Well, I poured myself a hot cup of coffee and settled down to watch the Andrew Marr show on the BBC this morning. These are the sacrifices I am prepared to make for Biased BBC – though I recommend that you should not follow my example!
This was the political Left having a Sunday morning love-in. We had the odious anti-Semite Ken Livingstone, we had the wretched Margaret a Beckett, we had the ubiquitous Shami Bakrabarti, and to provide “balance” we had Carol Thatcher and David Davis. But having watched it, I conclude that Andrew Marr himself demonstrates relentless bias.
For example he listened to Shami Bakrabarti droning on in her ever- so-earnest way without interruption and I suggest the reason for this simpering deference is because the agenda that “Liberty” pursues is one that the BBC shares. When Carol Thatcher made comment on the many serious question surrounding the House of Commons Speak “Mad” Mick Martin, and she repeated a claim in one of today’s Sunday papers that he was “the worst speaker in the history of the House” Marr instantly jumped in to claim he knew of others who were much worse. How did he know this and on what basis does he compare this? Why did he not focus on the issues concerning THIS Speaker?
The Ken Livingstone interview was a sickening experience with the Mayor of London being permitted to make the most outrageous claims without any real comeback from Marr. For instance, Red Ken was able to suggest that Castro had achieved many great things during his years (of tyranny) and Marr decided to let it all pass. Livingstone got to propagandise with only the most gentle prodding coming back at the claims he made. In a way this was a perfect alliance – a grotesque Britain-hater like Livingstone showering praise on a monstrous thug like Castro on a platform generously provided by the BBC.
I then watched David Davis – the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary being interviewed on various points and the way I saw it Marr was essentially trying to get him to agree with the government position on 24 hour drinking. There were frequent challenges and interruptions throughout the interview and Davis struggled to make his point without being cut-off by Marr.
Finally, and with best comedic effect, we came to the Margaret Beckett interview. Unbelievably, Beckett is now the head of the “Intelligence and Security” Committee. Marr’s big interest was to get her to “admit” to the UK allowing the US to land its “special rendition” flights on UK soil. Marr, like the rest of his BBC pals, appears ready to believe the very worst about the USA administration – the Bush derangement syndrome runs deep here.
This was a vile programme, all carried out with a simper and a smile. Isn’t it time the BBC gave Shami Chakrabarti her own programme since it clearly can’t get enough of her whingeing? And shouldn’t the BBC now just drop ANY pretence it is interested in the Republican dimension to the US election – since all it does is drool over Obama and Hillary? Marrs programme is marred by a profound sense of left wing bias and he should take note of this. Come on Andrew, if you or your Beeboid acolytes read this, explain yourself.
Thanks for watching this for me,I’m of too nervous a disposition to be upset by such crud…don’t want to pop a vein do I?
Did they discuss the merits of any of the Republicans in the US elections at the end? I was half-listening and heard only talk about Billary vs Obama, nowt about t’other side.
BTW the programme following the Marr show, ‘The Big Questions’, is IMO far far worse. Imagine ‘Question Time’ taken to the next level of unquestioning deference to the mouthy multi-cult liberal regime, where the latter’s positions are no longer positions, they are common-sense givens and debate is about the best way to implement them.
Maybe because the GOP don’t stand a hope in hell?
“The Big Question” might be my project for next Sunday – but there’s only so much left wing multiculti dross I can take in one morning!!
N. Watkins,
So you accept that it is not reporting but editorialising in favour of Obama and Hillary. Good. Now, let’s move you to the next level – there’s a word that describes that – can you guess what it is?
The contrast with the Boris interview last week is amazing. Marr was actually quite aggressive to Boris, and brought up a lot of unpleasantries. But here we have a “tell us how wonderful you are Mr Livinstone, and why those horrible mean Tories are been beastly to you”.
The fact that Livinstone could both decry the cult of personality politics, and accuse somebody else of playing dirty, without challenge shows that Marr is just not up to the job.
How vomit inducing.
