Did you watch last evening’s edition of the BBC’s “Question Time” programme? Wasn’t it a laugh? I mean IF you want to see BBC institutionalised bias in all its unfettered glory this is the must-see each week because it is always a challenge to work out whether it will be the panel or the audience which contains the greater number of foaming-at-the mouth lefties.
Last night, true to form, the panel was as unbalanced as ever. We had the Labour Minister and Conservative traitor Shaun “Where’s my butler” Woodward. (There’s nothing the BBC likes more than a Conservative defector) Then we had rabidly Europhile Conservative MP Ken Clarke, the man who seeks to increase the power of the State, who seeks to ensure the UK loses any vestigial national soveriegnty to the EU superstate, the man who fails to understand the war on Islamic terror. To add “more balance” we had comedian John Sessions who seems to have not yet outgrown his “Student Grant” set of leftist values. Then we had uberleftist Bonnie Greer, (a BIG contributor to BBC, natch!) who left me open-mouthed when she declared that whilst she did not seek to glamourise crime (Oh yes) nonetheless she was very unhappy about the way that New York had successfully tackled crime! Finally, we had the commentator Amanda Platell, who holds what I would define as mild conservative values. So, a panel of four leftists and one centre right conservative. Balanced The audience were the usual anti-war anti-US pro-Welfare rabble that so distinguishes this programme. There were a few sensible souls but they were outnumbered by the moonbat fraternity who seem drawn to Question Time like moths to a flame.
As for the content of the show, we suffered the BBC’s view of the US election being rammed down our throats. In essence the big debate is whether it will be Hillary or Obama. The panelists all focused on the Democrat side of things with scant attention on the Republican side. Even then, liberal Republican John McCain appears to be the only candidate for the GOP nomination IF one listened to the garbage being talked by the panellists. Mitt Romney did not merit any discussion at all. He is evidently persona non gratia with the Beeb. Comedian John Sessions expressed his loathing for Ronald Reagan, to audience approval. In essence, the BBC is once again rooting for a Democrat in the White House which is why even in a political debating programme like this, it’s all about one side, the side of which the BBC so approves .
I find David Dimbleby a likeable chap and have met him and feel he is a professional presenter to compare with the best of them. The problem however is that the BBC lacks the guts to allow a balanced panel. They permit the occassional right of liberal commentator like Melanie Philips or Peter Hitches to make the odd token appearance but then unbalance this with a gaggle of leftist opinion. Unlike the excellent political debating programmes on Fox News, the BBC will not balance a panel, instead it weights the panel outrageously. The audience is then brought in as a prop. It’s all a great pity since real debate would be more interesting. Do you share my view of Question Time?
Of course, in Northern Ireland, I’ll agree that republicanism is very much about limiting the power of the British government.
The Fat Controller: Yes Lord Benn is always spouting on about how he fought the Nazi’s, what down in South Africa & Rhodesia? A bit like me saying I fought the Argentinians from my air force base in England in 1982.
Galloway is always spouting how he’d be the first to grab a tin hat and fight the Nazi’s. Problem with Galloway he continually attacks the bombing campaign and the dropping of the nukes on Japan.
Just HOW would be have fought the Germans? Perhaps dropping copies of his boring books and speaches hoping to bore the Germans to death?
WoAD (UK) | Homepage | 02.02.08 – 4:40 am |
thank you, Woad, but i was hoping sj could give us her take…sj, i still would like your …er, comment
The use of words like “gaggle” and “foaming at the mouth” to describe people who hold left-of-centre political opinions demeans this website – my understanding was that the site exists to expose examples of BBC bias and incompetence. There are plenty of sites I can go to if all I want is to read right-wing invective and cheap cliché descriptions of those with whose political opinions I disagree, but it would be a shame if this website lost its focus to become just another lefty-bashing mutual appreciation society.
Ahh Diddums, doesn’t like leftie garbage being called nasty names then?
Why is it that you leftie losers love dishing it out, but can’t take it?
