It’s been quite interesting reading the lead stories in most of the Sunday press today concerning the alarming prospects for PM Gordon Brown and then comparing these with the BBC. With gloom and doom everywhere as tales emerge of plots and intrigues, Gordon Brown can at least gain small comfort in the re-assuring BBC headline that there is “No appetite to oust Brown as PM.” From Jabba the Hut (Prescott) to Postman Pat (Johnson), the BBC has helpfully provided a forum for those selected to calm Brown’s nerves. It looks to me that the BBC wants to see Brown survive, but only if he moves to the left.
CONTRASTING HEADLINES.
Bookmark the permalink.
I’m glad to see I’m not alone. That was exactly how it seemed to me today as I scanned the newspapers and kept going back to the BBC – almost in disbelief.
It looks to me that the BBC wants to see Brown survive, but only if he moves to the left.
Is that bias for or against the Opposition? It seems to me that whether he moves to the left or not, Gordon Brown remaining in office represents the best chance of New Labour being kicked out! I too want GB to survive.
Yes, but it’s still pro-Labour bias.
Nice try, no cigar.
If Brown stays, Labour will be ousted within the next two years and the Tories will then wreak vengeance on the BBC.
So why would the BBC want Brown to remain in situ?
Pacificrising
But will they? The ratchet syndrome is a work here, and it only goes in one direction.
David Vance | Homepage | 25.05.08 – 9:06 pm |
Surely even the Tories must recognise the hostility towards them from within the BBC, and the public’s support for the BBC is at an all time low, what better opportunity to wind up the whole evil empire.
If the Tory party where serious about getting rid of the biased BBC, surely they would have done so when the had a large enough majority in the ’80’s.
The fact that they didn’t was either a grave mistake or sheer incompetence. Either way, I have long since chosen to avoid listening or watching BBC output especially that of the political kind. It is a great pity, though, that this once great nation has submitted itself to funding a public institution ( i.e wholly paid for by the public, whether or not you use its service providing you have a television)that supports one party rather than others equally, says much for the degradation of our politics and our politicians.
OT – That nasty Boris bloke is ending the oil deal which nice Ken negotiated with cuddly Chavez to keep loads of old people alive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7419227.stm
A throwaway line to concede that Boris is keeping the travel subsidies in place but two thirds of the article is basically written by Livingstone.
Or they’re just reporting what all the Cabinet said rather than indulging in innuendo and speculation.
“It looks to me that the BBC wants to see Brown survive, but only if he moves to the left.”
Let the BBC keep digging that’s what I say.
In fact, talking a cold clinical look at the whole Labour mob, none of them look even remotely Prime Ministerial, least of all Brown, so just the Beeb do their worst.
No, the BBC does plenty of that too, with Messrs Robinson and Marr, let alone all the bit players from Newsnight and other outposts of the empire.
It’s just that all their speculation and innuendo reflects what the ZaNuLabour high command wants us to hear.
The fact is the technology now exists to make the BBC a subscription based service just like Sky is. Not all Sky Channels are encrypted (for example their news channel is not) so there is no technical reason why the BBC couldn’t go down the same route, especially as analogue is being turned off over the next few years.
In fact by 2010 (next election) digital will be the only means of access for BBC TV for many people.
However, as we know the BBC are left wing scum and leeches. The fact that the BBC are making more of their programmes available via live internet streaming means that the scum will try to argue than anyone with a broadband connection and a PC should still pay the TV tax.
What we all need to do is to really put the pressure on tory MPs near to the election. No point now as they won’t take any notice, but near to the election they will, especially if people email them examples of BBC bias and a few websites get set up.
The power of the internet could be the thing that finally slits the throat of the Bloated Broadcast Corporation.
Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!
There is a lot of hand wringing going on at Al beeb as the trots who run the place are slowly coming to terms with first their hero Ken Leninstone being ousted, and then the massive Conservative victory in Crewe. They also cannot quite believe how it is all going to badly wrong for Brown, the man they had pinned their hopes on to provide another decade of disasterous socialism.
But suddenly it is dawning on the commies that in two years time – or less the way Broon and his chums are performing – there will be a conservative government.
My guess is that Cameron, a former ITV PR man, will play his cards close to his chest, but come the day of reckoning a few old scores may be settled.
The party could be over for the BBC commie collective, and about bloody time.
Regarding the Boris story Jerseyman has drawn attention to; I don’t remember the BBC asking Steve Norris for a statement every time Ken Livingstone did something…
Jerseyman – Interesting:
A throwaway line to concede that Boris is keeping the travel subsidies in place but two thirds of the article is basically written by Livingstone.
