It’s Friday and so time for a new Open Thread. The floor is yours….
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir Dec 19, 03:04
Midweek 18th December 2024
The liars caught out over and over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZX3XFzmTww - BRISSLES Dec 19, 00:58
Midweek 18th December 2024
Perhaps they’re looking to give Chopper (Ive done this, Ive done that ..) Hopeless his own show – he infiltrates… - StewGreen Dec 19, 00:25
Midweek 18th December 2024
GBnews new lineup statement doesn’t mention Dolan https://www.gbnews.com/shows/gb-news-makes-2025-programming-announcement - StewGreen Dec 19, 00:24
Midweek 18th December 2024
Foreign funded Client Earth have been using lawfare trickery to usurp democracy on UK enviro policy, for years They are… - wwfc Dec 18, 23:08
Midweek 18th December 2024
I wonder why this is happening more and more now let me think !! His 61-year-old father collapsed and died… - wwfc Dec 18, 22:50
Midweek 18th December 2024
Well looks like this site will not be around much longer happy heart attack and you paid for it yourself… - atlas_shrugged Dec 18, 22:39
Midweek 18th December 2024
A Turkish crime boss said to be one of Britain’s biggest drug dealers has won his human rights battle against… - Fedup2 Dec 18, 22:20
Midweek 18th December 2024
Me . Every year – I used to get flu and it took me out for 2 or 3 weeks… - Eddy Booth Dec 18, 22:18
Midweek 18th December 2024
[img]https://i.postimg.cc/fL5j2Zh2/Screenshot-20241218-215548.png[/img] - Emmanuel Goldstein Dec 18, 22:13
Midweek 18th December 2024
This 10.5 £billion that the waspi wimmin want….that’s half a black hole.
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
It is a great feeling to be the first to post. I don’t have anytying to say, just feels good.
David, maybe this thread can have a “virginity restoration” operation on the NHS.
“Anything”. I got a bit over-excited !
you may have picked up the “snake invents egg” story on the Today programme this morning?
I know its the silly season without much by way of political news but this was ridiculous. I commented:
To: The Editor of the BBC Today Progamme
Sir. Once again we have an example of either the extreme gullibility or the naiviete of the BBC.
On the Today programme this morning a “scientist” explained how a new discovery of some fossil records throws light on the theory of evolution in that snakes “invented” (sic) eggs, and then came out of water/oceans etc on to dry land and thus the process of evolution developed some “400 million years ago”
Why does the BBC open itself to such outlandish absurdity?
So, the snake “invented” the egg did it – even though this concept flies in the face of all observable and real scientific fact? This would seem to be a variant of the old joke ‘What came first, the chicken or the egg?’
Most normal people observe the everyday fact that snakes, chickens, birds and innumerable creatures, all come OUT of eggs! Where is the evidence that snakes actually “invented” the egg some millions of years ago?
Why was it that on this occasion the redoubtable John Humphries did not exercise his usual forensic questioning abilities to expose this completely fraudulent claim? Why too does the BBC allow the likes of this “scientific” crank to fill air time with such fairy stories.
I suspect that every time the BBC parades the old discredited “evolutionary” theories it must turn many listeners to think that by comparison the Biblical Genesis account of origins may sound a great deal more sane and credible than the discredited evolutionary theories which abound, and thereby being worthy of investigation. Certainly it is easier to believe than the ‘cock-and-bull’ story we heard this morning.
Come on BBC – snakes “inventing eggs”? Pull the other one.
I suggest the Today Programme offers a retraction of this misplaced April fools Day joke, and at the first opportunity apologises to all its listeners.
Sincerely
Graham Wood
I made a complaint once to the BBC when some ‘science’ beeboid stated that the Crane Fly was “ugly and made from all the bits god had left over”.
Since when did science believe that god was responsible for evolution? The BBC failed to even reply to my complaint.
Graham,
The BBC simply don’t do science.
Beeboids don’t have a clue about it so they are completely incapable of telling real science from the crank science.
Most Beeboids probably think that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
Science is just too difficult for the left-wing arty-farties at the BBC.
I enjoyed your very entertaining letter to the BBC.
Most normal people observe the everyday fact that snakes, chickens, birds and innumerable creatures, all come OUT of eggs!
😀
Invented them did they. We should be pleased they didn’t patent them as well!
For all the biased econut reporters and staff at the BBC, maybe they should open their eyes a little. WattsUpWithThat is now the No 1 Science blog on the internet, and has just reached 50 million hits. It is surely required reading for anyone dealing with “climate” – covering scientific papers and also the politics of climate. Yes, it is on the sceptic side – but its policy is to publish lots of guest articles including articles from Warmists, and it does not censor its comments to exclude the Warmists. In short – we can see some DEBATE. (By contrast, the Warmist sites such as RealClimate are policed by attack dogs, there is seldom real debate but plenty of vituperation.)
As we see week by week, the BBC studiously pretends there is no corpus of evidence against the Warmist case, and its reporting on climate issues has become a laughing-stock, a travesty of proper journalism.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/29/a-cool-50-million/#more-22738
Has the BBC ever posted a link to WattsUpWithThat in any of their stories about a changing climate?
Black et al will deliberately avoid posting links to sceptic sites – ESPECIALLY WattsUpWithThat, which is now the most populare Science website in the world.
Whats up with That covers the science of climate. The BBc only covers the fantasy
Just watched the two ugly female beeboids on News 24 swoon over fat slug Prescott’s so called ‘evidence’ at the Chilcot inquiry.
The fat mong couldn’t even get the UN resolution number right (thank god this fat turd never had to give Nuclear launch codes) yet funnily enough the two ugly females didn’t seem to notice.
Oh hang on fat Prezza is a legend in the eyes of the BBC, so no wonder St Pauline (she really does look like a man in drag) is now in with the BBC, funny that the BBC always seems to find a home for the failed socialists.
I notice the BBC haven’t bothered to correct the Muzzie women being thrown off a bus story yet, I wonder why the worlds ‘finest’ broadcaster (stop sniggering at the back) hasn’t bothered?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-10728912
Actually Martin they have, the thing is there are no overt links to the story what so ever. I’m not going to post the link, see if you can find it. I suppose the bBC can claim they aired the story, the thing is, it wasn’t given the prominence the intial story was given.In fact if you type hijab into the bbC search engine. That story is given top billing (Right corner)
Now that’s how to really bury a story!!
Maybe they could hide any unwelcome news on global warming there as well!
Found it, which in no way takes away from Pounce’s point that the BBC hides in plain view, news it doesn’t want to publicise.
There is a corollary. News the BBC wants to publicise hangs around as prominent links, seemingly forever.
