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.
BTW Martin and GCooper-I do support a robust intervention in Zimbabwe,and unlike some of my “socalist” friends I wasn’t handing over cash to the “Father of Africa” in the days of the “aparthied struggle” so he could by AK47’s……
IngSoc is doublethink writes:
“BTW Martin and GCooper-I do support a robust intervention in Zimbabwe…”
Actually, for the record, I didn’t say I support such a move – nor, I hope, did I imply it.
I was trying to highlight the self-contradictory nature of the Left’s positions on a variety of issues and Zimbabwe is a prime example.
I dont accept any suggestions of bias by the omission of coverage of a particular story. It is easy to find a paticular story out of the thousands that happen every day , that fits your own agenda (ie usually about some act of violence by one or more Muslims) and claim a lack of coverage is an example of bias.
Again this is an example of your bias, not the BBC’s.
Shorter Jim: ‘And you’re one too! Na Nah Nah Na Nah Nah!’
I dont accept any suggestions of bias by the omission of coverage of a particular story.
Well you wouldn’t would you.
What’s your agenda Jim?
How about the omission of important aspects of the stories you (The BBC) do cover – isn’t that bias?
It is easy to find a paticular story out of the thousands that happen every day , that fits your own agenda
Which is exactly why the BBC chooses to report on socks for footsore Arabs at Israeli checkpoints and not murderous Arabs attempting to kill Jews.
The BBC’s agenda is clear, it’s only BBC drones like yourself that fail to admit it, yet.
With Alan Johnston’s kidnapping and the utterances from the BBC about him being a friend of the “Palestinian” cause you have lost all credibility.
Just the usual nonsense from a dreadful government
We will believe it when it happens for starters start deporting the preachers of hate as they serve no useful purpose in this country
“Crackdown on the preachers of hate”
“A major new crackdown on preachers of hate was announced today by the country’s top prosecutor”
“I dont accept any suggestions of bias by the omission of coverage of a particular story.”
The omission of “a particular story” does not constitute bias. The systematic omission of any story that presents an alternative viewpoint does. There is overwhelming evidence,(provided by Biodegradable and others) for instance, that the BBC systematically excludes information about Palestinian terror against Israelis, but systematically includes any story that puts Israel in a bad light (up to the absurd ‘checkpoint socks’ story). The net result is, as Pounce would say ‘The BBC and half the story’. That is precisely how bias works.
BBC website- ‘Settlers in Hebron unbearable’
‘All settlements in the West Bank,including East Jerusalem are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this’.
You bet they do! Why wouldn’t they? Seeing as it’s not true.
Sorry GCooper…I stand corrected on your position.
The very embodiment of Winston Smith is featured on Newsniffer and others regarding censorship. Not only had to have you omitted the facts but other legitimate viewpoints.
I say this as somebody who isn’t allowed to speak on (D) HYS because I mentioned the Balen word.
However as individual cases I would say “Yes B-Biased is biased”
But its worth pointing out that we are neither a public corporation with a charter to uphold nor do we directly interact with policymakers to construct narratives that neither enhances political debate or empowers people to feel like they have a say in Government.
What you also find here are refreshing debates on a range of topics from different points of view, where most of the time everybody has a say.
Not to put to finer point on in I would say sites like B-BBC is “democracy in action” unlike the socialist fossils from a bygone era.
BTW-Jim,JR and Martin.
Apart from my spelling and the use of the “Balen” word why am I banned from (D)HYS?
And why didn’t I get any reply to my question of vetting “eyewitness” with regards to an interview taken in Baalbek?
Its interesting to note that even a propoganda monolith like the BBC fails to ‘educate’ the pleb masses about the right way to think in regards to pc subjects like the veil etc. The majority of posts on the ‘have your say’ section of the BBC website regarding the veil issue (another BBC obsession) seem to be against the veil. Most BBC viewers can see through the BBC propoganda no matter how many times the BBC tries to hammer into us the rightthink way to approach subjects such as its beloved Islam.
I also find it interesting how the BBC website tends to malfunction at critical times, especially when their ‘polls’ aren’t going quite according to plan.
More absurd use of ‘scare quotes’.