Yes, he is keeping it in place isn’t he:
The half-price bus and tram fares program for Londoners on income support, a welfare payment, will be honored until the agreement comes to an end in August, according to the statement. The discount beyond this date will be recognized until the six- month time periods on people’s cards have run out, said Johnson.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=azc5fu5bgs80&refer=news
Mmmm, for a limited period. It would appear the BBC is indulging in a bit of pro-Johnson spin. Here is the opening to the BBC article:
Boris Johnson will not renew an oil deal with Venezuela which provides cheap fuel for London’s buses once the agreement ends later this year.
The mayor of London said half-price bus and tram fares for 250,000 Londoners on income support, which were also funded by the deal, would still be honoured.
It’s nine paragraphs in before we discover that it would ‘still be honoured’….until 20th August.
Also, interesting to note that the BBC hasn’t even reported on Johnson’s appointment of former members of Shirley Porter’s administration to his team. Is there a PR campaign for Boris at the heart of the BBC?
I see retirement has allowed Jabba to unleash the full power of his inner idiot…all this from one who supposedly helped guide the country.
korova: You really are a prat. The BBC article clearly spouts pro Livingstone propaganda.
The headline itself says Johnson WON’T renew the agreement.
And a good job I say. Johnson said he’d cancel it and so he has.
Chavez is a left wing wankstain. No dount you think Chavez is a great man.
Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Cameron, beside personality they’re all the same.
The BoJo article has a heavily-laden first sentence:
“Boris Johnson will not renew an oil deal with Venezuela which provides cheap fuel for London’s buses once the agreement ends later this year.”
It’s like the journo kept piling up one fact after another and hoped the sentence could carry the load. It needs at least 2 sentences: one to describe the old deal, one to say it will not be renewed when it ends.
Korova, you really are a mega-prat:
“Also, interesting to note that the BBC hasn’t even reported on Johnson’s appointment of former members of Shirley Porter’s administration to his team. Is there a PR campaign for Boris at the heart of the BBC?”
EVEN reported? And that’s a GOOD thing???? Not reporting on what the democratically elected London mayor (yes, I know the plebs have made the wrong choice, Mem Sahib, but that’s life) does is somehow PRO Boris?
What an asshole.
They’re all the same, eh? Stalinist v. Tory is all the same thing, eh?
Go play with your tricycle.
Monday just after 8.30 on the Toady programme – yet more navel gazing with Anthony Seddon and Julia Langdon on what Labour needs to do to win the next general election. They really do not understand that perhaps, just perhaps, more people would like to see a Conservative government than would want to have another Labour one.
How long has the BBC spent on considering what the Conservatives did right to win the election, what they could continue to do, why people like Cameron? Well if they have spent anytime at all – I’ve missed it.
Not reporting on what the democratically elected London mayor (…) does is somehow PRO Boris?
Nearly Oxfordian | 26.05.08 – 9:21 am | #
Compare and contrast with:
So when we read “news” it’s always important to consider what is left out as much as what is put in. Bias is a subtle beast.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
David Vance
Consistency of thought is sometimes challenging. Hyperbole is not the same as analysis.
@korova, great for pointing the obvious out again. It seems enough just to state something (2/3 written by Livingstone or “Theo Mbeke really owes the BBC!”) and people unite in a rant without bothering to check the source. Bias is found by simply declaring it bias. Great methodology!
Here is what the Biased BBC did not report in such words:
The statement said poor Londoners could continue to take advantage of the reduced fares until the program ran its course. A spokesman for the mayor said there were no plans to offer low-income residents advantageous bus fares beyond that point.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/25/europe/london.php
Johnson said the half-price fares would be offered until the Venezuelan agreement ended in August. But there were no plans to offer the same cheap fares thereafter.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL2570113320080525
Tory London Mayor Boris Johnson has axed a controversial tie-up with Venezuela, spelling the end to half price bus and tram travel for some of the capital’s least well off.
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hDh89oFjLrlfCNa1ujJN7EZZqBsA
Maybe fares would be cheaper on the Underground if they didn’t pay so much to the fat useless slugs pretending to be staff…
And give them over TWO MONTHS paid holiday per year.
Oh — and try and get a job on London Transport unless you just arrived from Zimbabwe or Muslimostan.
Hell, try and get an interview.
Good luck with that if you enter the race box that you are a white indigenous person, and demonstrate literacy. (I know, because a mate did just that.)
FACT – Tube Drivers earn around £38,000 pa, and get 39 day paid annual leave PLUS another 10 statutory holidays (that’s about ten weeks in total holiday), plus FREE transport, plus… the list goes on.