The ‘correction’ is a masterpiece of semantic gymnastics. It has now become a ‘he said/she said’ story with the implication that the courts will decide the truth. The BBC reporter apparently didn’t interview the driver or any passengers or ask to see the CCTV for himself.
There is no way to check of course as the BBC acceded to their request not to publish their names (why?) but if they were students, what were they studying? Were they legally allowed to study or even live in Britain? How did they attempt to video the driver? Where is their video showing the driver refusing to give his details and covering his face? Did the journalist see it or does he just take their word for it? Could this have been a successful publicity stunt?
I urge you all to take up Pounce’s challenge to ‘find that story!’
Well, I looked under various headings: first under England, then under London & South East and finally under Also in the News.
I didn’t find it and by then I was feeling quite irritated by the website and by the process of searching for it. I gave up.
Millie,
The BBC’s website, just like the BBC, is rubbish.
Even finding TV and Radio schedules takes a lifetime.
I wonder how much it costs ?
What I’ve done, Grant, is to save (as separate items) the website links for the radio stations that I want: Radio 3 and 4.
For TV schedules, I have saved a couple of TV listings services: On the Box and TV Easy.
A simple click on either of those brings up the schedules for TV stations in list or grid form, according to your preference.
The last estimate I saw was – £100 MILLION per annum for the website !!!
Chaps, you might like to visit Anna Raccoons’ wonderful blog, where there is an excellent article pointing out the full dangers of the bbc to our freedom.
Link?
http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/the-condem%e2%80%99s-greatest-mistake-so-far
Thanks, Craig. Excellent blog. We are not alone !!!
Again the BBC going on about ‘civilian casualties’ in Afghanistan yet ignore the Wikileaks documents putting even more people at risk.
Clearly the scum BBC thinks that anyone helping the coalition out (I mean the one in Afghanistan not Westminster although the BBC detest both) deserves to die.
The BBC are welcome to believe that, so long as our country starts believing anyone helping the Taliban out deserves to die.
Recently I have been listening to the American NPR’s Planet Money podcast ..
http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast.php?id=510289
If you have an interest in financial matters its well worth a listen and can make a bus journey slightly less boring.
I know that NPR has been criticised by some American’s for its left wing leanings but compared to the Beeb it is nothing. What is interesting is the way the reporters actually have knowledge of the subject they are reporting and use that to find innovative ways to describe stories. The Planet Money reporters used $1000 of their own money to buy a “toxic asset” CDO and then used that as a way to explain the CDO market , the housing bubble , the bailout and mortgage fraud. I get the feeling that they are doing it all on a fraction of the Beebs economic coverage budget yet the results are a 100 times better.
If the BBC did this, they’d invest £10,000 of license fee cash and lose it all investing in “Green” industry, and then blame nasty Big Oil and conservatives for it.
In the programme 5 days, toenails should have lambasted Brown for resigning early. Brown as PM should have stayed until there was full agreement for a next gov to take over. Once Brown finally realised he had no hope, he quit, Robinson should have ripped him to pieces for that betrayal of official office. Robinson only offered him sympathy, what a Labour apologist.
Mr. Brown was trying to dig in and stay on until the Party convention in the autumn. He wasn’t going anywhere until the LibDems told Labour in no uncertain terms that there would be no Lib/Lab coalition because they hated Mr. Brown and Labour wouldn’t give the LibDems even the second-tier positions in Government the Tories did. Suddenly Nick Robinson is no longer making fun of Brown’s attempt to cling to power. I guess he doesn’t have total editorial control of his little series.
Once the Conservatives got more votes than anyone else, they were perfectly entitled to try and form a minority government if they wanted. Brown should have stepped down the day after the election, and it would not have been “abandoning his post”. Hell, he could have stepped down and handed power over to one of the Milibands or something, which might have kept the LibDems on side. Naturally, the BBC wallowed in Brown’s delusions for days until he finally went home to write his book.
The BBC gave scum like Alistair Campbell all the airtime to try to claim that they were entitled to stay in power, only Adam Bolton at Sky News finally let the anger of millions get airtime when he laid into the vile Campbell.
What the BBC don’t get is that Campbell, Mandelson and Adonis didn’t have a single voter vote for them, how the Liebour party could be respected is beyond me and why didn’t Toenails point this out last night?
I really don’t like unelected scum like Campbell having so much power in Government.
Resigning was the only thing Brown got right it his miserable life. Expect him to resign as an MP after the recess ( getting paid for being on a long holiday ).
One of the biggest stories in the US at the moment is the scandal involving DEMOCRAT Charlie Rangal, checking the BBC’s USA news site why am I not surprised to find not a single mention of it?
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/07/30/2010-07-30_its_a_wrap_pack_it_in_harlemites_urge_rep.html
Just as the BBC played down Barry Obama’s links to terrorists and of course John Edwards extra marital shagging and many other sleaze stories involving DEMOCRATS.
But of course the BBC managed to make a full blown story about Sarah Palin and her Shakespeare comment on Twitter.
The BBC we tell you bollocks so you don’t know the truth.
He’s black, ergo he’s probably a victim of racism, so no scandal in evidence to the BBC. Sadly, Rangel is my Congressman, and I’ve been forced to watch his corruption for years and years. It’s much more than is even being focused on right now. But his district is majority non-white, so he will always be re-elected unless a powerful Latino candidate challenges him. This area is majority Hispanic nowadays, and they will always vote for someone who speaks Spanish over an Anglophone black man.
The BBC should shut down its entire US operation and replace all those Beeboids with two or three people born and raised in the US who are not dedicated JournoListers or their fellow travelers. I could do a better job informing the British public about what goes on in the US at a fraction of what the BBC spends.
It looks like my Congressman, Charlie Rangel, might soon be going under the bus to join Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Van Jones, Israel, and very nearly Shirley Sherrod (the President threw her under the bus almost as soon as Fox News finished their first report on her, but He quickly pulled her back out before it was too late). Check out His use of past tense and other word choices.
“I think Charlie Rangel served a very long time and served– his constituents very well. But these– allegations are very troubling,” Obama told Harry Smith in an interview to be aired on the “Early Show.” and first broadcast on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric.
“And he’ll– he’s somebody who’s at the end of his career. Eighty years old. I’m sure that– what he wants is to be able to– end his career with dignity. And my hope is that– it happens.”
This is not as important as Chelsea Clinton or the wombs of either Sarah Palin or her daughter.
Not a report for open-door, mass immigration BBC:
“Migrants will end up driving our population higher than Germany’s”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298809/Migrants-end-driving-population-higher-Germanys.html#ixzz0vA6KUdga
Before Judge Bolton’s invention, the Arizona anti-illegal-immigration law was due to come into effect on July 29th. So on July 28th, the BBC posted two articles on its website just to reinforce all its previous one-sided propaganda on the subject.