Take David Gregory, he continually refuses to accept BBC left wing bias but just couldn’t resist spouting the usual left wing crap that the BBC spouts about Fox News being right wing. He even distorted FACTS to try to make his point (that Democrats are boycotting Fox News).
This is typical of the liberal left, they spout endless bollocks about “liberty” or “freedom” so long as people don’t go against what they (the left) feel is “liberty” or “freedom”
Why is it that almost every protest the left are involved in turns to violence?
Gentlemen I apologise. Clearly I’m wrong. Blow me after never seeing a Democrate candidate on Fox, up pops Hillary and Obama today!
So my sincere apologies I was mistaken.
I’m still confused though, why did Bill go and doorstep Obama if he’s happy to appear on Fox?
Genuinely confused about that one.
There is a school of thought which has it that NY’s lower crime rate is due in part to the ethnic cleansing of blacks from NY by mexicans. They are less violent than blacks but more cohesive as a group.
David Gregory? He didn’t “doorstop” Obama, you really do need to actually watch Fox News before commenting for christ sake. Stop listening to those pea brains you work with at the BBC.
Bill O’Reilly went out on the road for one of his shows following ALL the main candidates around. He also followed the Replublican candidates around.
He was at a Clinton Rally where Hillary noticed him!! and he also went to see an Obama rally.
What I find interesting is how Fox News often mention that their staff get physically and verbally abused and their vehicles get vandalised.
Hardly surprising when networks like the BBC peddle lies about them.
CanI please aks where you got your information from in the first place?
Let me take a guess
1. Youtube (a brilliant source for biased reporting)
2. The BBC canteen?
3. The Guardian?
4. The Independent?
Have you ever actually watched any of the Fox News output?
Can I suggest you take a chance to watch Hannity and Colmes to see real fair and balanced reporting?
I won’t hold my breath
David Gregory: Can I ask a question please?
Did you see the report about the BBC getting into trouble for wanting a “zany Asian” to front a science programme?
If so how did you feel not being able to apply for that job?
Also, what actually annoyed me more was that the BBC admitted it is for a dumbed down science programme.
How do you feel about that? Why does the BBC feel the need to dumb down everything?
“There are plenty of sites I can go to if all I want is to read right-wing invective and cheap cliché descriptions of those with whose political opinions I disagree”
Bye then.
Martin:
“Did you see the report about the BBC getting into trouble for wanting a “zany Asian” to front a science programme?
If so how did you feel not being able to apply for that job?”
David Gregory, like most of the inverted-racists at the BBC, wouldn’t have cared. He has often commented on how he would like to see “More ethnic reporters at the BBC” for the simple fact that they are…uhm…ethnic!
So I suspect David would have been one of the first to go belly up and elect some nutter to do a job he is probably more qualified to do simply in the name of “Ethnic diversity”, “Social cohesion”, or whatever Orwellian term these leftie spongeheads are currently worshipping.
Martin:
“Ahh Diddums, doesn’t like leftie garbage being called nasty names then?
Why is it that you leftie losers love dishing it out, but can’t take it?”
Martin, I’m not a leftie loser. Never have been, never will be. I think the left is currently wrong about almost everything. But dismissing those with whom you disagree as “garbage” is precisely the kind of playground reasoning that is dragging this site down. I was commenting as a regular reader and sometime contributor to these forums who supports the aims of the site but feels that this kind of language does NOTHING to aid those aims – it had nothing to do with ‘dishing it out but not taking it’. Your response is so predictable, so knee-jerk, so pointless.
People’s Front of Judea: “Bye then.” Well done – truly grown-up. Do you suppose that if a ‘neutral’ who was curious about the issue of BBC bias came to this site, found phrases like “leftie losers”, “leftie garbage”, “gaggle of foaming at the mouth lefties” etc, and saw how completely unwilling the likes of Martin and PFoJ are to engage with a discussion of that language in any kind of sensible fashion – do you suppose they would go away thinking we had a point or that we ourselves were foaming-at-the-mouth losers?
(For the sake of clarity – I usually post here under the name Gharqad Tree but for some reason my browser is not letting me type in the name box.)
