with their talking points.

Watch the video below, courtesy of the BBC:

h/t Charlie Brooker

What does an overprogrammed politician look like? Ed Miliband. In a bizarre interview with the BBC, the leader of Britain’s Labor (or should I say Labour?) Party robotically resorts to the exact same lines to each and every question he’s asked–leading the Daily Mail to question whether Miliband might, in fact, be a cyborg of some sort. “With his bizarre nasal voice and geeky demeanor, commentators have often joked whether Ed Miliband really is human.” After the BBC interview, he’s got a new nickname: Robo-Ed.

As the Mail describes the performance, Miliband displayed a “peculiar fixed stare as he parroted identical answers to questions about public sector strikes.”

Watch it here, from the BBC:

NBC News doesn’t have a start date or a name for its new prime-time news show to be led by Nightly News Brian Williams, but it does have an executive producer, as of today. Rome Hartman, who helped create the BBC’s American flagship newscast, BBC World News America, has signed on with NBC in an announcement from the network today.

“We are tremendously excited to have Rome on board,” said Steve Capus, president of NBC News, who also announced that David Corvo, executive producer of NBC’s Dateline, will be elevated into a new role as senior executive producer of primetime news.

Hartman has been a critic of the broadcast and cable news networks, telling Mediaite last December last his mission at the BBC was to provide American viewers a window on the world, not just Washington, New York and Hollywood.

“Our real reason for living at BBC World News America is to bring to an American audience a smart, sophisticated view of events and issues in the world beyond U.S. shores,” Hartman said. “That’s frankly a view that TV viewers in the U.S. have a hard time finding anyplace else, because the cable nets are so relentlessly focused on domestic events and issues. We think that there has never been a time when it’s more important for Americans to understand the wider world, nor a time when it’s harder to do that based on the standard fare of Amercian networks.”

NBC has said the new show will be a showcase not just for Williams to do longer form interviews and stories, but as a platform for other NBC News talent, including someone like Meredith Vieira, whose departure from TODAY has left NBC looking for a way to keep her in the family. The new show is scheduled to debut in the fall.

The BBC is reporting this morning that Bradley Manning, the soldier targeted in the WikiLeaks scandal who has been held in isolation at Fort Leavenworth, has been cleared to be held as a medium-security prisoner. According to Fort Leavenworth Commandant Lt. Col. Dawn Hilton, Manning will be treated like any other prisoner. “We’re firm but fair. We treat everybody – staff and inmates – with dignity and respect,” she was quoted by the Kansas City Star as saying.

As the BBC notes, Manning’s treatment has been the subject of criticism:

There had been growing international concern at the treatment of Pte Manning during his detention in Quantico, Virginia.

His lawyers said he had been subjected to 24-hour surveillance and was forced to relinquish his clothing before bedding down for the night, then forced to stand naked at roll call.

Now, Manning will be allowed visitors, mail and three hours of recreation per day–some outdoors and some at the prison library.

Palin’s father, Chuck Heath, tells the newsmagazine a recent series of threats chilled the family, including a man who sent photocopies of receipts for a gun he’d bought, along with a copy of his one-way ticket on a flight to Alaska. The family reports the man did make the trip, and was arrested by the FBI. But it’s taken a toll. “We sleep with the guns,” said Heath.

Palin herself also spoke to the BBC, saying “rumors” and “lies” have persisted since the 2008 campaign, including suggestions she’s not smart enough to be president:

“Rumours like I didn’t know Africa was a continent, that’s still out there, that’s a lie,” she told me.
“Things like I censored books when I was a mayor up here in Alaska, that’s a lie. It’s not all you guys, but some of you are saying that Trig [her fifth child] is not mine – that’s a sign of a screwed-up media.
“Would you be offended if someone said your child wasn’t your child? It’s offensive.”

Will she run? Palin suggests a key question is whether voters will be ready for someone “unconventional” who “calls it like she sees it.” Anybody in mind?

Check out a portion of the video from BBC below:

There, the door is firmly shut to international journalists, local reporters face intimidation and the threat of worse. It explains why, in contrast to recent events in Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain, we’re unable to report from inside Libya on the protests taking place there, and the authorities violent response.

And that’s an uncomfortable place for us to be.