The first, ‘Arizona immigration law stokes fear in Mexico village’, by Julian Miglierini, shows one side of the story. (The article’s headline tells you all you need to know about it).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10774008
The second is ‘US border violence: Myth or reality?‘, a polemic-disguised-as-a-report by Katie Connolly. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10779151
After some perfunctory quotes from people on the ‘wrong’ side of the argument at the start of the article, she moves on to trying her very best to discredit them. She uses extensive quotes from someone who’s becoming a bit of a BBC regular, John Cook, mayor of El Paso. (Katie forgets to mention that he’s a Democrat). He takes a very liberal line on illegal immigration and gets two long paragraphs to air his views.
In between comes a paragraph devoted to the views of a second prosecution witness: “Border historian David Romo”, who “says it is a pattern. He’s seen politicians fanning fears about the border before.” “Nativist hysteria”, he calls it. Being the BBC, you know if you google ‘David Romo’ he’s likely to be more than a mere ‘border historian’ and, sure enough, it turns out that he’s also a left-wing cultural activist, and journalist for the far-Left ‘Texas Observer’ (‘Border historian’ sounds a lot more respectable though than ‘communist agitator’!).
http://www.zoominfo.com/search#search/profile/person?personId=87199046&targetid=profile
http://newspapertree.com/features/926-new-voices-of-dissent-walkouts-and-other-protests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Observer
And you can listen to him on…wait for it…uprising radio. It has an “interesting” logo of a clenched fist, a tagline “Subverting the Airwaves” and a prominent feature called “Subversive history”.
I am sure everyone will want to tune in 😉 , so here’s a link:
http://uprisingradio.org/home/?cat=23
The BBC has been misrepresenting the Arizona situation the whole time. When they’re not just lying about it outright, that is.
Have they told you that 18 other states have passed similar legislation, and that at least Rhode Island has already had their police checking immigration papers for the last two years? Or would that ruin that “rapport” Matt Frei says they want to create for you?
I’m actually quite surprised a page like this exists. Fair enough, the BBC might not be to everyones taste, but surely its better than, for example, Fox News with feaks such as Bill O’Riley. Maybe we should be greatful the BBC even exists, if Mr Murdoch has his way it’ll be a hundred times worse. Then you’ll really have something to complain about
Indeed Rob most of Skys output is utter trash but I don’t watch it and I’m not forced to pay for it by law as I am the Beeb.
Also have you watched any BBC3 output of late ? Its pretty much on a par with the worst that Murdoch’s empire spews out. If you want to watch decent documentaries these days forget the dumbed down rubbish on the Beeb and take a look at Discovery , History and National Geographic channels. You won’t believe how good it is to watch a documentary that doesn’t have to mention global warming every 2 minutes.
Fox News is not the Official National Broadcaster of the US, with a special relationship and place in culture built up over generations. Nor is anyone forced to pay for it by law.
Why is this concept so difficult for people to grasp?
It is not a question of taste, it is about telling the truth and not lefty propaganda and bias. Take the story pointed to above about the Muslim women and the bus. The investigation and the busses CCTV showed the women to have made a false allegation against the driver. They were banned because of their rude and abusive behaviour. So no headline of ‘ Muslim veiled women make false allegation against bus driver’.
The BBC runs with Bus firm rejects Muslim women’s London bus ride refusal
Thanks, I had followed the story from the Evening Standard as I thought this was a ‘London’ story; Berkshire would have never entered my head. Again, the different approaches show the bBC in action. I think both articles come over as sympathetic towards the women. The standard in it’s coverage of the 28th, point out that the driver could lose his job with such allegations, nothing will happen to the women.
Also the Standard reported that the women banged on the bus, this information must have been available to the bBC, they choose to ignore this aspect.
Ah Rob you like to make the obvious error, Fox News is ONE news outlet in America and you may not like Bill O’Reilly but he’s a commentator, why don’t you point out the endless left wing outlets in America like CNN, MSNBC, ABC and so on? Or is it that you only dislike right wing news?
The BBC is obviously to your taste, you obviously enjoy the left wing crap pumped out by the BBC with it’s compulsory tax. In as much as you dislike Bill O’Reilly I hate Nick Robinson, Nikki Campbell, Vicky Derbyshire, Kirsty Wark, Robert Peston and so on, the difference is they are supposed to be impartial (they are not) and I have to fund them.
This page would vanish overnight if the BBC went over to subscription so people like you could pay £30 a month to watch the BBC and I wouldn’t have to, but until then I will continue to highlight the left wing bias of the scum at the BBC.
Rob Thomas,
You do not like Fox news? then dont watch it! Is it that you cannot bear to see your political enemies having a mass media platform? What is it about the left wing that they simply cannot allow free broad spectrum political discourse, a furious jealousy errupts whenever the right gets the opportunity to reach the greater population.
Fox news reporting standards are lightyears ahead of anything the BBC can offer.
Fox news? the news outlet the leftists LOVE TO HATE because it dares to bring a broad aspect of political views to the viewer rather than a narrow progressive leftist perspective.
Fox news is hated by the leftists and just because of that single reason I happen to think its the best news channel and website on offer.
Bill O’reilly is a right wing commentator and serves right wing audiences which is fair, the BBC serves the left wing and socialist commentators almost exclusively. Fox news is by subscription and the BBC is by enforcement carried out by thugs and bullies with the criminal courts behind them.
You’re right of course Cassandra. The left do not like any other view than their own. Their idea of Democracy is summed up with the title of a defunct country viz “Deutsche Demokratische Republik”.
Cassie/John,
Yes exactly. What it boils down to is that socialists do not believe in democracy or freedom of speech. Simple as that.
If BBC News had 10% the commitment to impartiality and journalistic integrity – not to mention basic professionalism – that Fox News does, I probably wouldn’t mind it as much. But since it’s so heavily biased that it exhibits gravitational lensing, that’s why I advocate it’s total annihilation.
I notice your post is chock-full of grammatical errors. Being illiterate doesn’t help your already full-of-holes argument, you know. Maybe you should spend more time reading, and less time on the intertubes making a prize tit of yourself.
Gah. Its not it’s.
ASL said:
“But since it’s so heavily biased that it exhibits gravitational lensing, that’s why I advocate it’s total annihilation”
Perfect utterly perfect phrase IMHO 😎
That should really be pasted in big letters near the B-BBC headline it so perfectly encapsulates BBC bias, obviously Black/Shukman/Harrabin wouldnt know what it meant!
Rob,
I guess you get the message from other posters, but why should I have to pay for an organisation which represents everything which I find utterly repulsive ?
Ermm Rob, Fox News is honest about its editorial bias, and separates reporting from opinion. The BBC lies through its back teeth about its bias and produces propaganda not reporting. From you’re comment on Mr O’Reilly one must assume you are a leftist? Don’t you have confidence in what you believe in? Can’t you debate on a level playing field? I can understand why leftists like yourself feel so threatened at the thought of an unbiased BBC.
