Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
Hard day’s work at the licence fee payer’s expense
I was almost alcoholic, John Humphrys admits
As a reporter in his twenties and early thirties he would drink large quantities before, at and after lunch. “I got hugely fat and was on the verge of becoming an alcoholic,” he said. “I would have a couple of Martinis before lunch, a bottle of wine with lunch, a brandy and a cigar after lunch, come back to the office, crack open a bottle of wine and carry on drinking,” he told The Daily Telegraph.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-2415244,00.html
Any Answers
Just how do the BBC do it? How do they filter out all normal people who must ring in to allow on a completely unrepresentative cross section of Moonbats?
Last week the first caller thought that Iraq would be better if Saddam was brought back. This week we have people ringing in who are supportive of the teaching assistant wearing the veil. Have you met anyone who reflects these views in normal life? I haven’t. Then to cap it all we have the caller who says that being not allowed to wear the veil is like Nazi Germany in the 1930s when Jews had directives about clothing. I mean, for goodness sake, where do they get these idiots?
Eamonn
I mean, for goodness sake, where do they get these idiots?
From the TalkSport poll, held the other day. 99% of voters wanted the veil banned, 1% didn’t. Hey, it’s only 1%, but someone voted that way.
In other news, the BBC finds a bunch of people to whom they are willing to ascribe conservative values, without trotting out the ‘right wing’ thing.
It’s the Taleban.
On the road with the Taleban
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6069842.stm
Last Updated: Saturday, 21 October 2006, 11:09 GMT 12:09 UK
Those at the centre of this resurgent Taleban force are the same single-minded Muslims I remember from the time when I travelled with them in the late 90s. They observe their interpretation of Islamic law to the letter, and support the primitive conservative values of the villages in this region.
Eamonn:
Any Answers
Just how do the BBC do it?
The tendency that you alight upon seems to me to be a predictable course now for the BBC. According to Peter Oborne’s piece in the Daily Mail today
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=411783&in_page_id=1787
“Labour has made the extraordinary decision to place the politics of religious identity at the centre of public discourse, in the same sort of way that Jorg Haider’s Freedom Party does in Austria and Pim Fortuyn’s List Party did in the Netherlands”
An interesting question is what exactly will be the role of the BBC in all of this? Have we already witnessed this in the QT studio debacle from Thursday? My impression is that they will steadily chastise Labour for this attempt, in the same way as they do apropos of Iraq. They will adopt the Liberal-we are oh so tolerant perspective- and, surprisingly the Tory approach, with Cameron’s apparent disinterestedness and don’t rock the boat interpretation, they will warm towards. Cameron must love this as the mantle of the old Tebbit style Tory intransigence on race & immigration, is now being taken up by Labour. Orborne is right “Labour has cut its losses, and decided instead to stir up racial tension as a means of appealing directly to the white working-class vote.”
The same logic that Orborne uses for the Muslim vote must surely apply as well to the BBC? I seriously think that the BBC will do its utmost to expose this new Labour strategy.
Does this mean Labour will henceforth also start to attack the BBC more? Are these plans being laid as we speak?
The nature of Any Answers and the editorial “steering” of these unrepresentative contributions is a political strategy.
Watching BBC2s Newsnight last night, I couldn’t help thinking that the same BBC “steering” logic had quickly drafted on to the selected panel of their Arts Review, that outrageous man in a dress and womans wig, Grayson?, as some clever cultural counter-weight to all the images of Muslim women in veils. The same in-yer-face shock approach, so common to the BBC fraternity.
Re Oborne in the Mail – it seems he is all for the veil & other trappings of Muslim fundamentalism as he will take any path which is opposite to Blair’s. Similar to the attitude of the Mail’s usual editorial position, but perhaps not on this subject.
Maybe the Mail & BBC will become uneasy bedfellows.
A while ago a read a comment on this blog which said watching/listening to the BBC gave you the same insight into the views of the ruling UK elite as listening to Radio Moscow gave you of the views of the Kremlin in the old days. There was a prime example of this on Fridays News Quiz on Radio 4. Just a couple of weeks ago any jokes at the expense of the religion of peace would have been a complete no no. However yesterday following an item on the the veiled teaching assistant Sandy Toksvig told a couple of very childish and unfunny jokes about veils and curtains which came as a bit of a shock to me. I can only presume the recent comments by Jack Straw and the PM have changed the the rules for the BBC types. Even odder was the fact that Mark Steel the RESPECT member said nothing in response. Just last month the program was following the RESPECT line exactly
but now things have changed.