N. Watkins: Don’t listen to the BBC. John McCain as a VERY good chance of winning the next election in the US. If Hillary gets the Democratic nod (which she almost certainly will) then McCain is just about home and dry. US polls show that. Not that the BBC would tell you that.
If somehow Obama gets the nod then by the current polls he has a good shot of winning, but the Democrats are going to probably tear themselves apart, especially if Hillary really decides to get down an dirty (as she’s starting to do) trying to put pressure on the super delegates to vote for her and now trying to get the delegates from the Primaries that were not counted (like Florida) reinstated as that would give her more votes.
If I ran the BBC, I would have sacked Andrew Marr years ago. But it says it all when Andrew Marr doesn’t get the sack but instead is promoted and given his own show and his own history series.
What I want to know is WHY Chakrabarti is able to get the time of so many MP’s when she’s not elected or has a political mandate?
Personally I’d tell th epoisoned dwarf to eff off and mind her own business.
You’re a braver man than me Mr. Vance. I made the mistake of watching a smidgin of Question Time the other night whilst I was waiting for the dog to come in from doing his business (it was a tough call whether to watch the dog pinch one off or watch a few minutes of QT – I made the wrong choice), and it was basically an America hate fest.
They had some so-called Conservative (who’s name I was too shocked to remember) saying that the Americans should shut down Gitmo and – get this – try the foreign enemy combatants, at a time of war, by the rights afforded to them by…the US Constitution. Yeah, really.
I guess this is why groups like the BNP are becoming more popular.
I’m sure if they cut a bit of the coke budget or lose a Hamas stringer or something, the BBC could give Ms. Chakrabarti her very own show.
Not sure if it is a BBC Hillary & Obama love fest as they appear to have come down very heavily for Obama.
On the world service this week a reporter speaking to an Afro-American scientist on his results that whites relate black faces with chimps (no mention of what black and asians thought) stated – how do you reconcile your findings with the issue that voters of this country will be voting in a black president?
Given BBC fact it appears – I would like to know what position USS Neverdock would take on this.
… speaking to an Afro-American scientist on his results that whites relate black faces with chimps
Cassandrina | 24.02.08 – 2:09 pm
I thought the favourite term of abuse by left-wing opponents of George Bush was to call him ‘Chimpy’?
Did they actually discuss the election candidates in the US,or was it only UK flights. If the candidates weren’t discussed then why bring them into it? One would have thought McCain’s infidelity would have been a topic? NO?
Yet you don’t describe the show as discussing the candidates par se, so I’m at a loss as to the point you are making David. Is it merely a general point?
The fortunes of the republican party in the US did not come through as a topic of discussion on this show, it is difficult to disagree unless one has seen what you are actually refering to.
Maybe because the GOP don’t stand a hope in hell?
N. Watkins | 24.02.08 – 11:38 am
You and the BBC know this for a fact? Nothing is certain until all the votes are cast. Remember experts get it wrong – frequently
Check out the famous picture of the MSM getting it wrong with Truman and Dewey in 1948 before making rash statements.
No, they where to busy masterbating eath other over the possibility of an american president being black or a woman, with the “dream ticket” (as shami-shami-shami put it) being obama and clinton running as VP.
Obama won’t touch Hillary with a barge pole if he gets the nom (I don’t think Bill has gone near her for years either)
Obama knows Hillary is a vote LOSER. Why can’t the BBC point this out? THe Polls show a clear majority in favour of McCain if it’s him v her.
Many people in America hate Hillary including plenty of Democrats. They don’t want the Clintons back. Ever.
Getting it wrong in 1948 deegee? Gimmie a break, there are lots of current examples of getting it wrong elsewhere.
If the BBC think the GOP don’t stand a chance, I concur. Particularly if McCain is found out to be lying, if he is he’s out of the race then what for the GOP???
Still I’m prepared to wait and see what happens in Florida before I make up my mind 100%
Give me a sane half white man, then a crazy white half man, any day.
That Clinton thing is as mad as a very mad, mad person with highly manic, manic depression.
Obama may be as bad. But in this case especially, the maybe devil we don’t know simply must be better then the devil and her husband we do know, only too well.
