Children’s BBC is shocked and traumatised.
Children as young as 10 are on their way to becoming addicted to shopping, according to a new report.
A thousand girls and boys were asked about their shopping habits and eight out of 10 in the 10-12 age-group said they enjoy shopping.But the same number admitted they buy things they don’t need, in the survey by the National Consumer Council.
The horror! The horror!
Meanwhile the villanous Blithering Bunny revels in the sheer evil of it all.
“Young Emily fell into a cesspit of visiting attractively-presented stores where well-made and stylish consumer goods were available at reasonable prices. Little did she realize the lasting damage that was being done to herself and society as she tried on a wide variety of good-looking clothes, before deciding to purchase some of them. Later on unspeakable evil was done as she listened to music CDs on her new CD player while talking to friends on her new mobile phone. Despite the atrocities she had committed, she wanted to do this again. And again. She knew that she would always be drawn to these shadowy, looming edifices called… shops. Her desires could not be quelled. Nokia and Nike owned her soul and she would not resist”.
A Newsround article? For kids? I think I hear the sound of the bottom of the barrel being scraped.
For once – Amazingly enough I find myself in agreement with Red Ken. Like the Ashley/Marr post this is a non-story. Much less fun and much less significant than oil-for-fraud, kneejerk anti Americanism, kneejerk anti conservatism and all the other usual suspects which can be found with dismal regularity on the pay-per-even-if-you-don’t-view Beeb.
How does the BBC interview a British soldier who recently led a bayonet charge in Iraq?
Why, through a soft left BBC focus of course.
On Radio 5 live this morning we had bleeding heart interviewers Campbell etc asking all the “right” questions to the soldier:-
Have you had counselling?
Do you think about the men you killed?
Do you agree with the letter published today asking for a further body count of Iraqi dead?
OK, they are entitled to ask these questions, but they asked none of the following:-
Who exactly were the enemy? How many were there? How many did you kill in the charge? What was their reaction? What did your officers say afterwards?
Is this a tactic that should be used again? Why didn’t you just get a tank or plane to blow the enemy up?
After this bit of non-reporting, I think the BBC could do with a bayonet charge, as they don’t like it up ’em!
And while we are on Radio 5 live, other issues dealt with this morning:-
Global warming with Campbell interviewing the arch-conspiracy theorist Michael Meacher. How anyone can interview this plonker and keep a straight face is beyond me.
How muslims deal with sport (how do you pray when training etc). Why do the BBC take EVERY opportunity to see things sympathetically from the muslim point of view? And why do they take a praying muslim very seriously yet snigger and heap scorn on Tony Blair (nominally a Christian) because he might pray too?
Get the picture?
Now the phone in is about Green issues, with plenty of Tofu-burger eating sanctimonious liberals on to tell us how we are destroying the planet. I’m just waiting for the first mention of GWB, neocons, Iraq.
Maybe the move to Manchester will do something to knock some sense into the tiresome editorial line of the BBC, but I fear not.
Does Radio 5 Live pull a significant audience – other than for sports ?
The best bit of the shopping article at blitheringbunny is the bit at the end, which reads
I don’t really need my Ford Scorpio with its lovely 2.9 litre 24 valve V6 Cosworth engine. Society doesn’t really need a National Consumer Council either. Mr Cullum doesn’t really need to go to that restaurant for dinner tonight, does he?
‘How many did you kill in the charge? What was their reaction?’
Lie down and not move I should think.
Fredken and JH,
OK, it was mostly a bit of light relief. But the way CBBC treats news stories is important. “Give us a child for seven years,” said the Jesuits, “and we have him for life.” The way CBBC treats globalisation is grossly one sided. See this earlier Biased BBC post. Pages and pages of anti-trade stuff, half a sentence for the opposite view. And not one link to any pro-trade organisation despite several links to anti-globalisers.
Getting back to the present story, the endorsement of Buy Nothing Day is political. That is against the BBC’s starter.
I may work some of this comment up into a post if I have time.
Charter, dammit.
Natalie, you are right. It’s not just in (adult) news & current affairs where the bias is evident. In fact, outside N&CF, not only does the charter give the usual false impression of impartiality to the innocent viewer, but being a kids’ show makes the bias all the more dangerous and insidious.