Even the Radio Times previewer has doubts over the so called war on terror allegory of BBC’s “Robin Hood”.
“We are going to win hearts and minds!” declares the wicked Sheriff of Nottingham, as he vows to uphold law and order in the face of terrorism. Sorry, I mean in the face of Robin Hood’s acts of “random, chaotic cruelty”, as he puts it, but I think we all know what the writer is driving at here. It’s all part of the subtle-as-a thumbscrew subtext of this adventure yarn. The only problem with a Robin Hood: Prince of Pacifists angle is that our war-damaged hero ends up seeming bloodless in every sense
Maybe the Mail & BBC will become uneasy bedfellows.
will | 21.10.06 – 5:26 pm | #
Agreed, Orbone’s piece is slippery and slimy. Difficult though to imagine them as bedfellows with Littlejohn & Melanie P on board.
The Mail on Sunday, however, is of a very Left-wing editorial persuasion. From the very beginning they were anti-Guantanamo. The web site of the MOS is controlled by hysterical Guardianista types that make the BBCs HYS site look tame.
let’s not forget Littlejohn used to be a BBC presenter.
Melanie P is always on the BBC and has her regular perch on Moral Maze.
Hitchens and Oborne are much the same. The BBC and MoS are interchangeable.
Small msm village.
Re the Talk Sport polls.
I am a member of a certain ROP forum, and I get regular text massages when there is a poll that might be swayed by my vote.
1: I wouldn’t waste my money.
2: I would, of course, vote the opposite way.
There are many places on the Internet where there are collections of the ROP working for the (their) common good in various vote rigging scenarios.
Oops!
Sorry, I forgot to add…the main target is often the BBC HYS.
There are many places on the Internet where there are collections of the ROP working for the (their) common good in various vote rigging scenarios.
Good heavens! You mean..they’re not playing the game?!! Harumphhh!
I am watching a series of programmes on BBC news 24
Something like; Direct from America.
OK Repeat after me;
America is bad, Islam is great
–
Look into the eyes, not around the the eyes, look into the eyes.
and repeat 1,000 times…
America is bad, Islam is great.
Got the message yet?
Proof that everything said on this site is correct.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770
We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News
At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.
Hmmm what do you make of that Reethy
Aaaargh!
Henry said ‘ethnic minorities’, ‘homosexuals’ and the ‘M’ word.
Dammned racist bigot.
Probably.
Dave t :
Yes I was shocked, they’re not playing the game, and it’s not cricket.
On a serious note, from Henrys link:
“Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show’s actual producer and the BBC’s head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.”
Disgusting, but, blatant BBC.
Folks, you gotta read it all…
“It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. ”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770
BBC owns up,”All your biases are belong to us”
It was always full of them.
Re BBC owns up:
Do we have any evidence at all that this meeting actually happened or that any of the quotes were actually said?
this one’s a corker.
Political pundit Andrew Marr said: ‘The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.’
A bad case of moral equivalency.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5377914.stm
It’s all just a misunderstanding.
Note the use of the term ‘hardliners’ applied equally to both sides.
Further, there’s the implication (as in the case of North Korea) that Bush’s inclusion of Iran in the ‘axis of evil’ speech has somehow changed Iran’s moderate stance towrds the US/west/its nuclear plans.
In the same manner Israel (who else?) is also responsible for straining US Iran relations because they were bolstering Washington’s notorious hardliners: “But the hardliners in Washington had been bolstered by Israel’s discovery just a few weeks before the speech of a consignment of arms alleged to be heading from Iran to Palestinian groups.”
The gall of them Israelis.
Overall, the gist of this story is that the Iranian regime is pragmatic and reasonable but its efforts to reach some sort of an agreement are thwarted by an uncompromising US regime that’s hijacked by hardliners (who are bolstered by Jews). It uses the formula of ‘extremists on both sides’ for doing so.