Please stay off Shami Chakrabarti’s case. She is only young, so will grow up one day, and is the least of our problems.
I for one would welcome her into the Conservative Party if she would join. She would be a fine asset.
She does not always talk crap. Very often she makes very good sense. Our problem is, that when she is making sense, the BBC ignore her. Or methodically edit out all the sensible stuff.
Very much like they do just about any one else who makes sense.
Including often even Labour and Lib/Dem MPs if they dare do such an un BBC type thing. Conservative ones they systematically give the 3rd Degree to, or gladly edit out the whole interview.
@Atlas Shrugged
‘Please stay off Shami Chakrabarti’s case…….She does not always talk crap. Very often she makes very good sense. Our problem is, that when she is making sense, the BBC ignore her. Or methodically edit out all the sensible stuff.’
Seconded.
“Maybe because the GOP don’t stand a hope in hell?”
Well, current polls typically show McCain beating Clinton by a very narrow margin, and losing to Obama by an equally narrow margin. the margins are narrow enough so that I would call both races toss-ups. The bettors at InTrade currently give McCain a 35 percent chance to win the presidency, up slightly from a week or so ago.
Both of those facts make me think that the GOP has more than a “hope in hell”. (I don’t know whether the BBC has mentioned these facts. Or even whether any of their reporters know these facts.)
Clinton V McCain
He’s on the up, she’s on the slide. If she loses the nom, look to see her bump Bill very rapidly.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html
Regarding Chakrabarti. Sorry but when she does say something useful(not often) she’s normally on the back of a bandwagon.
The Tories have opposed ID cards for a long time. They are also against everyone being on a national DNA database, yet when that silly poisoned dwarf opens her gob the BBC seem to only listen to her.
Perhaps because her sister works for the BBC? Keep it all in the family so to speak?
she does, i actually quite like Shami-shami-shami (listeners of Jon Gaunt will get the reference). Apart from being actually quite a little hottie, her views do coincide with the libertarian in me. Its a shame she attacks things from the left again though. She is not a passionate defender of freedom when the foot is on the other foot, ie the growing use of the state to supress freedom of expression of views they dont like, especially around multiculturalism, immigration and minority rights.
I dont want my rights and freedoms defended through the prism of minorities. I want it defended because it is the British historical tradition.
Martin:
I know for a fact that Shami Chakrabarti is no relation to Reeta Chakrabarti. They’ve both got brown skin and short hair and are called Chakrabarti — that’s all.
Why does Shami Chakrabati appear on the BBC so often? She is not an elected politician and she represents a tiny private group with a few thousand members and nobody else. The same could be said of Nick Griffin and he hardly ever appears on the BBC.
Have Chakrabati’s views been ruled broadly correct by the BBC, like it has done with the pro-manmade global warming issue?
Liberal left is a oxymoron and Chakrabati is a boring pain in the neck who not only represents no-one but represents an entirely fictional point of view . It i , of course , impossible , to deliver leftist objectives like uniformity of outcome without coercion and this well documented fact renders her entire output a self deluding waste of time .
There is a further point about Liberty which is that it is saying virtually nothing to be in favour of Liberty . Which Liberty? The freedom to migrate into the country or the freedom to protect what you regard as yours. The freedom to use your wealth to steal other children’s opportunities or the freedom to pay for a better education . I find she does not engage in these subjects art all and in fact follows a typical left dogma with a few add ons about surveillance which almost everyone agrees with.
She is actually a Liberal and would eb ata home in the Liberal Party , it is a acceptable face of dissent if it is dissent at all for the BBC and she is a positive evil. I want her off the screen and I want BNP who may well wins seats at the London assembly on the screen
That’s freedom and it will not always be an acceptably pigmented squeaky zero requesting that the state stops a tad short of reducing us to battery chickens
Gaz: Sorry but I can’t agree. I think she’s very dangerous. The BBC over inflate her importance.
As you righly pointed out she applies double standards to Government policies that bulldoze over my rights to attack the evil of Islam or EU.
However, she has NO political mandate for her views and that annoys me. Why do so many MP’s feel the need to toady up to her?