I have to agree with Gharqad Tree here. Let’s have a little less outrage and a little more reasoned debate, no matter how angry we get with the BBC. I know I’m also guilty of it, but it really doesn’t advance our cause.
David Gregory made a genuine apology at 03.02.08 – 6:12 pm. Why not respond in the same tone?
One of the things I appreciate about this site is that people here generally avoid the mud-slinging that characterises so much of the internet, tempting as it is when debating with the likes of the mud-slinging John Reith.
Because David Gregory simply spouts the usual left wing bile here.
Just look at his posts. He defends the BBC to the death against accusations of bias, even when there is clear evidence of that bias.
Yet he jumped on the Fox News bashing bandwagon without checking facts.
Ask yourself this question. How many times do Beeboids fail to acknowledge their own bias?
David made an apology. I don’t want that. I want HIM to accept that he has this bias built into him as a Beeboid.
Until Beeboids are made to see the light I won’t accpet any apology. I don’t care.
Martin
Well in my defence I do watch a lot of Fox News and I hadn’t seen an interview with any main Democrat (until Sunday when the popped up all over!). Not that surprising as apart from the boycott of the debates it looks like up until a month ago there was indeed a full boycott in place because Fox were talking about it, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7296.html (Dec 07)
So clearly it’s a recent change.
As for Bill following all the candidates around, hmmmm. I mean his show is on at 1am so I don’t watch it every night, but I don’t recall him following any other candidates like that. As for the fact Fox staff face intimidation, well yes. Here’s some http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yl8fKWgun0 Shocking. Still Ron Paul supporters had a point don’t you think?
For all these reasons I still think Fox has lost it’s sparkle. Certainly compared to the last election.
As for the “zany Asian” That’s illegal and appalling. But on the plus side I can whizz off my showreel now there’s been a big fuss!
The People’s Front of Judea:
“David Gregory, like most of the inverted-racists at the BBC, wouldn’t have cared. He has often commented on how he would like to see “More ethnic reporters at the BBC” for the simple fact that they are…uhm…ethnic!”
No. Let me repeat again. As you may have noticed there is quite a lot of debate about Islam generally. But despite the fact I’m regularly told our newsroom is stuffed full of Muslims (in particular white female converts married to asian muslim men, which was one of my favourites!) there are no Muslims. Now if we wanted to do an Undercover Mosque style report that’s a problem. Can you see? That’s why I’d like more Muslim/ethnic reporters at work.
Martin: And so we come back to you. Here’s the thing. I come here to debate. It can be heated but I look for good humour. I’ll take most of the insults (racist, a paedophile, stupidity, gay) But if you don’t have the good grace to accept an apology (well, having checked a bit deeper, a semi-apology)from me then I really do have better things to do with my time than post here.
Bryan (Gharqad here again) thank you – I too have sometimes felt like slinging some outraged mud around – not least when being called “an apologist for murder” by one of the more Israel-hating JRs.
Martin – I understand your point, but it does sound as though what you are saying is that you will engage in reasonable, calm, courteous debate with Beeboids only after they concede that we are right.
There are Beeb contributors here who sound reasonable, thoughtful, and open to discussion. My only concern was that if we start out from a position as inflexible and hostile as using the terms “garbage” and “losers” (and if indeed I cannot raise the issue of our use of language without being instantly and totally-inaccurately dismissed as a “leftie loser” by a regular contributor) – then we weaken ourselves and make ourselves look like fringe lunatics, which most of us are not.
My thoughts about John Reith, for example, while not yet technically illegal, would demean the site and give ammunition to anyone who wanted an easy excuse to ignore us.
Sometimes we don’t think tactically.
Anyway, I’ve said enough. I’m not here for an argument, I was just bemused by Martin’s instant categorisation of me as a leftie (wholly wrong, and based on what evidence, Martin?) and a loser (only partially true…)
David Gregory: “there are no Muslims. Now if we wanted to do an Undercover Mosque style report that’s a problem. Can you see? That’s why I’d like more Muslim/ethnic reporters at work.”
Er, well no – unless you’re saying that you need more muslims to go undercover, because white folk would be easily rumbled. Fair enough.