Also, the only highlighted quote in the article comes from…“I believe the nuclear issue could have been resolved long time ago” Javad Zarif, Iran ambassador”.
Henry
Thanks for the link. So there we go, we are right. I love being proven right.
Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to ‘correct’, it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it ‘no moral weight’.
Let’s not forget though, this has only come to light because someone spilled the beans. They carry on being Stalinist even when they admit to it. I’ll be offing a FOI request this week, I want to know what else was said.
.
The only way to cure the treacherous BBC is to privatise it and make it`s snout in the trough employees work in the real world.
The BBC telling us what we have known for years
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770
Political pundit Andrew Marr said: ‘The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.’
but earlier he said:
“We get from time to time people saying you’re biased in favour of the Labour Party. Every time I ask people – show me a case of that bias, explain to me where we got it wrong and why what we said was so unfair – they seem to be unable to do so”
Odd that.
Enormous credit is due to this blog, and others of course, but this one in particular, for shining such a bright and continuous light into the murky corners of BBC bias.
I have a feeling that ‘Biased-BBC’ was a significant factor in prompting this conference in the first place.
POWER TO THE BLOGGERS !!!
Lets see how John Reith tackles this one when he gats back to Television Centre on Monday!
Groan – they’re visiting a mosque on Balamory right now.
Mini-Archduke is asking questions. oh dear – i’m currently fobbing them off with “i dont know”.
weird thing is – they didnt mention “God” or “Allah” once. there was absolutely zero explanation as to what a mosque actually is.
LGF has picked up on that “bbc is biased” story
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23054_BBC_Stars_Admit_Insanely_Obvious_Bias&only
Brian Walden has been ‘talking up’ the ‘Cameroonian brand’ of conservatism on R5.
Net conclusion; died-in-the-wool, true-blue, hardcore conservative voters will not desert the party – they have nowhere to go.
Voting UKIP is ‘stabbing the conservative party in the back’ and will usher in another 5 years of Labour hegemony.
Is the conservative party now more in-line with BBC multi-culti thinking than Nu Labour?
(I cite the recent pronouncements by Ministers concerning veils, integration, al-Qa’Ida, Civic Commitment, and contrast that with the impression given by the Cameron Clan)
paulc writes:
“Is the conservative party now more in-line with BBC multi-culti thinking than Nu Labour?”
Funnily enough, I have just said almost exactly this in my comment on the “Told You So” thread, above.
It is no coincidence that “Dave” is a media goldfish and swims in a small, but fantastically self-regarding pond, in which all the usual Left-liberal views are considered axiomatic.
Having spent his entire life being first educated (perhaps) and then working (also questionable) in such an environment, he was perfectly placed to conform to all the norms demanded of a potential candidate by the all-powerful BBC (and, one might as well add, ITV too, for what little use it is).
Cameron is the perfect product of the UK media’s liberal-left mindset and was chosen by bewildered Conservatives, who could see no way of winning an election unless they conformed to what the overwhelming majority of the British media demanded: a young, metropolitan, telegenic Leftie with views straight out of Newsnight, or the saner op-ed pages of the Guardian.
Anyone else – as was proved by the media assassinations of Hague, Duncan Smith and Howard – would have guaranteed another lost election. The Tory grandees recognised this and, being Tory grandees (whose dedication to honour and principle was demonstrated so well during the defenestration of Margaret Thatcher), the fact that appointing the boy wonder also meant abandoning everything the Conservative Party stood for, was no obstacle at all.
That is why the BBC is so damned dangerous. It, and the media circus it dominates, can force an agenda on the entire nation.
We are, truly, governed in the UK – not represented. Our opinions do not matter. Those that do are held by a small, liberal elite which has seized the organs of propaganda, which it uses to promote them and to set government policy. Joseph Goebells would have been proud.
Somebody is warning of rivers of blood, about 30 years too late…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6074286.stm
I can hear the ghost of Enoch Powell roaring saying “i told you so”
just caught news 24 using the “non-muslim” term when interviewing Saheed Malik MP. Am i the only one that is extremely uncomfortable with the growing usage of this term?
whats wrong with “white English”? or “Christian”?
You’re not alone in feeling uncomfortable about it ad.
