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.
What has happened to the BBC this evening, Friday 2nd March 2007?
Why can they no longer report on the ‘cash for honours’ story?
What are the New Labour Government so worried about; were the BBC about to spill the beans?
The BBC made the fatal mistake of failing to back 9/11 conspiracy theories. Now conspiracy theorists are attacking Richard Porter, editor of BBC World, like a pack of dogs turning on its prey:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
Mr. Porter is gamely trying to fend them off:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html
But it doesn’t look like he’s going to have much success. On September 11th a BBC World reporter on the scene told the cameras that the WTC 7 building had collapsed while it was visible in the background still standing.
Conspiracy theorists are furious with the BBC for debunking their theories. They are insisting that building 7 was imploded and they want to know who told the BBC that the building would fall before the fact.
BBC World has “mislaid or destroyed” the tapes from that day. But the internet has come to the rescue and posted some clips on youtube. Someone keeps taking them off as they are posted. I’m not sure how that works, but this story keeps getting more and more interesting.
Indignant comments keep pouring into Mr. Porter’s Part of the Conspiracy? (2). He must be having a late night. Unless he’s got someone else doing the moderating for him.
Bryan – as I have said I am not playing the ‘piss of the ‘left’ piss of the ‘right’ qed impartial’ card. I am merely pointing out that there are people who find ‘right wing’ bias in the same organisation you find ‘left wing’ bias in. Can the organisation be biased in both directions? Or is only one side correct?
Andy Tedd,
You have a peculiar ability to perpetuate a circular argument. You should try graduating to the spiral form.
The BBC complains about Microsoft’s Vista operating system.
Though I’m not that computer literate, I thought it was quite a good article. It doesn’t cuddle up to Bill Gates much.
Forgot the Vista link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6407419.stm
Brace yourselves for an avalanche of “institutional racism” accusations as the BBC pumps up the Wanless Report on the continuing failure of Afro-Caribbean boys in the education system. Missing from the initial BBC reports is any breath of critism which would echo the scathing words of Tony Sewell, himself black and a former education lecturer at Leeds University (quoted in the the Daily Telegraph when this report was “leaked” to the Independent late last year). Sewell “dismissed the racism theory as “confused rubbish”. [and said that] “the boys complain that there is very little discipline because teachers seem afraid to challenge them. These boys are not in an environment where there are consequences for their actions and we should be asking questions about the lack of ethos, expectations and discipline in some schools.”
Oh no – it’s so much easier (especially if you’re a DfES hack and a true intellectual descendant of Heinz Kiosk) to explain away the crass failure of the liberal educational nostrums of the past 50 years by blaming “institutional racism”: and the solution? Real racism, only it’s called “getting it” in the learned prose of Wanless himself. It’s all a wonderful excuse to indulge indiscipline further and exacerbate the “perpetual victim” mentality of many Afro-Caribbeans.
So, what exactly is the bullingdon club and why should I give a crap?
But when it comes down to it who – who is in that group of people able to make a difference – gives a feck what I would have written – not the BBC – so why not direct a bit of that energy in the right direction?
Andy Tedd(exBBC)
As pointed out to you, I, and others here, do complain to the BBC, usually to little avail, but we do.
The fact is it is you and I, and you and others on this blog, who are debating, amongst ourselves, here.
In a debate it’s important to declare one’s position and defend it – to criticise the other’s point of view without declaring one’s own is the behaviour of a troll, not an honest debater.
The intolerant, bullying ‘liberal/left’ at Oxford:
“Hounding of the don who dared to speak out on migrants” (3 Mar.)
http://www.mailonline.co.uk
Morning BioD:
Check out my blog and Andy’s reply:
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Laban #
Revealing how he manages to avoid a question…….
After this disgraceful activity:
“Hounding of the don who dared to speak out on migrants” (3 Mar.)
http://www.mailonline.co.uk
Will these ‘liberal/left’ Oxford students now want BBC reporters sacked for writing this?:
“Illegal immigrants ‘allowed to go'”
(1 Mar.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk (go to ‘politics’)
Even the BBC and ‘Today’ recently (reluctantly) recognised the informative output of migrationwatch,
http://www.migrationwatch.org
‘So, what exactly is the bullingdon club and why should I give a crap?’
It’s the latest non story used by Newsnight to attack Cameron, and you shouldn’t.
David Dimblebey was also a member. not that you’d ever hear that referred to on the BBC.
anyone catch the C4 climate change swindle docu tonight? powerful stuff.it really got back to basics and looked at the actual SCIENCE and talked to , err. real-life scientists (rather than celebs)….
needless to say, it completely demolished the climate change hysteria – and also, as an aside , pointed out that “climate change” is now a multi-billion dollar industry with tens of thousands of jobs.
however, the docu pointed out, that this is now going to impact on the likes of Africa and condemn millions to poverty. how ironic – the climate changers are all warning us about the third world, and are so “concerned” about the third world. and yet, their lunacy might prevent the industrialisation of Africa and that continents development – thus condemning millions to poverty and disease.
archduke,
Yet the BBC keeps insisting that the evidence in favour of global warming is overwhelming. The latest is this post on The Editors blog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
The man seems to think the BBC is being more than fair to the opposing point of view.
Incredible.