How Islam Not BBC (INBBC) views its world – not from the viewpoint of British interests, but from the viewpoint of Dubai interests:
“Iran trade sanctions hit Dubai port”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10779331
Why did someone at the BBC download 100 million Facebook profiles?
Link not working… any more?
Guess it’s in that Beware of the Leopard file, along with some other stuff.
The bBC, painting Iran as not a threat and half the story.
Iran sanctions cripple ageing military
Notionally, Iran has about the biggest armed forces in the Middle East, with more than half-a-million people in uniform, but decades of US-led arms embargoes have had a huge impact on the strength of its conventional armed forces…. Since the 1980s, the country has in effect been unable to modernise its armed forces properly… you’re talking about relatively crude surface-to-surface missiles or indeed surface-to-air missiles.”
bBC News Defence and security correspondent Nick Child opines in the above article that poor Iran may not be able to defend itself if the rest of the world decide to strike in which to remove its nuclear chemistry set and the reason why is poor Iran has been the victim of acute racism from those nasty Americans who have refused to sell them anything.
What is strange is that Nick omits just why the US isn’t selling to Iran, Little things like the Iranian embassy hostage crisis , the bombing of the US embassy in Beirut and the overt hostility expressed towards the US from Iran.
Then there’s the cancellation of the purchase of 300 F16s by the Mullahs, the ground support which was already in place was sold to Pakistan.
Nick leaves out that during the war with Iraq, the US (Contragate) supplied Iran with spare parts for its airforce as well as Hawk and Tow missiles. (2000 Tow Anti tank missiles is more than enough to kill a few tanks)
Nick leaves out that after the war with Iraq, the UN arms embargo was lifted (some embargo) and Iran started re-arming from Russia. However after buying 24 Mig 29 fighter jets it put a sudden stop to its plans to improve its airforce after seeing how the bigger and much more modern Iraqi airforce was put out of action in 1 night by the US led coalition in Jan 1991.
Realizing that it would never be able to match the US when it comes to symmetrical warfare, Iran has devoted its energies to asymmetrical warfare. Which is why it spends so much money on rockets and missiles, while Nick diverts attention away by mentioning poor North Korea. He omits the new missile plant opened in March of this year which was built by the Chinese. A plant designed to build modern surface to surface anti shipping missiles. So while Nick talks about Iran having a really small navy he leaves out how the same number of men required to man a frigate (around 200) can if broken into 4 or 5 man teams close off the Straits of Hormuz if armed with ground based Anti-ship missiles.
Back to the airforce, the Mullahs realizing that huge airbases merely act as scrap yards for aircraft, have reallocated the jets to numerous Revolutionary Guard outfits on a much smaller allocation than usual, the reason being not having all your eggs in one basket and making the enemy having to work much harder in which to destroy them.
There’s a method to Irans madness, but it seems like a good liberal Nick would rather blame society for the reason why
There are several reasons why the Iranian Armed Forces may be less than state-of-the-art. Arms embargo is one. The destruction of the officer class who were mostly supporters of the Shah; the promotion of ‘officers’ for reasons of piety/support of the mullahs rather than education, training, experience or leadership and a belief that Allah makes them invinceable are others.
It’s also possible the mullahs don’t really want an efficient army because loyalty to the officer structure might outweigh loyalty to the religious structure.
It does emphasis the fact that Iran, in common with nearly all other ME and third world nations is incapable of building conventional weapon systems that match the West and Japan or Russia. No wonder Iran is so desperate to acquire missiles and a nuclear capability. The country cannot conduct an offensive war without them which is sufficient reason to prevent this ever happenning. Asymetrical warfare has it’s limits.
Is it possible the aptly-named Nick Child knows even less than I do about military matters ?
Well, of course, ignorance is the most important qualification for any job at the BBC.
More and more people are picking up on the “Where’s the Oil” story from the gulf, all except ONE network of course, anyone want to take a guess as to who that might be?
The backtracking by the US media in particular stands in stark contrast to the way in which they pursued Mr Hayward in the wake of the spill.
Time Magazine, The Washington Post, the New York Times and Vanity Fair have all now raised the prospect that the much-maligned ex-BP boss may have been right after all.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1298932/Was-Tony-Hayward-right-BP-oil-spill-all.html
The BBC does have one item on the website (nothing on air from what I can tell). But it does try to play it either it still might be really bad, and if not, then it was because of a great clean-up effort by the US Government. A pretty stark contrast from nearly everyone else’s reports about it.
I am surprised the BBC don’t report it as “Barry waved his magic wand and “poof”, it’s all gone “.
So, with US 2Q 2010 GDP growth slowing to a below-consensus 2.4%, US consumer spending fading and employment failing to show meaningful signs of recovery (all from depression-level year-earlier hurdle levels), I fully expect the BBC’s crack team of US correspondents to come up with searching analysis of the Obama administration’s economic policies
Immigrant BBC correspondent Franz Strasser has finished his two-week trip across the US, and has posted the final installment in his propaganda series about immigration. My apologies in advance for my rebuttal stretching into two parts due to word count.
Strasser’s opening words are about how he wanted to find out about immigration into the US….
“…and how new immigrant groups are shaping this country’s identity.”
This approach to understanding the US is exactly backwards. Completely misses the point about the Great Melting Pot, and demonstrates a single-minded ignorance about what immigration to the US actually is.
Strasser also says at one point that the US is not necessarily the final destination for some, but merely a stepping stone. We see again the clip of some Chinese woman saying that a bunch of her people are going back home to get jobs or start their own businesses. She’s a PhD candidate, and she’s clearly talking about fellow students. So what’s really going on here – and what Strasser and the BBC don’t want you to think about – is that this is just a case of foreigners coming to the US for an education and then going back home.
Spending a couple of years abroad going to school doesn’t count as immigration, and has absolutely zero affect on the country’s identity. But never mind what Strasser said was the point of his journey, right?
The reason why I say the overall approach is totally backwards is because, in order to understand how immigration affects the US, one has to understand why immigration to this country works the way it does. But the BBC doesn’t understand the US at all, outside of the superficial tropes of guns, religion, and toasting “Death to Al Qaeda” at dinner. Understanding the US begins long before one starts talking about contemporary immigration. But that’s not the Narrative the BBC wants to promote.
The successful immigrant to the US will adopt certain values of this country, and will join it to become a productive member of society. There is plenty of self-segregation, sure. Every big city has its Chinatown, Hispanic neighborhood, Jewish area, etc. Yet that’s just a living arrangement and not the end result. The important values of the US exist outside of race or religion or ethnic culture.