GCooper “It, and the media circus it dominates, can force an agenda on the entire nation.”
I agree stongly. Media folk often claim that they are but poor, humble & powerless.
I once complained to Andrew Neil (Daily Politics) about an interview with a backbench MP & the Mirror’s Brown propagandist Paul Routledge. Neil had jumped all over the MP, but allowed Routledge to spout his pro-Brown conspiracy theories without challenge.
Mr Neil took the trouble to reply to me, but claimed that the MP had to get the rougher treatment as he was powerful. Really! In what way is a backbench MP more powerful than a leading columnist at a major newspaper?
In truth the media set the political agenda.
GCooper
History repeating?
MIt is no coincidence that “Tony” is a media goldfish and swims in a small, but fantastically self-regarding pond, in which all the usual Left-liberal views are considered axiomatic.
Having spent his entire life being first educated (perhaps) and then working (also questionable) in such an environment, he was perfectly placed to conform to all the norms demanded of a potential candidate by the all-powerful BBC (and, one might as well add, ITV too, for what little use it is).
Blair was the perfect product of the UK media’s liberal-left mindset and was chosen by desperate Labourites, who could see no way of winning an election unless they conformed to what the overwhelming majority of the British media demanded: a young, metropolitan, telegenic Leftie with views straight out of Newsnight, or the saner op-ed pages of the Guardian.
Anyone else – as was proved by the media assassinations of Callaghan, Foot and Kinnock would have guaranteed another lost election. The Labour grandees recognised this and, being Labour grandees, the fact that appointing the boy wonder also meant abandoning everything the Labour Party stood for, was no obstacle at all.
It seems like your comment could easily have come from 1994, IMHO.
billyquiz writes:
“It seems like your comment could easily have come from 1994, IMHO.”
An amusing re-write and I wouldn’t entirely disagree. Bliar cetainly was a product of Islingtonian thinkers. One could almost laugh at how badly it backfired on them – that is, if one hadn’t had to live through his reign of mendacious medocrity.
However, it is one thing for the chattering classes to foist-off their half-baked ideas onto an already Left-wing party, but quite another when they do it to the Conservatives!
Well said, GCooper! It is astounding that one group has managed to take over an entire country by propaganda alone.
David Cameron was chosen for the reasons you stated. David Davis is too independent minded and clear-sighted for this group. David Cameron is perfect. Not overly bright. Embarrassingly self-regarding. Shallow. Showy. Hungry for praise. All those words also apply, of course, to his doppelganger, Tony Blair.
Had the party membership have been able to vote, they would have voted for Mr Davis. That’s why they must never have a vote.
And I’d like to echo whoever wrote above that Biased-BBC deserves a huge vote of thanks, for it is largely due to them that Andrew Marr et cie admitted that they are biased and, by implication, are not fit to be working in a licence-payer funded organisation. But, if the Conservatives get in, as long as Dave’s in charge, they’ll never have to worry.
The BBc is once agin flooding its news site with Muslim stories. can anyone tell me what percentage of the British population is muslim? I thought it was only 2% in 2001 has it now grown to 75% because the news seems to be 75% muslim stories and 25% for the rest (and thats on a good day)
The BBC and its master’s voice.
Anybody else noticed how the BBC loves to promote the premise that resistance is futile against Islam;
“Resistance is futile — you will be assimilated.”
“Taleban leader in new war threat”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6075278.stm
“We are the Religion of Peace. Resistance is futile. Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service us.”
“Warning over UK race riot danger”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6074286.stm
“”We are *****.. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours. Resistance is futile.”
“On the road with the Taleban”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6069842.stm
“ Plumbers do not evolve, they conquer.”
Young and Muslim: The French exchange
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4500414.stm
Err BBC it seems for all your posturing about how great the Borg are. It appears you forgot that the federation defeated them.
More tea vicar?
I may be on the wrong thread, in which case, please forgive me, but I’ve just seen the BBC’s scary news about the burqa, aka the niqab, blah blah blah blah where drawings of the two islamacist oppressed women are pictured and their “veils’ are explained to those of us who are confused about these lovely people with their lovely religion and would just like instruction on the difference between a hijab or niqab.