US, Palestinian officials ‘meet’
Palestinian finance minister Salam Fayyad says he has met the US consul general in Jerusalem, Jacob Walles, in the West Bank town of Ramallah.
What’s wrong with “US, Palestinian officials meet”?
Just for the record, because the BBC won’t tell you, here’s some news about Salam Fayyad:
Palestinian minister admits aid millions lost
Bias by omission Jim?
Nah, I must have an agenda.
UK presses Abbas on BBC reporter
Answering questions in parliament, Mrs Beckett said it was particularly sad when someone who had been a long-standing friend of the Palestinian people suffered in this way.
On Monday, Johnston’s father, Graham, appealed for information and urged anyone holding his son to “just let him go”, saying he was a friend to the Palestinian people.
Fair and balanced reporting from Alan Johnston in Gaza?
Not as we know it Jim!
I’ve tried Al Beeb website to vote against the veil, but the vote on this site is not working. Why not? Should I be suspicious of vote rigging? Do Islamists operate this vote?
The Sky News ‘red button’ vote is currently running at about 91% ‘Yes’ on question: ‘should schools be able top ban religious dress?’
Sky vote is: ‘to’ not ‘top’, of course. Apologies.
Simon Mayo did an Iraq a phone-in today with various BBC journalists on hand to answer questions. I tuned in just in time to hear this:
David: I just want to address the question to, I think, John Simpson, because he’s got a lot of history in the country. I’m a serving soldier – I served in Iraq 2004-2005 – and one thing I’m always concerned about is there is always reports of the bad news – and I know John’s just answered a lady who questioned on the bad news – but you never ever ever hear the good news. And it is important that the British people understand that the coalition forces in Iraq are carrying out a lot of good news. Schools, power, water. Which brings me on to my second point. The reason why power often goes out is very rarely explained. It’s not in the interest of insurgents for people to have a better life in Iraq, and when power cables are put in and new generators are put in they are often blown up by insurgents to stop people having a better life. And my third point, if I may, is the BBC had an excellent reputation in Northern Ireland for taking on the leaders of terrorist groups and asking them quite difficult questions, and indeed some of their religious supporters. I’ve yet to see an interview with any of the religious leaders in Iraq and put them on the spot as to why they are tacitly supporting the insurgents on one side and militias on the other. That needs to be done more often and the British people need to see you doing that.
Simon Mayo: OK, so let me put some of those points to John Simpson. The good news point John first of all.
John Simpson: Well you see, it depends what you think news is. If you think news is a way of directing, changing public opinion, of influencing people to see.. perhaps to support some line, perhaps to be against some line, perhaps to identify one group of people as an enemy and another group of people as those to be supported, then yes, of course you would go out and do that kind of reporting and you would want to emphasise the good things, and there are some good things – not very many – but there are some good things and there’s been some success in those ways here. I think I’m right in saying that not a single hospital has been built in this country since 1987 but maybe I stand to be corrected on that. Um, but you see that’s not what the purpose – what we would regard the purpose- of news reporting to be. We just want to tell people what is happening. And what’s happening today? Well, it may well be that a lot of good things are happening that we’re missing but we certainly know that a lot of fairly unpleasant things are happening and I think it’s just a question of letting people know what’s going on rather than trying to influence them and say actually it’s a really good idea that we’ve got British or American troops in this country and these are the reasons why. I think you’ve got to understand what the value of news reporting in a free society actually is.
( http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/downloadtrial/fivelive/thedailymayo/thedailymayo_20070320-1500_40_st.mp3 – above clip is 27mins in)
The BBC’s World Affairs Editor – whose salary is paid in part by the families of soldiers serving in Iraq – does not think it is the BBC’s role “to identify one group of people as an enemy and another group of people as those to be supported”. This is moral relativism as editorial policy. He seems to imply that informing the British public about good news in Iraq could compromise the BBC’s concept of impartial journalism, whereas a steady stream of reports about terrorist success represents “the value of news reporting in a free society”. Apparently good news could influence public opinion and should be avoided, but bad news is somehow neutral. The message to the terrorists is clear – keep on keeping’ on, there’s always a slot for you on the BBC.