Successful immigrants to the US learn English, mostly do at least some business with people outside their own race, get involved in their local community, and encourage their children to get an education and move even further up the ladder. Notice how every imimgrant Strasser found came to the US for work. None of them – even the “refugees” – came for the benefit gravy train. None of them keeps their children locked in madrassas, or teaches them that the US is evil. They all learn English (the successful ones). They all want to adopt the US values of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Notice how Strasser never, ever attempted to differentiate between these immigrants and the problematic ones in the UK and Europe.
Notice also that there was one immigrant group Strasser missed out on his little journey: illegals.
(continued below in next comment)
(Continued from previous comment)
The main reason the BBC sent Strasser on this trip was to create a weapon against those who are concerned about illegal immigration. This is also intended to be used as weapon against those of you who complain about immigrants coming in and refusing to adopt local values, refusing to engage in society, and teaching their children to hate the country providing them shelter.
For the BBC to completely ignore the illegal factor in a series about immigration to the US is the height of dishonesty. The Arizona law has been all over the news for ages, and illegal immigration has been an election issue both in the US and in the UK for a very long time now. It was already a hot topic when Strasser began his trip, so there’s no valid journalistic excuse to censor it from this series.
I would venture to guess that Strasser was given this assignment a few months ago, maybe even hired by the BBC specifically for this purpose. But even a few months ago, illegal immigration and the problem of immigrants refusing to join society and teaching their children to hate it were major issues, in the UK especially. This is why the BBC sent Strasser on his mission: to create a Narrative about how none of that is actually true.
This entire series is dishonest, censored information about the cities and immigrants Strasser was highlighting (all documented in my previous comments on this series), and swept the actual concern about illegals under the rug as if it does not exist.
The thing is, the US isn’t too concerned about immigrants coming in and subsuming our culture with their own. I mean, in the supposedly racist Arizona, many of the streets and towns have Spanish names and have been that way for decades. The whites embraced Mexican culture ages and ages and ages ago. All the county names are either Spanish or Native tribal names. Racists wouldn’t do that.
As I’ve already said, successful immigrants do what they can to join US society, not the other way around. That fear of having one’s culture subsumed is, in fact, the number one concern about immigration into the UK. Strasser tries to make the case that immigrants are somehow transforming the cultural identity of the US, and that it’s a great and wonderful thing, what the US is all about. Of course it isn’t, really.
But the BBC wants you to think it is so you shut the hell up about immigration into the UK. This entire series is meant for UK consumption, in order to create that “rapport” with the US Matt Frei said they wanted do. It’s propaganda pure and simple, with a single-minded goal, hiding anything that might clash with the Narrative. All to create certain approved thoughts in your minds, and all at your expense.
And I wonder how huge of a carbon footprint was left by this little trip around the country?
Very fine analysis David. Thankyou.
There’s nothing like tracking a beeboid’s footsteps all the way to find out what they’re really up to.
Great post indeed David P!
The BBC makes news reports in order to serve their political belief system and narrative.
A news outlet that manufactures documentaries and reports to serve its political agenda is not a news organisation it is the essence of a political party.
In effect the BBC has become a political party with its own news and media channels which it uses to indocrinate the masses, it is a public funded political party that poisons its enemies and helps its friends.
David P,
Will read your post in detail later, but one error caught my eye. Surely, lefties don’t have carbon footprints ?
Richard Black attempts to defend the indefensible, again:
“Is putting a nameplate under water, albeit in the unpleasant context of a toilet bowl, more or less serious than blocking a proposal that could help prevent some small island states and heavily-populated coastal zones from disappearing under the sea?”
And the perpetrators of this deed? Why, none other than our old friends Oxfam & WWF at a UN climate convention.
Yes, vandalism is always tolerated when it comes from the Left. Blame the victim.
Roland said:
“And the perpetrators of this deed? Why, none other than our old friends Oxfam & WWF at a UN climate convention”
Oh yes and they just happen to be Blacks paymasters and ideological masters.
The organ grinders pay good money for their monkey, they feed this monkey his scoops/his reports/his opinions/his stories.
If his masters want the monkeys opinion on anything they email it to him the day before!
Monkey see monkey do? I would love to see his emails.
I’m sick and tired of the BBC’s portraying the military operations in Afghanistan as uncoordinated, inferior, and unwinnable. Just saw yet another segment with people wanting to surrender to…sorry…talk to the Taliban and how coalition troops are doing no good.
There wouldn’t be such a problem if our troops weren’t forced to fight with both hands tied behind their backs and one eye closed. But the BBC never seems to report about just how restricted the military is by the ‘rules of engagement’ and all that, and just how much the cavemen take advantage of it.
I’d like to see one BBC special report about how many opportunities for success are lost during a patrol because of this. But then, the BBC wouldn’t be able to portray the troops as doing little more than killing innocents and angering Muslims.
David you’re right but we are losing in Afghanistan because soldiers can’t do what they should be doing, which is kill the enemy. The BBC wee spouting on about the latest rules of engagement that now prevents soldiers opening fire unless they are 100% certain that there are no civilians around. How on earth are they supposed to do that? If you’re being shot at you shoot back, the blame is with the cowardly Taliban and Alky Ada who hide behind the skirts of their women and children, brave men, not! Scum, yes!
Actually, Martin ISAF isn’t losing in Afghanistan, to the contrary we are winning. Now before people take me to task, the troops in Helmand are gaining ground not losing it. The bBC is simply trying to do with the British Public what Walter Cronkite did with the Yanks after the Tet offensive. He told them they were losing, ironically at the same time Gap the NV general in charge stated in his biography that after the failed Tet Offensive the NV were ready to throw in the towel but changed their mind when they saw how the American media was promoting the line that they were winning.
That is how the bBC is playing this game. It wants to make news not report it. Sod the death toll and then when Afghanistan falls it can then report about how the racist UK should take in everyAfghan refugees.
I don’t think we are winning, because we’re not killing Alky Ada, most of the Taliban are simply paid guns, fine we can kill them all day. The scum we need are sitting in Pakistan for the most part just waiting.
Our soldiers are fighting with both hands tied behind their backs, what is needed, is a massive use of overwhelming military force to crush not just the Taliban but to get Alky Ada in Pakistan as well. I’d happily use nukes to take out large areas if needed but that will never happen.
Nice to see our soldiers actually on the offensive today for once, but they don’t do this often enough. If you read your history books wars are won militarily by the overwhelming use of military forces, it’s why the Americans walked over Iraq twice, but without the local population wanting to be rid of the Taliban, we’re just wasting our time.