But if (I stress, IF)what you’re saying is that there would be something unethical or unconvincing about having a non-muslim telling the truth about some of contemporary Islam’s more unpleasant, illiberal, or illegal doings, then I DON’T see your point. That would indeed be a form of inverted racism. The truth is the truth, regardless of the teller.
By the way David Gregory – it would be a shame if you ceased to contribute here because of one or two absolutists. I’m sure I speak for most here when I say that you contributions are welcome, even (and indeed, especially) when you are absolutely wrong! 🙂
Anonymous:
I agree. I think we should adjust our language when talking to the Beeboid community in case they think WE think they are to blame for all this bias.
I’ve drawn up a few guidelines that I’m about to despatch to the Guardian and I think from now on we should refer to “bias” as “optional viewpoint” and “Beeboids” as “Employees of the Broadcaster of Peace.”
Hopefully, that way we won’t offend any regular posters from the BBC who come here – and should by virtue of their human rights – be treated like gentry at a Buckingham Palace garden party.
David Gregory:
“Now if we wanted to do an Undercover Mosque style report that’s a problem. Can you see? That’s why I’d like more Muslim/ethnic reporters at work.”
But the BBC would NEVER want to do an undercover mosque style report and you know that well enough David.
Furthermore, have you ever heard of freelancers? I’m sure there are plenty of muslims there if you step out of the usual rounds of nepotistic white middle class uni Guardian reader grads the BBC are constantly opting for.
David Gregory: Sorry but you are missing the point. You defend the BBC to death here, but you stuck up for the lies about Fox News without checking facts.
Your original comment was that DEMOCRATS were boycotting Fox. This was not the case as Hillary Clinton had been on Fox months ago. If anyone should boycott Fox News it should be Hillary as they were rather hard on her hubby after Monicagate.
This is a view I’ve heard spouted by BBC presenters in particular those on 5 live and the fact THEY fail to correct it says much about the views of the BBC.
I’ve never heard the BBC attack any other News organisation the way it attacks Fox News, as you yourself admitted you don’t watch it (or not enough to make a judgement)
Perhaps I’m a bit rough on you Beeboids here, but that’s because I’m angry. I’m forced ot pay for YOUR wages under threat of prison. How would YOU like to be forced to pay for Sky TV under fear of jail?
As a TV tax payer I feel I’m allowed to give you lot a bucket full from time to time.
Yes its good you post here, but that’s not going to change my opinions about the BBC
As for the comments that I think we want to break all Beeboids that is not the case. There is a liberal bias at the BBC, it’s out there for all to see. Why the likes of David Gregory can’t see that just amazes me.
There is a very simple answer David. scrap the licence fee and this website will simply go away. You lot at the BBC can spout all the drivel you like so long as I’m not forced to pay for it.
I too have sometimes felt like slinging some outraged mud around – not least when being called “an apologist for murder” by one of the more Israel-hating JRs.
Anonymous | 04.02.08 – 10:20 am
(I’m glad you managed to retrieve your name, gharqad tree.)
Reith really revealed his intense dislike of supporters of Israel during that long exchange. And of course he isn’t big enough to apologise.
Bryan | 04.02.08 – 11:21 am
My recollection is that you and a couple of others operating in the mistaken belief that Israel’s destruction of a UN observer post was deliberate, sought to justify it as a perfectly fair and reasonable thing to do.
When I posted links showing that Israel’s Foreign Minister and Prime Minister had vigorouslly denied doing it deliberately – and indeed had made clear that they would have regarded any deliberate attack as being a shameful act of wanton murder, it was too late for you to row back. You had already nailed your colours to the mast.
One of you even said that PM Olmert’s letter of apology to the Finnish government was a pretence – a cynical diplomatic manoeuvre!
So there you were defending a ‘war crime’ that had never actually taken place and falling over yourself in your zeal to defend Israel you found yourself accusing Israel of something it had not done.
‘Apologists for murder’ seems apt, don’t you think?