The BBC’s World Affairs Editor – whose salary is paid in part by the families of soldiers serving in Iraq – does not think it is the BBC’s role “to identify one group of people as an enemy and another group of people as those to be supported”.
Unlike BBC diplomatic editor Paul Adams who said of Alan Johnston, “his job [is] to bring us day after day reports of the Palestinian predicament.”
That’ll explain his failure to report, for example, the story about 20,000 jobs created in Gaza.
Bias by omission?
Of course not Jim!
I realise that abuse doesn’t contribute a great deal to the debate, but I just want to say that I consider John Simpson to be an odious, louche toad, whose de haut en bas manner with its world-weary, sub-Graham Greene routines and Guardianesque liberal conceits to be the absolute worst the BBC has to offer.
And that, given the competition, is certainly saying something.
In passing, if Anonanon transcribed all that, she or he deserves an award.
John Simpson explained why working for the BBC is so great in a letter to the in-house magazine Ariel last year: “It’s because we don’t have to apologise for what we do.”
There’s a quote that could be added to the Biased BBC sidebar.
“In passing, if Anonanon transcribed all that, she or he deserves an award.” Thanks GC – having heard it live I felt compelled to transcribe it when the podcast came online.
“I realise that abuse doesn’t contribute a great deal to the debate, but I just want to say that I consider John Simpson to be an odious, louche toad, whose de haut en bas manner with its world-weary, sub-Graham Greene routines and Guardianesque liberal conceits to be the absolute worst the BBC has to offer.”
Beautifully put GCooper. That’s abuse of the highest order….
Could you just imagine the howls of protest if a beeboid reporter was described as “a good friend of the Israelis” – a phrase you could only imagine them using as a means to demonise someone. What’s so amazing about all these professions of Johnston’s solidarity with the Pals is the sheer absence of any embarrassment or awareness. Just as Gerard Baker describes it – their prejudices have become so accepted in BBC land they’ve become invisible.
Well, my googling technique needs to improve but there was no immediately obvious clue that Mr Burkitt had been voted in as a Conservative. Even so I don’t think the Conservatives would now claim this councillor-pimp as one of their own. In my defence I relied on this site to be authoritative – obviously not. Goes to show you can’t be too careful – mind you I haven’t got £3.5 billion and a team of 8,500 journalists to rely on for accuracy.
Ex-footballer had sex in a field
“A former footballer has been fined £500 for having sex in a public place.”
Is this really important news? How many other people this week have been fined for having sex in a public place? Or is this unique?
This kind of stuff is to be expected from the Sunday Sport – but from a multi-billion pound news organisation is this good enough?
‘I realise that abuse doesn’t contribute a great deal to the debate, but I just want to say that I consider John Simpson to be an odious, louche toad, whose de haut en bas manner with its world-weary, sub-Graham Greene routines and Guardianesque liberal conceits to be the absolute worst the BBC has to offer.’
GCooper | 20.03.07 – 9:23 pm |
I actually recoil in disgust every time I read or hear some thing this man has to say.
I am very glad that we have so many eloquent well informed contributers here, able to comment about such vile dross, because I am left speechless.
“Poll shows strong Euroscepticism”
I notice the BBC have reported on this poll – maybe that’s why they have to counterbalance it with the 10 “good things” the EU has brought to us.
Not surprising though is that they do not give us the full figures from the poll. Which shows that overall less than 30% of people think that their country is better under the EU. Whereas over 70% thinks it’s the same or worse.
In the two most Europhile countries • France only 20% think its better and Germany about 25% thinks it’s better now.
Contrast this with the Iraqi poll when asked if things are better now than before the war. 14% much better, 29% somewhat better, 22% the same.
Only 8% said it was much worse and 28% somewhat worse. To my reckoning this means that more people think it is the same or better now than under Saddam.
Click to access 19_03_07_iraqpollnew.pdf
Much better than what people think of life under the EU.
jon – > exactly. shows where the priorities of bbc “news” are, doesnt it?
“This kind of stuff is to be expected from the Sunday Sport – but from a multi-billion pound news organisation is this good enough?