Ditto many other progs outside the N&CF area – e.g. lefty book/film reviews on Johnny Walker’s Radio 2 show (sorry, hobby horse of mine – they did another one on Monday).
When it comes to the so-called “Buy Nothing Day”, how come we never hear any suggestions that the biggest spender of them all (Big Government) not buy anything for a day?
The whole point about BBC bias is not that it is the manifestation of some evil, complicated, intricately-planned left-wing plot, but that it reflects the fact that BBC journalists are so conditioned to see things in a certain way – profits bad, trade bad, US bad, Bush very bad, Israel bad, Palestians victims, etc etc etc – that they don’t even notice these prejudices infecting their work. And if this theory is true the news bits of children’s broadcasting are precisely the place you would expect to see this bias, as the journalists struggle to reduce complicated issues to simple explanations of the way (they think) the world works.
So the BBC is poisoning our youth now! Let’s not get too Daily Mail shall we?
Hey, we had a “Buy Nothing Day” here, too!(scheduled for the day after Thanksgiving, the biggest single shopping day of the year in the US) Of course, it flopped royally. I’m beginning to believe there really is a vast left wing conspiracy.
theghostofredken the point is that putting contenscious political views across as fact to a young, innocent audience should be unacceptable.
Henry’s post is very astute.
At the risk of sounding like Red Ken I thought that the report of Buy Nothing Day stopped short of endorsement although I suspect that the Beeb mindset is resolutely supportive, it being part of the anti globalisation agenda. What I find more concerning on the Jesuit principle of ‘give me a child until he is seven’ is the relentless trivia and moronic obeisance to mind rotting ephemeral popular culture which is characteristic of the CBBC output.
OT – The interview with the soldier who led the bayonet charge was typical. Reduction of a serious and sobering piece of hard news to a piece of sentimental human interest drivel. No wonder the soldier’s tone was one of bemusement.
Newsround these days is not a patch on the days when it was John Craven’s Newsround – he did a good job presenting complicated stories in a straightforward and uncomplicated way.
Nowadays we seem to have a cast of barely post-teen presenters with the ‘right’ looks, dressed up in the latest street styles, who address there audience as ‘you lot’ – e.g. “Sweet sales have gone up because of you lot. People are buying more sweets”, complete with stupid camera angles and fast cuts a la MTV. Such patronising tosh for our younger citizens.
Does Newsround really have to be so dumbed-down? It’s not good for its audience, and it’s not good for fostering up a nation of informed, curious and enquiring citizens.
On the issue of relevance to Biased BBC, I’d defend this post and my post about Ashley/Marr – this blog shouldn’t limit itself to strict BBC bias – there’s plenty of relevant mileage documenting cosy cliques, lazy assumptions and other general BBC flaws that we’re all f
cont./
forced to pay for.
The presenters are damned attractive though! I’m 22 I’m allowed to say that!
I don’t know how it is in the UK, but over here, “fashionableness” is usually a left-wing trait, not a right-wing one. Middle and upper-class conservatives wear the same suit for 10 years and the “rednecks” the BBC so loves to highlight wear baseball caps, flannel shirts and blue jeans 24/7. Conservatives usually prefer to save their money and invest it in stocks, bonds and real estate rather than in designer labels that go out of style in six months.
OTOH if you want to see slaves to fashion, look no further than the Hollywood crowd which is overwhelmingly left wing. Susan Sarandon wears $20,000 silk gowns to the Oscars.
It’s rather hypocritical for the BBC to be moaning about pressures on kids to become slaves of fashion when they themselves slavishly follow every “cool” political fad that comes down the pike. Muslims, anti-globbos, Kyoto Accords, “obesity” epidemic, neo-con conspiracies — the Beeb mindlessly adopts every left-wing fad imaginable.
But the BBC is so informative in its business coverage.
On News24 the “business” correspondent stopped joking with the presenters long enough to tell them (the business reporters always talk to their colleagues, never to the eavesdropping viewer) about the IBM PC sale to Lenova.
She informed them that “IBM went into computers in a big way”
Not many people know that!
Also from News24 dealing with the EU’s wish to restart weapons exports to China. They were stopped after the Tiananmen Square “CRACKDOWN” – nobody hurt I suppose.