John Reith | 04.02.08 – 1:28 pm |
Welcome back from your trip to Oxford, nearly … 😉
The only thing I disagree with Sarah Jane is the suggestion that there are plenty of renegades on the staff fighting against the P.C enforcers.
The People’s Front of Judea | 02.02.08 – 8:47 am | #
What tends to happen is that a round of redundancies will coincide with a feeling of having had enough and not wanting to become institutionalised. And before you say it I mean institutionalised in a Shawshank Redemption kind of way, rather than a Borgian way.
In another post you were questioning my agenda for being here. I am pro-BBC, but not pro-license fee. I think the way the BBC is characterised here is hyperbole not accurate to my experience of it so I relate some of my experiences.
That’s not to say that when people here write about ‘interfering PC do-gooders’ that certain Senior Managers do not spring to mind…
But Marxists? (it may have been someone else who said that) Please.
Martin | 04.02.08 – 10:57 am |
There is a very simple answer David. scrap the licence fee and this website will simply go away. You lot at the BBC can spout all the drivel you like so long as I’m not forced to pay for it.
The problem goes beyond the license fee. Even if it was abolished tomorrow, the government would still be paying money to support the BBC. If there was no telly tax, money would be appropriated from other tax revenue to run the BBC, albeit maybe a slightly slimmed down one. At first.
As long as the BBC is the official “national broadcaster” of the UK, paid for by the taxpayer, then the problem will continue, if not get worse. Only a complete separation of the BBC from the taxpayer will remove the danger. This means privatization.
If that happens, I won’t care if Matt Frei does his little propaganda broadcast because it won’t be a case of the government of a US ally spewing propaganda or trying to influence elections. It will just be another annoying Guardian campaign, and my friends won’t be forced to pay for it.
Even if the license fee ended tomorrow and all of last year’s payments were refunded, the Foreign Office would still be subsidizing the new BBC Arabic TV, which means you’re all still paying for it. If it takes the line of approach I have suggested in previous comments, then it’s not such a problem. Might even be a case of the Foreign Office having a good idea for a change. If it’s more like the tone that has been so problematic for the BBC lately, then that’s really bad news. It would be your own national broadcaster doing dirty business in your name, paid for by you. I wonder if there isn’t some small subsidy from the FO going to BBC America?
As it is now, the BBC is the official “voice” of your country, and when they do radio reports on a BBC channel – paid for by the license fee – actively promoting and supporting a government program, during which they lie about the program and its beneficiaries, you’re all getting doubly screwed. The FO pays for the government program out of your pocket, and Auntie dips her hand in for her share as well, in order to promote it and coo approvingly. Even if there was no license fee, that would still happen.
The only other option is to scrap the news division but keep the dramas, documentaries, and Radio 3 (but ditch presenters obsessed with collectivism). There really should be no official national broadcaster doing news. It’s too dangerous.
JR – I stop reading when I see your name and skip to the next comment, but I’m sure someone decent will let me know if I’ve missed an apology. Until that happens I for one simply won’t waste my time reading anything you post.
My recollection is that you and a couple of others operating in the mistaken belief that Israel’s destruction of a UN observer post was deliberate, sought to justify it as a perfectly fair and reasonable thing to do.
John Reith | 04.02.08 – 1:28 pm
No, Reith. You were laying blame on Israel, as usual. When you did a bit of research and discovered it wasn’t a war crime you didn’t have a leg to stand on so you tried to deflect attention from your bias by suddenly becoming full of praise for Israel (first time ever, I believe, and ridiculously incongruous) and accusing me and others of defending a war crime that never happened.
You are a fraud, Reith. Like the BBC, you pay lip service to “impartiality” but in fact you loath Israel. That much has become increasingly clear in your comments in recent months.
Absolutely right Bryan, by default he laid into Israel, went away for a few hours to do some “research”, then realised he would have to play some transparently cheap lawyer’s trick to maintain his position.
“Rare suicide bombing hits Israel”…. the BBC are apologists for murder, JR, and you are a hypocrite.
Too true, gharqad tree, and I can understand why you would choose to scroll past Reith.
Reith knows we got wise to his trick but he doesn’t have the basic honesty to admit it.