Jon | 20.03.07 – 10:43 p”
again. this raises the question , that i raised over the (saint paddys) weekend about “news” output.
is that footballer story really more important than coverage of the St Patricks Day parades in America and Dublin – attended and celebrated by millions , which the BBC sneeringly chose to avoid in its TV news output on the 10 o clock news on Patricks Day. this then begs the question – what news are they choosing to NOT report to the license fee payer?
“And what’s happening today? Well, it may well be that a lot of good things are happening that we’re missing but we certainly know that a lot of fairly unpleasant things are happening and I think it’s just a question of letting people know what’s going on rather than trying to influence them… ”
Thanks for that John Simpson quote Anonanon.
Of course, it looks even more pertinent today when the BBC decided to leave out any mention of the ‘successful’ handover of a military station in the centre of Basra during their 10 O’clock News in favour of… corruption amongst the Iraqi police, new ‘intelligence’ ascertained by the ubiquitous Simpson that seeks to cast further doubts on the Government’s original rational for going to war, once again plugging their own opinion poll showing decline in support for the war, and interviews with the parents of slain servicemen pouring scorn on the whole Allied effort to liberate Iraq from the Ba’athist regime.
No, no attempt to influence anyone there then.
The gloves were certainly off when the usually spikey Esler met the always oily Hain on Newsnight, tonight.
It’s hard to recall an interview when a politician was given such a free rein to spout nonsense as Hain was, while desperately lying about the economy in defence of ‘Uncle Joe’ Brown
Arise, Sir Gavin!
I’m wondering whether it may be the Israelis who have abducted Alan Johnston, or maybe they paid others to do it for them. If one thinks about it for a moment, there are many reasons why it would be in Israel’s interests to do so. Johnston is a mouthpiece for a terrorist groups which wish to kill Israelis, and now it is admitted as so – friend of the ‘palestinians’ etc. The BBC would be flummoxed as their favourite freedom fighters would appear to have abducted one of their best friends. Brevity prevents me saying more, but it’s easy.
followed by “how things are really REALLY bad in iraq” on newsnight right now.
amazing how nobody is pointing the finger at Islamic terrorists WHO ARE CAUSING THE FRIGGIN CHAOS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!
its like blaming us for the “radicalisation” of the S.S. because we had the temerity to invade on D-Day. christ this is seriously getting pathetically dumb.
allan -> ooh.. getting into tinfoil hat Islamonutter territory there. be careful. but the theory has its merits, i’ll admit that.
now on BBC 2 we have a docu from a Iraqi hospital. IRAQ WAR is BAD… mkay?
Off Topic – but ironically funny
“MINNEAPOLIS – A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite.
The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.”
But the “bombastic” Simpo takes my biscuit for the most utter sh*t category.
But this brings me back to this “one thirds” highlight on Iraq and something that struck me recently on Marr.
I would hesitate a guess but I think the people most likely to have agreed in the Iraq intervention are a significant proportion of the electorate LIKELY to vote as apposed to the great unwashed who oppose any type of “party politics”.
It would be worth seeing the actual data set of the findings. Even if they were not true the giant Nu Labour machine has identified a significant group that is likely to cause trouble in the future.
And on Marr he raised with Thompson the question the “liberal bias” in the BBC.
Suddenly all these “floating” voters, a desperate band of TB fans, disenchanted Conservatives, demoralized liberal’s, ex-pats and other more cynical voices are starting to make very small waves.
Perhaps Biased BBC is more watched by our Beebiod friends than we think, as we probably provide a window on “proletariat” thinking and I see some of our agenda starting to move in on the edge of politics to the centre. I also think that it’s some kind of New (Labour) Speak for-“these are going to cause you trouble” the very fact of highlighting the “one third” might just swing an election?
Why do I think this?
Because usually Al Beeb is only to happy to say that “everybody” was against the war. So why else highlight the minority like this?
On the other hand I fully expect over the coming months loads of Beebiod “word-smithers” to be doing there best to get us on nit-picking exercises when they blog here.
I think we are in interesting times…..
I’m wondering whether it may be the Israelis who have abducted Alan Johnston, or maybe they paid others to do it for them.