Why is it that the BNP or UKIP who have a far larger group of supporters than her 9000 members get almost no time on the BBC?
Just how often do we see anyone on Questiontime that could be seen as not a soft liberal? For example, Jon Gaunt, Richard Littlejohn and others?
Chakrabarti, Tony Benn, Galloway, Polly Toynbee are never off Questiomtime.
These leftie arseholes go on about democracy, but only so long as it suits their political ideals.
Tangential to Liberty’s activities in the UK, it signally refuses to take a leaf out of the ACLU book and defend what many (including Liberty) might think on the face of it is indefensible. For instance, the ACLU notoriously defended the right of the American Nazis to march in Skokie, IL – an area with a high Jewish population. On the contrary Liberty would rather campaign for the opening of a branch of Guantanamo on the Isle of Wight than defend any rights of the BNP itself to demonstrate anywhere or of BNP members not to be sacked purely for the offence of being BNP members.
Liberty chooses its clients according to Liberty’s criteria no matter how egregious the possible breach of civil rights might be: such criteria do not include defending minorities (or majorities or organisations) of which Liberty disapproves: the BNP is one of these. This is sort of OK as long as it is made clear that Liberty is not a disinterested defender of “liberty”. However, by constant resort to spokesmen (well one spokesman) of Liberty the BBC gives the (deliberate?) impression that if someone or something is not on Liberty’s approved list then that “someone” or “something” is beneath contempt and deserves to be treated accordingly.
Chakrabarti’s ‘Liberty’ is a misnomer:-
1.)it operates as a National Lottery-subsidised (£39,000 per annum)organisation, and it lobbies for certain interests groups, notably some suspected terrorists;
2.) it concentrates its criticism on only TWO states in the world: the UK and the USA.
3.) it appears to have the ‘multicultural’ approval of the BBC, given S. Chakrabarti’s many and non-criticised appearances there.
“Please stay off Shami. She is only young”… A “Hottie!”
——————————
For gawds sake, an Asian small boy lookalike is a “hottie?” Get the PaedoPolice!
Why do TV’s have a tax on them designed to subsidise the BBC, the Beyond Belief Corporation? The tax is a relic of the days when the idea was to educate and enlighten the general public through the TV set. Now it pays the salaries of the likes of Ross, Norton, Paxman, Logan, Lineker, Hansen, et al. Lord Reith must be spinning in his grave!
Is Kevin Maguire employed by the BBC? Is he the BBC new labour propoganda corespondent? Is there another reason why we have his boring chip on shoulder droning?
I was just browsing the antecedents of various BBC employees in high places in their News departments. Andrew Marr… “He was once a member of the socialist group Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory and reportedly a seller of its newspaper Socialist Organiser while at Cambridge, where he acquired the sobriquet of ‘Red Andy’.”
Red Andy? Well he is right at home at the BBC then. He says his time at the (very free market leaning “economist”)(my emphasis) that the experience “changed me quite a lot” and “made me question a lot of my assumptions.” Still, whether he actually changed is another matter. Particualrly given the weekly evidence of Mr Marr giving Labour politicians an easy ride in his interviws.
Interestingly, ex-BBC World Service, ex-Guardian, ex-Observer MARTIN BRIGHT, of ‘New Statesman’ is not taken in by LIVINGSTONE:-
http://www.newstatesman.com/200802260003
Did you already see this breaking news story?
Could you please confirm and comment on this, please?
“Harvard University: Ségolène Royal supports independence for Puerto Rico”
“On February 7, 2008, Ségolène Royal visited Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. There she gave a conference on “Reforming the Left in France to Reform the French Economy”. After finishing her allocution, the forum was open to public questions. The first question asked Ségolène Royal to respond whether she supports independence for Puerto Rico as does the Socialist International, to which her political party is affiliated.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9gol%C3%A8ne_Royal#Harvard_University:_S.C3.A9gol.C3.A8ne_Royal_supports_independence_for_Puerto_Rico
http://nouvelleere.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/segolene-royal-pour-lindependance-de-puerto-rico/