The efforts by the Gaddafi regime to impose a media blackout has not been entirely successful, with citizens using social media to get the word out of protesters being shot dead by government troops and widespread reports of brutal violence leaving people dead by the hundreds. These first-hand reports providing critical information–but putting agencies like the BBC in a difficult position of depending on unknown individuals instead of trusted, experienced journalists:

The BBC and other news organisations are relying on those on the ground to tell us what’s happening. Their phone accounts – often accompanied by the sound or gunfire and mortars – are vivid. However, inevitably, it means we cannot independently verify the accounts coming out of Libya. That’s why we don’t present such accounts as “fact” – they are “claims” or “allegations”.

The BBC says it’s doing its best, but concedes a flood of “user generated content” can quickly dry up when access to the internet is cut off.

The BBC says its expanded news operations in the U.S. will include the hiring of additional journalists in the Washington, DC bureau and enhanced digital offerings on the BBC website. “Americans look to the BBC to ‘connect the dots’ between America and the world in ways very few news organizations can,” said Miranda Cresswell, senior vice president of BBC.com. “This new investment will allow us to ramp that up and respond to growing demand for online news video content.”

The video was taken as a collaboration and will be used in both the upcoming series Human Planet as well as the documentary Uncontacted Tribes. It was taken from a helicopter using a camera with an extreme zoom so as to minimize the disturbance to the tribe. But why take it at all? The tribe’s land is being encroached on by illegal loggers and, when asked to protect them, the Peruvian government expressed doubt that they even existed. This footage was the only way to prove they were there.

(h/t HuffPo)

You can watch a the footage in a clip from Uncontacted Tribes below:

While we send our wishes for the safety of everyone in Egypt and any other Arab country currently in strife, we send a special prayer to the journalists brave enough to bring us the story.

Watch the video from the BBC below:

(h/t Brian Stelter)

Rome Hartman, executive producer of BBC World News America, believes there’s a huge piece of the news landscape being ignored by the three main players in U.S. cable news: the world beyond Washington and Wasilla.

Hartman believes the cable news networks are “relentlessly focused on domestic events and issues,” leaving the rest of the world, essentially, ripe for the picking:

“Our real reason for living at BBC World News America is to bring to an American audience a smart, sophisticated view of events and issues in the world BEYOND U.S. shores,” Hartman told Mediaite. “That’s frankly a view that TV viewers in the U.S. have a hard time finding anyplace else, because the cable nets are so relentlessly focused on domestic events and issues. We think that there has never been a time when it’s more important for Americans to understand the wider world, nor a time when it’s harder to do that based on the standard fare of Amercian networks. That’s our U.S.P.”

Matt Frei, World News America’s main anchor, was just honored with a DuPont–one of the major journalism awards in the country–for his coverage of the earthquake and aftermath in Haiti—a story where he competed directly against some of America’s top news names, including CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

“Of course, the Haiti quake was SUCH a big story that all the nets went after it really hard. It’s in situations like that when the BBC’s international reach and experience really gives us an advantage; we do it every day, so we can naturally do it well when the bell rings,” said Hartman. “But I think the duPont recognizes something more than that; it recognizes that Matt Frei and Matthew Price represent a standard of storytelling that we’re really proud of, and that few of our competitors can match in the field.”

In 2011, the BBC has bold plans to grab news viewers away from CNN, MSNBC and top-rated Fox News—or, perhaps more accurately—to attract new news viewers who have interests beyond the primetime politics and debates that have driven cable news coverage.

Here’s the DuPont citation for the BBC’s Matt Frei and Matthew Price:

“Under terrible conditions, Matt Frei and Matthew Price covered Haiti in the aftermath of the January 2010 earthquake with solid and compassionate reporting. The reporters and their crew demonstrated great courage walking into the wreckage and scenes of unrest to get the story. With sober resolve on the ground, they accurately captured the unfolding tragedy. As a result viewers saw new angles of the news that were not reported elsewhere; intensely personal stories arising out of a catastrophe and told through the eyes of Haitians. Careful writing and shrewd observation in the reporting bolstered the strong images of a country in chaos.

In an interview with The Guardian, Thompson says he and Murdoch share a belief that the U.K. would benefit from a strong–even “opinionated” news channel–and Murdoch told him “he would like Sky News to go down a polemical ‘Fox-style’ route–but…the editors of the channel had brushed off his wishes.”