You do have some slight thread of evidence for this speculation, don’t you? If you were being sarcastic use of the 😉 or ‘SARCASM’ tags makes it clear. If you were being serious about this libel you fall into the same basket as 9/11 or Holocaust deniers. The truth is uncomfortable therefore something more comfortable happened.
“Anonanon | 20.03.07 – 8:58 pm”
that post of yours is probably the most eye popping thing i’ve read in months.
the question is well framed and a reasonable one – about “why dont the bbc report on the good stuff” happening in iraq.
and yet the first -the FIRST sentence – John Simpson utters is
“Well you see, it depends what you think news is.”
errr. Mr Simpson. i dont care what you think , what i think or what my dog thinks – i just want the friggin NEWS.
case in point:
the bbc way of reporting:
A US military official has said children have been used in a bomb attack in Iraq, raising fears that insurgents are using a new tactic.
the impartial , fact based way of reporting:
Two children were killed today , when an Iraqi Islamic guerilla blew up a car.
note the difference. the bbc way is “a us official said” – thereby spreading doubt about the story (so why cover it – cant the bbc double check it?). secondly, the bbc refuses to use the word “islam” or “islamic” in its report, thereby giving no clue as to WHY the jihadist blew the car up.
we can dance angels on a pin about the word “terrorist” – but i dont mind the use of “guerilla” or “rebel”. but i wouldnt mind a mention of the motivation of the attacks – namely – it is extremist Islam. note in the BBC report there is NO MENTION whatsoever of the motivation for the attacks.
here’s a mind game as to what i am about:
1936 BBC report:
Three Germans were filmed beating up a Jew
My 1936 impartial report:
Three members of the anti-semitic Nazi Party were filmed beating up a Jew in Germany.
see the difference? one is news. one isnt. the first imaginary “German” example is lying by omission , the second is just stating the FACTS.
” IngSoc is doublethink | 21.03.07 – 12:41 am |”
its actually simpler than that – Nick Cohens “why the left lost its way” book, the Harry’s Place blog, and the Euston Manisfesto.
All of them , combined, have drawn former left wingers to right wing and libertarian blogs. Naturally, stuff by Nick Cohen, has made the thinking left to start wondering what the hell is going on. So , they’ve started to check out the right wing and libertarian blogs.
And they’ve have entered a world that is pro freedom, and not swivel headed. And certainly not the bastions of “racism” that the BBC would have us believe.
The “right wing” blogs are beating the crap out of the left wing blogs right now. People are looking for alternatives.
Thats why the antennaes are out. So your observations on this change are correct. I’ve noticed this as well.
I wouldnt be surprised if Gordon Brown goes right wing tax cuts , thus leaving greeny “call me dave” in the dust. Politicians like power. and if “privatise the bbc” is popular, they will deliver. heck , the moonbat bbc causes as much problems to Nu Labour as it does to the right wing, doesnt it? its just out of control. time to reign it in i think.
and , may i add – two things happened in the past month that have turned people off the moonbats.
tim montgomery vs a Guardianista on Jeremy Vine about the “world without america” video. Tim did his usual conservative viewpoint, but the Guardianista was over the top hysterical, using almost Nazi like invectives like “rubbish” and “crap” and such insults. Tim just stayed calm. End result – Tim is someone i’d have a pint with. Have a bit of debate in reasonable ,calm terms. Guardianista is somebody i’d avoid.
Iain Dale – calm as heck – on the Today program, about forthcoming drama about Thatcher during the Falklands War, versus . i kid you not – a Thatcher spitting image impersonator.
end result – today program looks like a bunch of schoolboy Marxist pranksters. Iain Dale looks like a reasonable English chap that you’d have lunch with.
having said that – maybe this is intentional by the BBC. are they sensing the wind and that the boy King Cameron” is due in office. oh wait – no that involves big conspiracy theory, so no – i’ll just err on the bbc’s inate far-leftism that is showing through.
Hows this for a revision
“More than 50 people have been killed in fighting between al-Qaeda militants and local pro-Taleban tribesmen in north-west Pakistan, officials say.”
Tue Mar 20 18:00:13 GMT 2007
“Nearly 50 people have been killed after rising tension between local tribesmen and foreign militants in north-west Pakistan erupted into fierce fighting.”