“The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his.” Patton ww2
Funny you should mention that David. The bBC was the first off the blocks with that story the other day about how NATO have murdered in cold blood 45 innocent people with an air strike. The only news agency which reported it at the time was the bBC, others reported it after quoting the bBC and the Afghan leader got involved by blaming NATO basing his reaction on that bBC report. The thing is ISAF have siad we looked and found no strike, no other news agency has reported it and now the bBC has dropped it as well. You’d think if 45 people had been killed the bbC could have provided more evidence than a single witness. You know like the scene of the crime? Funny enough sky news reported that the story about how the civilians died has also changed. When the story first aired it was reported that gunships shot the women and children as they were fleeing the village.
For some strange reason the bBC appears to have dropped that story and the ISAF website doesn’t mention it.
The BBC operates under certain assumptions, and this is one of them. When it’s something that makes one of their favorites look bad, though, the Beeboids are the model of journalistic restraint, waiting for the fact to come out before rushing to report.
Watertight oversight vs. principled leaking.
Rather depends on the BBC’s ‘view’ on the relative merits of the protagonists. ‘One man’s terrorist is another’s press liaison officer..;’ ‘n all.
Its reputation as a media organisation with at least two standards is secure.
Pounce,
Can the BBC tell us how many women and children are shot by the Taliban fleeing villages ?
It seems to me that only the military and intelligence services can have much of an idea what is really happening in Afghanistan and certainly not the BBC or, dare I say it, most of us who are posting on this website !
I see the BBC are allowing Bob Crowe to peddle the usual rubbish that the railways must be re-nationalised as private sector companies can’t be trusted.
Funny that no one suggests the airlines or ferry/cruise lines be re-nationalised, perhaps it has more to do with the attitude of Crowe’s membership towards safety than who owns the company?
So The Obamessiah’s approval ratings are so far down the toilet that He’s had to appear on a far-Left, very lightweight, daytime women’s chat show. The BBC reports it as a triumph, touting that it was the first time a President had appeared on such a pathetic show, and reminding everyone that He was also the first President to go on the Tonight Show. What the BBC doesn’t want you to know is that He went on The View because women are losing faith in Him.
According to the BBC, He was merely reflecting on challenges He has faced so far, and reminding everyone of His opinion on things. No voice of opposition is quoted saying just what an act of desperation this is. Instead of telling you how far to the Left (Joy Behar is a Warmist and thinks the Tea Party movement is about racism, Whoopi Goldberg also thinks I’m a racist for supporting the Tea Party movment and that what Roman Polanski did to that young girl wasn’t “rape rape”, and I could go on and on) ‘The View’ is, the BBC quotes Barbara Walters (who was a respected interviewer 20 years ago but is now very political) claim that this ridiculous daytime chat show is a trusted source of news. What a joke!
Among other things, He admitted that His Administration (not Him, of course) had over-reacted regarding the Sherrod NAACP video. And then He blamed the media for it. What a class act, eh? But the BBC forgot to tell you that part. No, all you need to know is their summary about how great He is.
There’s no analysis, no questioning why the President needs to do this. Once again, the BBC acts as a propaganda conduit for the leader of a foreign country. This little news brief is little more than a White House press release. All at your expense.
I forgot to mention one other thing that the BBC…um…forgot to metion: The President said on The View that African-Americans are “sort of a mongrel people”.
Come on, BBC, how about it?
David P,
Barry was obviously quoting from Churchill that the British “are a mongrel race “, or was it “are not a mongrel race ” ? Can’t remember.
Yep, bigging up a talk show appearance is about the level of the BBC’s analysis of the US and the Obama presidency.
How’s Obama’s economic `recovery summer’ project coming along ?
Spot on David, if David Cameron went on Loose Women (our version of the View with even uglier women, if that’s possible) the BBC would tear him apart.
Actually it’s worse than that. The Obamessiah is NOT the first sitting US President to appear on a lame-ass daytime talk show. George Bush and his wife appeared on an Oprah spin-off in 2004.
I didn’t know that, but then again I don’t give a damn and am not paid six figures a year to find out. But the BBC eagerly reported that The Obamessiah was first, without doing any fact-checking. Once again the BBC dutifully reprinted the White House press release, slavishly following their friends in the US media. I should have followed my own advice and not trusted a single word the BBC says about a US issue, even minor pathetic details like this.
Not only that, but it seems that The Obamessiah lied about not having heard of some reality show trainwreck. But He mentioned her name at the White House Correspondents Dinner in May. He even lies about something like this, simply to maintain that phoney aura. The whole thing was a PR stunt to shore up His tanking ratings among women, and the BBC acted like a White House mouthpiece.
There’s navel gazing operations, and there’s BBC navel gazing oeprations.
This from the into to tonight’s Newsnight:
Here’s Emily with news of what’s coming up on tonight’s programme:
The BBC has just launched (yet another) online course. This one is about fraud.
We are meant to do it to help us overcome those situations where people are engaging in ‘behaviour resulting in personal enrichment through deception’ or the deliberate misuse or misappropriation of BBC resources or assets.
Cue hoots of sardonic laughter from colleagues gazing soulfully into their empty pension pots…
Anyway, talking about things being taken away, we begin tonight with a look at the debate over Trident and who should pay for its renewal.
Now, while some, here especially, might be interested in their latest publicly-funded attempt at throwing paid awareness over common sense in tucking dodgy dealings under the carpet, what the heck is she on about?
The main thrust seems to be a bit of a bitch about management being more concerned about taking away the keys to the cookie jar (empty pension pots? I think not) than a rather undeveloped aspect of some playing fast and loose on Aunty’s ticket.
Maybe it will be a pitch that Trident be cancelled just so’s Kirsty, Emily, etc can keep the lights burning on their Tuscan villa tennis courts when they take early retirement… before claiming compo for ageism-related sidelining.
I’m sensing they have gathered few will be that keen on £145.50pa for nothing but repeats so all licence fee revenue gets diverted just into pay, perks and pensions so they can play ‘unique’ broadcaster.
I don’t suppose examples of fraud in this BBC course would include their reporting?
Anyways, nice bit of editorial bias about Gove “rushing through” his education scheme. That was Ed Balls’ talking point.
BBC is reluctant to report on CANADA still.
Although BBC News online has a sub-section labelled ‘US & Canada’, Canada rarely features for the BBC as a nation with ‘news’; nor is Canada recognised by BBC as having a particular historical/cultural link with British people. The BBC gives more attention to Dubai than it does to Canada. Of course, the BBC, especially via its interlinked World Service, also has its pro-Arab, anti-Israel Arab TV service -surely an ideal candidate for CUTS!
Back to Canada, of course, the BBC is loath report this anyway, for its pro-Islam political reasons:
Canada: Islamic jihadist jailed for nuclear exports to Iran
Just saw a report on the News Channel about lack of work and people on benefits. A woman in Manchester said that she was paying £575 per month on her house. If she’s unemployed and on benefits, and there was no evidence that she ever had a good-paying job in the past as she says that she can’t get one, how the hell did she get a mortgage with that kind of payment? Oh, that’s right: Labour policies.