Thompson, speaking at a seminar on broadcasting impartiality, shocked some in the audience–and his own BBC moderator–by, essentially, saying impartiality’s a bit of an outdated concept:

There was a logic in allowing impartial broadcasters to have a monopoly of the broadcasting space. But in the future, maybe there should be a broad range of choices? Why shouldn’t the public be able to see and hear, as well as read, a range of opinionated journalism and then make up their own mind what they think about it?

“The BBC and Channel 4 have a history of clearly labelled polemical programmes. But why not entire polemical channels which have got stronger opinions? I find the argument persuasive.

Thompson said Fox News is a clear model for the kind of channel he’s talking about, as the Guardian’s Adam Sherwin reports:

In the US, strong opinion had won the ratings battle, with the right-wing Fox News getting a larger audience than CNN, Thompson said. But that needn’t be replicated in Britain. “I don’t believe that necessarily means you get the dire consequences that some people see in America. Having a broader range of channels would actually strengthen that enduring tradition of impartial journalism across BBC, ITN and Channel 4. They would continue to be trusted.

“Impartiality is sovereign for the BBC. The premium on impartiality would grow. But I’m not convinced that the public service broadcasters need to have a monopoly over news for ever.” During the debate it was suggested the Daily Mail newspaper should be free to set up its own opinionated news station if it so wished.

Ferguson, a self-confessed fan of the epic British sci-fi series had devoted an entire night to the show, set for a big move into the U.S. with a Doctor Who Christmas special airing on Christmas Day (and directed by Steven Moffat, the same guy who just created the reboot of Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock).

Ferguson had planned to open the show with a huge puppet-laden, go-go booted dancer-filled musical number set to the famous Doctor Who music, complete with lyrics explaining the show to confused Americans–only to have the skit cut by producers:

“I did a whole big thing and I know you enjoy the puppet intros–but five minutes before we start tonight. Five minutes! The producers–and I use the term loosely–say Craig, we haven’t got legal clearance to use the music.”

Well imagine our surprise to find the lost musical number on YouTube–along with a heads-up via Twitter from Ferguson himself: “oh no, the Dr. Who clip leaked! I’m furious! When I find out who did this… #leaktheclip”

Even if you’re not exactly clear on the whole Doctor Who phenomenon, this one’s worth watching–especially for “geeks and nerds”:

If you’re interested enough to give the Doctor a try, catch the Doctor Who Christmas movie on BBC America on Christmas Day.

We at Mediaite will be taking the night off (ha, kidding), but here’s a list of all the places to tune your TV to Tuesday night – and what to expect.

BROADCAST NETWORKS:

ABC

• “Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos will anchor live coverage of election results from across the country on Tuesday, November 2. ABC’s “Vote 2010” will originate from ABC News headquarters in New York beginning with a special edition of “World News with Diane Sawyer” at 6:30pm ET and continuing with full election coverage from 8:00 p.m. ET until at least 4:00 a.m. ET.

The network will carry special reports at the top and bottom of each hour from 8:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. followed by a live 90-minute special at 9:30 p.m. ET / 9:30 p.m. PT. ABC News will live-stream a special program, anchored by Sawyer and Stephanopoulos, from 8:00–9:30 p.m. ET on ABCNews.com, Facebook®, and on the ABC News iPad application. Beginning at 9:30 p.m. ET Facebook, ABCNews.com, and the iPad app will live-stream the network’s election coverage.”

• Others contributing: Senior Political Correspondent Jonathan Karl, Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper, This Week Christiane Amanpour reporting from Connecticut.

• “David Muir and Facebook’s Randi Zuckerberg moderating an On Campus town hall meeting at Arizona State University.” (Featuring, well, you know.)

• “Nightline will air a special hour-long broadcast beginning at 11:35pm ET and then will air another new one-hour broadcast for the West Coast at 11:35pm PT. ABCNEWS.com will provide up to the minute results and ABC News projections for winners in the Senate, House, and gubernatorial races as the polls close. ABC’s interactive election map provides detailed information about all races for Senate, Congress and Governor. Earlier in the day, there will be special Election Day editions of ABC News/Washington Post’s “Top Line” and Jake Tapper’s “Political Punch” webcasts.”