Wed Mar 21 00:00:27 GMT 2007
Obviousley this sentance has to be cut.
’21/7 bomb set off by accident’
“The men are accused of carrying out an extremist Muslim plot designed to cause chaos in July 2005. ”
Tue Mar 20 16:30:25 GMT 2007
An hour later this bit disappears
Been a while since I’ve checked into B-BBC, but has anyone noticed the proliferation of ‘dumb American’ stories on the BBC Views site?
They’re often located on the right hand side of the homepage, about half way down.
This is a good previous example. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6261509.stm
And here’s another.
Tiresome, isn’t it. Would the BBC be so eager to disclose the nationality of the protagonists had they been French? Would they have even reported these non-stories?
Completely fed-up with the useless f***os.
Anti US bias:
I once interviewed (for the BBC) a senior executive in the Disney organisation. I thought it was a tough but fair interview. So did he, I think. But:-
After the taping, he said, “guess you’ll now go back home and trash us, as usual”.
I protested. “The BBC doesn’t do that sort of thing”, I said (that’s how young and naive I was!)
He said, “We’re Disney. We’re American. We’re eveything the BBC hates. Every BBC producer or presenter we’ve ever had doing stories about us ends up trashing Disney on air – but first they ask us for free tickets for their families to one of the theme parks”.
And guess what? He was right. After the editor of the programme heard my report, she insisted on altering it to make it sound more “honest” (ie: critical). Lesson learned.
Just in case BBC people think they’re fooling Americans by appearing chummy before they put the knife in, they’re not. Everyone here in the US knows the truth about BBC anti-American bias. They just shrug and say, “Well, there you go”.
JohnBosworth, you’re right about the Americans regarding the BBC as anti-American. On talk radio, right-wing blogs and even amongst some who call themselves Democrats Al-BBC is seen as pushing an anti-US agenda. I promise you that everyone I meet in the States is directed to this site and is given examples of Al-Beeb’s bias.
Allan@Aberdeen | 21.03.07 – 12:24 am,
No, Johnston’s abduction doesn’t have an Israeli stamp on it. The Israelis target terrorists, not terror-friendly journalists, and when they go after terrorists it is to arrest or kill them, not to abduct them.
The Israelis have nothing to gain from Johnston’s abduction. What would they do with him if they had him? They would have to release him in time, and what would have been achieved? If and when Johnston is released he will simply go back to business as usual – though since his stint in Gaza is up he will be on some other biased BBC agenda.
Degee, Allan is not adopting a negative stance towards Israel here – though his speculation has no substance.
With regards to dumb American stories here is another insightful piece from our Washington correspondent.
Note the “sneering” attitude so typical of Frei’s output:
For example he refers to one of the Republican candidates below:
“There’s Fred Thompson, the lawyer-turned-actor-turned-senator-turned-actor from Tennessee.”
“And Tommy Thompson, the former health and human services secretary, who once famously declared that the “problem with America is that we are just too darned fat!”
Wow Mr Frei really informative (I bet you couldn’t wait to reinforce the point about fat Americans), but wait he shows us his stand up routine:
“Not surprisingly, a joke is making the Beltway rounds: “A lonesome Republican voter is accosted by a gunman in the dead of night. The gunman points his weapon at the hapless voter and asks: ‘Who will you vote for? Romney? McCain? Or Giuliani?’
The Republican thinks deeply, then shrugs and says: ‘OK. Go ahead and shoot me!'”
Ho, ho, ho Mr Frei, was that one George Clooney rejected from his Oscar appearance?
But wait here is the “analysis”:
“The panic-stricken hunt for the right candidate is unusual in a party known for its discipline.
It smacks of a deeper malaise afflicting the Grand Old Party, reeling from the mid-term elections, the Iraq war, the departure of once-mighty grandees like the Tom “The Hammer” DeLay and the queasy feeling that Capitol Hill is now ruled by the Grand Inquisitor Torquemada and his powers of the subpoena.”
So Congress has become WWF.
I’m not going to carry on with the rest of this piece, but plenty of diatribes on Iraq, and the Supreme Court.