Susan
Just the same here – If you profess no interest in ‘cool, hip hop, street fashion etc etc you are accused of being out of touch and should you for a moment suggest the merits of say classical music or genuine academic discipline over the various human interest related ‘studies’ you are being judgemental. An example is the way MSM coverage of youth attitudes to politics always shows some gormless studded goth whining about feeling alienated by ‘men in grey suits’. This is the agenda which children’s TV is following in this country and it is reinforcing a lowest common denominator youth culture against which parents and certainly schooteachers have an uphill struggle. This pop culture also manifests itself in the worship of talentless ‘celebrities’, celebrities whose job description invariably involves embracing the usual package of fashionable soft left enthusiasms – Anti globalism, specious environmentalism.
For Andrew , the only reason I queried the Ashley-Marr post and the CBBC one was that it has the potential to give ammunition to the Beebsters who claim we are all swivel eyed fascists who find bias where in fact (unusually) they might be none.
“She informed them that “IBM went into computers in a big way” ”
LOL! I guess you could also say that NASA “went into space travel” in a big way, too. Or that Birdseye “went into frozen food” in a big way. Or that Hoover “went into vacuum cleaners” in a big way.
JH: and doesn’t Marxist poster boy Gorgeous George Galloway run about in the latest Armani suits?
Same here. The leftoid recently departed mayor of San Francisco preferred Brioni to Armani, though!
That must be why the lefties hate us capitalist pigs so much. We work, we save, we put a few pennies into the stock portfolio now and then, we drive old cars and wear old clothes so we can afford to do it.
They blow all their dough on “cool” clothes and “cool” cars, then whine that we are “evil” because we have money and assets! It’s really the old ant and grasshopper story played out again and again.
Susan
Champagne socialism is one of the defining features of our age and Galloway is the epitome. God Save us from flashy crusading liberal politicians – As one grizzled mid westerner said of Nixon “I like him – He ain’t got no charisma”.
Interesting to note that amid all your ranting the story actually linked to on Blithering Bunny is from Sky News.
…and the BBC, read closer.
Er, yes, I realise that, thanks. I’m just pointing out the same story was covered in pretty much the same way on Sky, but I guess red mist distracts easily when Beeb-bashing…
ew don’t mention those ‘biased-sky’ bloggers on here!
OT On this evening’s Radio 4 news, it was announced that the Democratic Unionists had scuppered an imminent settlement in Ulster because they had insisted on photographic evidence of destruction of the IRA’s armaments stockpile. The item immediately following announced that a man had been apprehended in County Tyrone on suspicion of having played a major part in the Omagh bombing (29 dead) from 6 years ago.
I can’t believe that the two are unrelated; somebody is attempting to throw the Unionists a bone.
We are of course not “forced to pay” for the BBC. I don’t pay for the BBC since I don’t have a television. I suspect that most people who contribute to this blog could also manage without a television. Of course it is quite wrong that one should be forced to choose either to deprive oneself of television or to contribute to the wages of several thousand third-rate trendies. Nonetheless that is the true position and the choice remains. Frankly, for those who can afford to get out a bit and see the world, I would recommend chucking the TV. Let the trendies fend for themselves. Who knows, one day they might thank you for it.
OT, but we were talking about wine recently (on another thread):
The Ozzies are killing French wine exports and boy are the Frenchies pissed off:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=11&u=/ap/20041208/ap_on_re_eu/france_wine_crisis
This calls for opening a fresh bottle of Penfold’s Shiraz/Cab.
ROFLMAO.
James Hope: “We are of course not “forced to pay” for the BBC. I don’t pay for the BBC since I don’t have a television.”
Those of us who do not wish to deprive ourselves and our families of the vast potential of television to inform, educate and entertain are forced to pay the BBC telly-tax though, unless we wish to get fined and subsequently locked up for the privilege of non-payment.
Which is exactly my point, and which you go on to state yourself, so I don’t understand the point of your pedantry.
Did you know you can live life free of income tax too? All you need do is earn no more than the personal allowance each year, et voila!
Get a portable DVD player. Most of the good TV series, documentaries, etc., are on DVD anyways. Not a perfect solution, but a way to get something and still avoid subsidizing the BabbleC.