She was typical of the bone idle scum who think that benefits are simply ‘wages’ in another form.
Take her kids into care and shove her out onto the streets, she’ll soon get a job.
And so another Labour vote is ensured with the use of taxpayers’ money.
I hear on Fox News that the Taliban are going through the Wikileaks documents to track down the informants.
I wonder if Lyse Douchbag will report on the ‘humanity’ of the Taliban when the informants have their heads hacked off in front of their kids?
The BBC seem strangely silent about Wikileaks now, I wonder why?
BBC News Channel covering the new bike-hire scheme in London. Boris Johnson was allowed on for one minute to cheerlead for the scheme, but was never actually given credit for it. I got the impression that the scheme appeared organically, just part of the wider movement of bike riding already popular in Paris and Brussels. A nearly inoherent bicycle advocate in the studio didn’t help.
Yawn. Switching now to a good use of your license fee: the Proms, to listen to a new work by Brett Dean.
Looking at how the BBC’s recorded reaction to IDS’ welfare initiative:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10807098
Reactions (both positive and negative) from:
Will Hutton (left-wing)
Yvette Cooper (left-wing), speaking on behalf of Labour (left-wing)
SNP (left-wing)
Plaid Cymru (left-wing)
Brendan Barber (left-wing) speaking for the TUC (left-wing)
And a spokeswoman for the IPPR, which the BBC itself describes as “left-leaning”.
Well if that’s not what I call balance across the whole of the left-wing spectrum, I don’t know what is!
Perfect balance in beeboid world, as the BBC sees it why should they waste valuable airtime on their bitter ideological enemies!
Yes, in the twisted mind of a Beeboid, that is balance.
The whole gamit of BBC opinion was aired, that’s balance…
I see the BBC are giving over huge chunks of airtime to the Indian and pakistani monsoon season as they try to link it with their corporate narrative AGW.
The monsoon BTW is nothing out of the ordinary as the Indian met office have stated yet the BBC are concentrating all their resources on the floods in pakistan. The wording of the reports is frantic and though they are not directly blaming the dreaded AGW they are certainly doing all they can to imply it.
So what is really going on in pakistan? Heavy seasonal rain for sure but something else is playing a part that the BBC has somehow forgotten to tell us. The building on flood plains and river valleys and close to rivers without regard to cyclic monsoonal variations, the abject failure of pakistani civil engineering and flood prevention techniques and the failure to invest in dredging and clearance of blocked outlfow channels and last but not least clearance of hillside trees and deep brush cover
The BBC are concentrating on “ground baked dry by the hot summer” yet this is only one small part of the problem and in a way is disingenuous.
In the rainy season it rains and in the dry season it doesnt, sometimes the rainy season is light for a few years and then the rainy season is heavy for a few years and its called natural cyclic variation. This simple reality escapes the BBC as it turns a molehill into a mountain.
The BBC never misses an opportunity to turn events to its own political advantage, exaggerating wildly and without restraint on some issues and ignoring others as if they didnt exist. Take the freezing southern winter which is causing record cold in south America, it should be big news yet the BBC see and report nothing of it and they have on the spot reporters, now either they are all on leave in their winter holiday paradise of Cuba OR they have orders to keep silent.
If the BBC can twist a news story to reinforce their AGW narrative they are in like Flint.
The major Israeli city of Ashkelon was hit by a grad missile early today. Thousands of windows shattered and several people treated for shock. Israel has officially complained to the UN.
Not a word from the bbc. How odd.
BBC 10PM news just ‘mentioned it’, but the first story was those evil Joows bombing Gaza, but the BBC did mention no one was injured in the rocket attack on Ashkelon (probably lot’s of boos in the BBC news office at that news)
The BBC seem to find Jabba the Hutt’s moronic display at the Chilcot inquiry today amusing for some reason. I thought Prescott was a disgrace making stupid jokes, the fat shit has clearly forgotten the large number of dead from that war.
To think this fat git was our deputy PM, he’s actually worse than McMong and that is saying something.
Martin read the latest bbcrapoid “report” on it
Make sure you have a sick bag handy, cos you may need it.
Doncha just love the bboid scribblers grotesque attempt at body counting? The complete lack of awareness of the moral element. Like right and wrong?
Its not a cricket match mr ali beeboid hack.
“One Thai farmer has been killed in israel in the past year. DOZENS of palestinians, some of them civilians, have been killed by attacks from Israel in the same period”
It’s the BBC’s ghoulish Body-Count Narrative. There is an unspoken minimum number of Jews who must die before it’s “fair” or “proportional”.
The BBC forget that Isreal tries to put its people out of harms way, bomb shelters etc. Hamas does the opposite.
Boo hoo! Its just not fair is it beeboids? Not only are hamarse islamofascist genocide merchants, but they are crap artillerymen too!
Oh the islamic humanity!
Newsnight had Heather Brookes on and some bloke who turned in a US traitor. Very surprised at Brookes who seemd to be sticking up for Wikileaks, she seemed to think that the Taliban wouldn’t be going out looking to hack the heads off all those named in the stolen documents.
Has Brookes been ‘beeboided’ or something?
When one reads this one hope the report is tounge in cheek.
Muhammad Asyraf survived 10 weeks of written and practical tests, which included reciting Koran verses, washing a dead body for burial and slaughtering sheep.
He is the winner of Malaysia’s Young Iman show and the BBC must think this is big news because the story (with photo) is linked both from the News page and the Asia-Pacific News page.
Just part of the BBC’s sanitization and de-sensitizing campaign. All part of Social Cohesion, don’t you know.
Israel launches Gaza Strip air strikes
Israel has launched air strikes against targets in the Gaza Strip, reports say.Palestinian witnesses reported numerous explosions in Gaza City, and several people were reported to have been injured.The strikes came after a rocket fired from the coastal enclave by militants earlier on Friday hit the Israeli city of Ashkelon on the Mediterranean coast.That attack caused no casualties but damaged a building and cars in the city, 12km (7 miles) north of Gaza.
According to the bBC, Israel has launched a devastating attack on gaza after they harmlessly lobbed over a firework at Ashkelon which hurt nobody. Here is how AFP reports the same story, but earlier;
“Late Friday aircraft shot at least four missiles at buildings used by Hamas security forces in Gaza City, wounding eight, several of them seriously, said Muawiya Hassanein, the head of Gaza emergency services. “
My eye was drawn to this bBC statement;
Rocket fire from Gaza has reduced in the past year after Hamas – the Islamist group which controls the territory – reined in attacks, but sporadic fire from other militant groups continues.