Needless to say some of our of our American friends were less than impressed with Mr Frei’s insights:
“Matt Frei’s piece on the GOP was another (yawn) hard hitting look at the facts bla bla of the demise of those bla bla Republicans. I wonder; is there anyone out there not pounding on the GOP? Most news services have abandoned all pretence of being fair when it comes to covering conservatives. Careful you don’t get what you ask for boys. We are paying for Clintons mistakes of the ’90s. Wanna rerun?”
Mike Brosch, Scottsdale
“Doom, doom, and gloom… the usual BBC with regard to the US.
I am nothing but happy that the nut-right wing of the Republican Party has been moved to the back of the bus — if Giuliani wins the Republican nomination I will be able, for the first time in over 30 years, to vote for a mainstream candidate who actually reflects MY view of things!”
“I am laughing like crazy at this social/liberal writer’s ability to spin a yarn. Heheheh…
For the record, The Prez can fire any US attorneys (Like the Clintons did)Heheheh…it was Richard Armitage (a Clinton holdover in the State Dept)that leaked Valery Plames name (not Prez or VPrez)and who gives a rip if Ann Coulter does not believe in Political Correctness. Heheh….too funny & obvious of slant. Besides. Who wants a pacifist, socialist, or Muslim in power anyway? What a joke!”
Scott Peterson, Phoenix
“Matt Frei takes Ann Coulter’s despicable comment and uses it as a wide brush to tarnish the whole republican right. He conveniently fails to mention that all of the big 3 Republican candidates immediately distanced themselves from what she said and there was also enormous distress and embarrassment about her comments from the centre-right blogosphere. Just because people lapped it up does not imply the rest of the centre-right did”.
Will M, London
As always, the BBC doesn’t report so much as issue Pollyanna-like prognostications based on wishes that the world it would prefer to exist is about to replace the world that does exist.
While I have no particular liking for the Republicans, after 2004 I wouldn’t bet against the ability of the Democrats to lose any election, any place, and any time. Don’t figure on Baraka Obama in the White House just yet.”
Colin Wright, Richmond, Ca, USA
BBC-Bringing you Bullsh*t First.
This is the first day of spring so all the weather forecasters can now legitimately talk about it and the political parties can have spring conferences!
But for some good stuff that al-beeb won’t talk about go here:
And these are the people who want to have a state. As the article says, but al-beeb will not, it will be a state dependent on western largesse from the EU and especially from the hated USA!
“Well you see, it depends what you think news is. If you think news is a way of directing, changing public opinion, of influencing people to see.. perhaps to support some line, perhaps to be against some line, perhaps to identify one group of people as an enemy and another group of people as those to be supported, then yes, of course you would go out and do that kind of reporting… ”
Iraq ‘should talk to militants’
Iraqi forces kill 39 ‘terrorists’ in Sunni province
The Simpson line in one easy lesson…
There’s a good, critical update here on EU and global warming debate. (There’s a reference to BBC: Mr.Peston’s propaganda on Stern Report).
“The EU Fights Global Warming. Don’t Worry about the Costs.”
Was Alan Johnston abducted by Israelis? No, absolutely not – I appreciate the remark may have been simple speculation, but unfortunately it taps into the massive industry in scapegoating Israel for Palestinian crimes. In fact kidnapping is big business in Gaza – and is part of Islam’s long history of kidnap for ransom – a legitimate part (according to Sharia law) of Jihad against the infidel. Read the Debka report if you haven’t already. There’s at least one kidnapping a week in Gaza, with hostages usually being released fairly quickly for a suitable ransom. It’s possible the hostage takers didn’t even know they had a ‘high value’ captive. The delay in Johnston’s release probably indicates they are driving a hard bargain now they know who they’ve got. It’s a business that takes no heed of ‘Palestinian sympathies’ – the infidel is the infidel as far as Jihadists are concerned and fair game. I hope Johnston is unharmed and will be released soon. But the total failure by the BBC and other ‘liberal’ (anti Israel) elements in the media to condemn this disgusting practice is appalling and only exacerbates the situation. Instead of unequivocal condmenation they come out with every shade of apologetics to excuse what should be inexcusable. Speculating on Israeli involvement only feeds this tendency.