‘Conservatives usually prefer to save their money and invest it in stocks, bonds and real estate rather than in designer labels that go out of style in six months.’
Surely it’s those immoral lefties constantly buying consumer goods that are the driving force of the economy. If everybody stuck their cash straight in the bank many of those thrifty conservatives wouldn’t have jobs in the first place.
In defense of being ‘cool’ I fail to see where the enjoyment is in sitting in your real estate in bad clothes eating bad food and thinking about your bank balance. Looking good, feeling good and enjoying nice things isn’t a lefty fad, it’s the whole point of living.
Re wine: The problem for the French wine trade is the same as the outsourcing threat to the British economy. Just as we can’t undercut Chinese/Indian wages they can’t match the Californians, Aussies and Bulgarians for cheap/mid range stuff.
Like Britain the answer is to focus on high value, premium products where despite all their best efforts the ‘new world’ is never going to compete.
Andrew
Forgive me if I appeared pendantic, but I was pointing out that your remark about being forced to pay the TV licence fee was misleading in that … erm … you are not forced to pay the TV licence fee. Indeed, in your response you refer to “those of us who DO NOT WISH to deprive ourselves of the vast potential of television”, which is more accurate. It is your choice. My points were (since you clearly missed them) (1) that the shame of the matter is not that we are forced to pay a licence fee (we are not), but that we are forced to make the choice between paying it and having television, and (2) it really is not such a deprivation to do without television, or at least not for people like me and, I would guess, for most of the people contributing to this blog who have ready access to other forms of information and entertainment. My recommendation is that you try it. As they say in America “try thinking outside the box”.
Re: Wine. The Aussie wine I had the other day tasted something akin to Kangaroo piss (one would imagine), can’t say I’ve had a good yankee one either. South American is good though, Chilean red in particular… just in case anyone is browsing round Tesco’s tonight and comes across the ‘bargain bin’…
Given the apparant mutual exclusivity between being very right wing and being cool one is forced to consider which came first.
Did people form right wing views and hence come to the conclusion that ‘coolness’ is financially imprudent and intellectually degrading?
Or were people chronically uncool and forced to come up with economic and social reasons why this was in fact a good thing?
Sartorially speaking, Castro has go to be the ‘coolest’ dictator (cigar and combats, tres chic), that said even with that haircut and ‘tash Hitler still probably beats Stalin on the account of not looking he’s part walrus • part privet hedge. Lenin: good beard, not sure about the rags though. I think the left might have better looking women, but I’m prepared to entertain any examples to the contrary anyone can supply.
The left do not have better looking women – Alessandra Mussolini – I rest my case
Not overly impressed…she’s not a munter, but she’s not ‘hot’ either.
http://www.comites2004.ch/info/images/politici/MussoliniAlessandra.jpg
A trivial matter I know but we musn’t get ‘cool’ mixed up with well dressed. Hitler vs Stalin? Hitler had the world’s worst haircut and a horrifying predilection for double breasted shit brown uniform jackets. Stalin’s traditional uniform based on Russian peasant blouse is far more attractive. Combining with the wine theme – Hitler was teetotal while Stalin drank wine. Neither of these criminally trivial points should be taken as having any significance at all.
Ken
Name a ‘hot’ lefty
Hitler liked painting though, which is a pretty ‘cool’ hobby. Stalin’s hobby was probably lighting his farts. I’m still thinking that Castro is the ‘coolest’ in more than just fashion. Drives a 1950’s car (not through choice admittedly), smokes cigars, used to hang out with Che, likes the Manics…
Che is not cool – Very old hat. Hitler’s paintings were vastly inferior to Churchills. Concur the 1950s car being cool for Fidel but that is more a matter of necessity given the dire state of his socialist command economy. I dont think he really likes the manics – just a left wing politician trying to appear hip and cool.
Generally speaking I was thinking of all the fit girls who work for Greenpeace who harangue me on the street, can I say Marilyn Munroe? Or do you want a politician?
JH: Churchill had a face like a tub of lard though, I think I’d rather have dodgy haircut and ‘tache, at least you can cut them off. Who was the South American dictator who used to keep his political prisoners in a big pit outside his mansion and had two pet tigers? It could be Central American now I think about it…but that’s pretty cool in any case