CBS

• “Led by CBS EVENING NEWS Anchor and Managing Editor Katie Couric, CBS News election coverage will cross all media platforms, featuring reports and analysis from political reporting veterans Chief Washington Correspondent Bob Schieffer, Senior Political Correspondent Jeff Greenfield and CBS News Congressional Correspondent Nancy Cordes. The CBS News team will collaborate with Google to present unique information that will enhance its analysis of the nation’s attitudes toward the candidates and the issues.”

• “CBS News’ election special “Campaign 2010: Election Night” hosted by Katie Couric will kick off Tuesday, Nov. 2 at 10:00 PM, ET. Immediately following the broadcast, Couric will anchor a live webcast at 11:00 PM, ET that will feature extended analysis from the CBS News political team, interviews and special guests. Additionally, Couric will provide brief Campaign 2010 updates at the top of each hour throughout the night.

In addition, CBSNews.com will provide live breaking news from across the country and unique analysis on what it all means in stories, blogs and video. From 9:00-10:00 PM, ET, the site will air a special one-hour live WASHINGTON UNPLUGGED webcast featuring breaking developments on the top Election Night races with analysis from CBS News correspondents, political analysts and more. At 10:00 PM, ET, CBSNews.com will simulcast the CBS News Network Election Night special report, followed by a live webcast with Katie Couric and the CBS News political team continuing their coverage on CBSNews.com and via the site’s live streaming partners.”

NBC

• “Network coverage will begin at 6:30 pm, ET, on the “NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams.” All “Nightly News” feeds will be updated live, with election trends, analysis and results as polls close. The NBC Network’s “Decision 2010″ special coverage will begin with a two-hour “Decision 2010″ special report from 9:00 – 11:00 pm, ET. West Coast viewers will get an NBC News live “Decision 2010″ special report from 9:00 – 11:00 pm, PT. NBC News will also offer its affiliates time within the special report to cover local and state races.

For NBC News’ coverage, a veteran team of NBC News correspondents will report from across the country on key Senate, House and gubernatorial races and a team of analysts, lead by NBC News’ Elections Director Sheldon Gawiser, will analyze the statewide exit polls, election results and voter trends. It is NBC News’ policy to not project a winner in any state until all of that state’s polls are scheduled to close.”

• The coverage will continue from 11:35pmET-3:30amET.

• “NBC News will offer comprehensive coverage of the upcoming 2010 mid-term elections on Nov. 2 across all its platforms, including msnbc, Msnbc.com, Telemundo, NBC News Radio and NBC News Mobile. Live from NBC News’ headquarters at 30 Rockefeller Plaza in New York, Brian Williams will anchor “Decision 2010,” and will be joined by “Meet the Press” moderator David Gregory and NBC News Special Correspondent Tom Brokaw. Correspondents Andrea Mitchell, Savannah Guthrie and NBC News Washington Bureau Chief Mark Whitaker will also offer reports and analysis. In addition, NBC News Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd will conduct live results analysis for both NBC News and MSNBC; and Lester Holt will report on exit polls for both NBC News and MSNBC as well.”

FOX

• “FOX News Channel’ s (FNC) Shepard Smith will anchor FOX Broadcasting Company’ s mid-term election night coverage on November 2nd. In addition to providing the network cut-ins throughout the night, Smith will anchor two straight live hours of election programming from 9:00-10:00 PM ET and 12:00-1:00 AM ET.

Joining Smith on a panel will be FOX News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace along with FNC contributors: Nina Easton of Fortune and Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard. Further commentary and analysis will be provided by FNC contributors, including: former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin; Democratic consultant Joe Trippi; former senior White House advisor to President George W. Bush, Karl Rove; and Democratic strategist Bob Beckel.”

NEXT PAGE: The Cable Options.

There are two great things in this video that aren’t the finger itself. First is the reaction Schafernaker makes when he realizes he’s on the air. The guy looks like a 13 year old boy who just got caught by his parents looking at naughty pictures on the internet. The second is McCoy’s save. The guy responds with the Sahara Desert dryness of the best British comedians. Perfect. Meanwhile, the BBC has apologized.

By the way, I want to apologize to anyone who read the headline, thought England, and assumed the video depicted the weatherman literally lifting a woman up and flipping her over. That is not the case. Although, having done some research on Schafernaker, I’m pretty sure he probably could.