Anybody want to guess at the total figure of rockets and mortars fired from Gaza into Israel this year. I mean the bBC do say that Hamas has reigned in the fire and only sporadic fire transpires. 10? 20? 30? Here is how AFP(from the same article) write its up:
“Just over 100 rockets and mortar shells have been fired from Gaza at southern Israel so far this year”
It seems counting isn’t a skill that is a requirement when you join the bBC.
Incredible, isn’t it ? In the BBC’s eyes any fall in rocket attacks is due to Hamas’ humanity, not as a result of operation Cast Lead.
The BBC disgust me.
The most stomach – turning aspect of the terrorist attack on Ashkelon today from the bbeboid “reporting” perspective, was the complete news blackout of the initial murder attempt ( a grad is a serious anti personell weapon) a cynical waiting out for the IDFs obviously justified and TARGETTED response, then to splash an evil JOOish attack on its website, cynically refusing to report in an honest time – bound way, the initial cause.
Oh how I loate and dispise the filthy, twisted minds that control the bbcs evil agenda.
BBC must know but not care what it feels like to be on the receiving end of a Grad rocket attack.
BBC aren’t reporting that it’s a Hamas rocket commander killed by the IAF airstrike (AP). The Israelis are bloody fantastic when directing fire, unlike the Hamas war criminals indiscriminately firing battlefield missiles at civilian population centres.
“BBC’s £1m in bonuses … the year it said they were banned ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299094/BBCs-1m-bonuses—year-said-banned.html#ixzz0vF0eMyB1
Not an issue for pro-EU, pro-mass immigration BBC:
‘Express’:
“Romanian gypsy children sent to loot UK”
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/190247/Romanian-gypsy-children-sent-to-loot-UK
Just watched the latest Newswatch, or The ‘we think we got it about right’ show.
Today’s main topic: interviewers being a bit more keen to inject the BBC opinion over actually getting any answers out. Actually pertinent.
Sadly, I remain none the wiser.
Perhaps this was because the BBc choose two BBC fans (Jon Sopel & some bloke who I suspect is on the producer’s iPhone speed dial) to agree with each other and Uncle Ray.
Unique.
ps: Had to laugh at the following piece, which was on the problems with tax credits. Cue that favourite of all BBC sob vox poppettes: ‘I’m a single muvva, and…’
More ‘perfect balance in beeboid world’:
Academy applications from 150 schools
By Angela Harrison Education correspondent, BBC News
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10802193
Here BBC bogeyman Michael Gove’s side of the argument gets just 2 paragraphs (and that’s being charitable to the reporter!) while his opponents get 11 paragraphs.
No one from Gove’s side gets more than two words of direct quotation, yet there are long direct quotes from Ed Balls, union leader Mary Bousted and union leader Christine Blower, all attacking Michael Gove and his policy.
Ed Balls gets a ‘block quote’ on the right-hand side of the page (attacking Gove, of course) and another dig at his policy from Mary Bousted – ‘Damp squib’ – is used as the article’s only sub-heading, without being put in quotation marks.
The next day (yesterday) Angela Harrison published another article, with the typical BBC headline Michael Gove defends academy schools, where you’d think the imbalance might be redressed.
Well, Gove’s side is given 10 paragraphs, but then a whole parade of critics (including Ed Balls again) get another 16 paragraphs – which only adds insult to injury.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10817537
They seemed to treat the subject of acadamies different 3 years ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6509535.stm
Hardship posting, BBC-styly…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7919176/Selina-Scott-BBC-ageism-row-First-kick-the-hornets-nest-then-retreat….html
‘It was while trying to escape the attentions of the press that I first stumbled across my Majorcan finca, reveals Selina Scott.’
A horrifying tale of injustice and hardship repeated, one is sure, across… well.. the BBC anyway (I subscribe to a PR Forum, and currently the topic is how no one seems to be actually at the BBC at the moment as they are all on holiday, for the entire summer).
Next, Kirsty ‘Glasgow Shuttle’ Wark wails about how the generator on her villa tennis court ran out of diesel, before doing a piece on AGW.
Poor diddums !
Not this sociable Kirsty Wark?:
“Kirsty Wark accused of flouting planning laws with ‘eyesore’ tennis court and floodlights”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1082329/Kirsty-Wark-accused-flouting-planning-laws-eyesore-tennis-court-floodlights.html#ixzz0vFe4NNGC
Islam Not BBC (INBBC) ignores, for its own political reasons:
“Anti-Islam Party to Back First Dutch Postwar Minority Cabinet”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-30/anti-islam-party-to-back-first-dutch-postwar-minority-cabinet.html
Islam Not BBC (INBBC) reporting, via Ms Kuenssberg, on Cameron PM, in Pakistan, ignores the blindingly obvious when it comes to the Pakistan links to the Islamic jihad threat inside Britain; but Charles Moore of the ‘Telegraph’ doesn’t:
“David Cameron should speak frankly about Britain’s own terrorists”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/7919212/David-Cameron-should-speak-frankly-about-Britains-own-terrorists.html
In contrast, Ms K merely has:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10797847
BBC News Channel just now doing a preliminary report about some blind man attempting to set a land-speed record. The Beeboid on site was talking the entire time to the blind driver’s handler. The driver was standing right there the whole time, but the Beeboid ignored him entirely, even referring to him in the third person as if he wasn’t there.
Hey, dopey Beeboid: He’s blind, not deaf and dumb. He can talk. Couldn’t you at least have asked him one question?
Even the News Channel is dumbing down the arts. I realize that the “E24” segment is supposed to be about light entertainment and anything else the thirty-somethings who produce these things like, but did they have to dumb down The Proms as well? The only things they mentioned were the Dr. Who evening and Bryn Terfel doing a Sondheim celebration. Couldn’t they have at least mentioned that it’s kind of a Wagner season this year or something? Even one word connected to what The Proms is really about?
That’s so true and so typical of the BBC. The one thing I like about the BBC and they go and spoil it.
And I love Dr. Who! (Except Tennant and Davison)
McCoy?
Yes, he grew on me after a while. It helped that Ace was a good companion.
Oooh yes, Ace!!
One of only two companions I can think of who called the Doctor something other than “Doctor”.
Just who can Clappison be talking about?
“Shimon Peres said England was “deeply pro-Arab … and anti-Israeli”, adding: “They always worked against us.”
He added: “There is in England a saying that an anti-Semite is someone who hates the Jews more than is necessary.”
James Clappison, the Conservative MP for Hertsmere and vice-chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel, said: “Mr Peres has got this wrong.
“There are pro- and anti-Israel views in all European countries. Things are certainly no worse, as far as Israel is concerned, in this country than other European countries.”
The MP added that he could “understand the frustration” that people in Israel felt with “certain elements of the British broadcast media” which present an unbalanced view of Israel.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7920330/Fury-as-Israel-president-claims-English-are-anti-semitic.html