Why is the default assumption that we would give a rat’s arse? A monkey poo? A flea fart? Hello?
Try this jihadwatch.org story: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013694.php
These poor oppressed (muslim) women
This (also via jihadwatch) is also good:
UK govt funds moderate Muslim website
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013702.php
Verity,
Why would anyone want instruction on the difference between a hijab or niqab?
Intellectual curiousity perhaps? Or is the accumulation of information (i.e. learning stuff) a sinister plot by the trendy metropolitan liberal chattering classes against the rights of the steadfast downtrodden majority to stay stupid?
Sorry, off-topic:
please follow this link, this is the Russian online game about bears. every your click very important for me. Thank You!
Anyone notice the attempts by the BBC today to step up a gear in the “There’s going to be a cut and Run” strategy for Iraq? The BBC already assume it is cut and run, because it has all been a disaster of course, and to them there is no other choice. But my ears are definitely picking up the sound of over-egging the pudding from Beeboids
But the BBC, in their excitement, could at least be consistent. Was it Hugh Sykes on the Today programme this morning who mentioned repeatedly that the Iraqis hate the coalition, our presence there is making the situation worse etc, then bizzarely states that “Iraqis fear a cut and run strategy”. So which is it Hugh? Or is excitement at the thought of the Americans “cutting and running” addling your brain? Poor old Beeboids – they are salivating over scooping that last helicopter taking off from the Green zone with massed jihadis and other members of the “resistance” closing in from all sides…
Can’t help noticing that the Beeboid approach today on Iraq is strikingly similar to that presented by today’s Guardian and Independent. Coincidence? Surely not.
What a nasty little piece this is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6076596.stm
‘Seven dead’ in Israeli Gaza raid
OK, so it’s a raid
Seven Palestinians including a senior militant figure have been killed in clashes with Israel [sic] troops in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian officials say.
Ah, OK, only the Palestinians say it was a ‘raid’
Local people in the northern town of Beit Hanoun say several men were gunned down during a mourning ceremony.
‘Gunned down’???? Why use such emotive language? Was this a direct quote? If so, where are the quote marks?
The Israeli army said 10 gunmen had been hit during exchanges of fire in north Gaza in an operation to stop militants firing rockets into Israel.
The Israelis only claimed to ‘hit’ the men, not kill them? Odd…
It denied operating in the town, but said it had been near Beit Lahiya.
…and they weren’t in the town at all?…
The Israeli army also denied Palestinian claims that the clashes had occurred during an undercover raid.
…and it wasn’t a raid? Funny that despite the Israeli denails, the Palestinian version of events is what is driving the narrative of the story.
The incident came as Palestinians celebrated Eid al-Fitr, a holiday marking the end of Ramadan.
Why is this even remotely relevant? It’s only purpose seems to be to make clear who the ‘victims’ are in this story. i.e. At an otherwise happy, holiday time, some innocent mourners were shot at by the Israelis. Oh yeah, nearly forgot – they returned fire with the guns they had with them at the happy, holiday funeral.
Missile fire
Local people in Beit Hanoun say the men who were gunned down were paying their respects to a militant who was shot recently by the Israelis.
More use of ‘gunned down’? Why? What’s wrong with ‘killed’?
Among those who died in the burst of fire was a man named Ata Shinbari, a senior commander in a militant organisation called the Popular Resistance Committees, the group and witnesses said.
‘burst of fire’? Oh come on!
The group is heavily involved in launching crudely made rockets across Gaza’s border into Israeli territory.
Not the crudely made rockets again! It’s about time they started to build them properly!
The militant groups often say that such missile fire is a response to Israeli army actions in occupied Palestinian territory.
Thanks for the justification of the terrorist cause, BBC, I needed that.
Mr Shinbari has been described as the man in charge of his organisation’s activity in northern Gaza.
So he was the head of a group of terrorists?
Palestinian sources say that his death was an assassination carried out by an Israeli undercover unit.
But only the Palistinians said this. Why do you re-state it?
Violence between Israelis and Palestinians in recent weeks has been at its worst since June, when the Israelis launched an offensive to try to rescue a captured soldier.
No, no, no. Just because you say it is so, does not make it true no matter how many times you repeat it.
What a load of rubbish.