Deborah,
Yes Toady navel gazing at its finest – real hitler in the bunker stuff, ordering non-existent battalions to the front .
They even found time to fit their old mucker george moonbat monbiot in, for a few rounds slap and tickle with hilarity benn.
Because they are so insulated from reality, they can’t comprehend how totally labour have stuffed the economy , hence the piece about monbiot and his individual carbon allowances.
The public are in the mood to put labour politicians up against the wall and the beeboids are promoting a nutter who wants the state to control people’s carbon emmisions !
The public are in the mood to put labour politicians up against the wall and the beeboids are promoting a nutter who wants the state to control people’s carbon emmisions !
Maybe we could start by stopping breathing?
Rumour has it that human-beings actually exhale the most dangerous gas on the planet: CO2!
SAVE THE PLANET – STOP BREATHING. Has a nice ring.
The sheer monotony alone of the ‘Green’ propaganda pouring out of the BBC is enough to justify closing it down. It is relentless, on all its channels – the received wisdom of the chattering classes, still being pumped-out, long after people in the real world have finally started to realise what the true agenda is – statism and socialism in hippy drag.
George Monbiot is a first class brain dead fool. He is a man with a degree in zoology who has no specialist training to speak informatively about carbon trading or permits, as he has no formal training in economics. The man is an absolute idiot. He spouted so much hot air about the airport expansion plans, that he is not a credible commentator on any environmental issue. He is driven by left wing politics, and that is all.
(I used to work at the DfT in the air transport directorate so I know when Monbiot spouts nonsense, which is everytime he appears on BBC speaking about environmental issues. The man is a moron of incredible proportions).
-Not reporting on what the democratically elected London mayor (…) does is somehow PRO Boris?
-So when we read “news” it’s always important to consider what is left out as much as what is put in. Bias is a subtle beast.
-Consistency of thought is sometimes challenging. Hyperbole is not the same as analysis.
Oooh, Gunnar, aren’t you clever – if only in your own lunchtime?
There is nothing –inherently bad– (look it up in your Ladybird dictionary; sorry about using such long words as ‘inherently’) in appointing members of a previous Tory administration, if they have the right skills for the job. Omitting to report such appointments is not ‘positive spin’.
You need to learn to read between the lines, not just word for word.
Oh, and by the way: I am not David, and don’t have to adhere slavishly to his every word.
Did anyone at the BBC ask Monbiot why he now owns a car?
I agree about Monbiot. I read 5 pages of ‘Heat’, and found so much innumerate crap in it that I threw it against the wall. Well, it was only a paperback, so no damage was done to the plaster.
And he is a screeching antisemite.
Hi Nearly Oxfordian,
Many thanks for introducing me to the word “inherently”. Who would have thought that such a word exists.
There is nothing –inherently bad– (…) in appointing members of a previous Tory administration, if they have the right skills for the job. Omitting to report such appointments is not ‘positive spin’.
Nearly Oxfordian | 26.05.08 – 12:07 pm | #
Well, let’s just assume that Ken had appointed someone from the previous Labour administration without the BBC reporting on it.
What would the opinion on this blog have been? Wouldn’t you guys not have said the BBC is inherently biased?
That is what I meant with consistency. Actually, I am agreeing with David’s quote. He is spot on that one.
Consistency of thought is sometimes challenging. Hyperbole is not the same as analysis.
Gunnar – don’t expect any consistency from Nearly Oxfordian. This is someone who, on a previous thread, wrote the following:
Anyone who calls a legit attack by Jews on the HQ of the illegal British occupation of their country ‘murder’ is an antisemitic twat.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6980329790174376469/#400157
and said that in actual fact it is:
a military attack
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6980329790174376469/#400163
I’m looking forward to the next occassion that the BBC is accused of bias for calling those that attack US forces in Iraq as ‘militants’ and not the Biased BBC’s preferred term of ‘terrorists’.
PS Nearly Oxfordian – you seem to call everyone that disagrees with your rather myopic view of the world as ‘anti-Semitic’. You appear to have rather an obsession with this term. A psychologist would have a field day with you.
Korova, I am now convinced that you are a retarded 3-year old.
Gunnar, you are an idiot. Not reporting on something does not –necessarily– make it biased: it could be down to incompetence and stupidity, which the BBC displays in full measure.
There is nothing –inherently bad– (look it up in your Ladybird dictionary; sorry about using such long words as ‘inherently’) in appointing members of a previous Tory administration, if they have the right skills for the job.
Mmm, I suppose you are right. I guess the question is, does Simon Milton have the right skills for the job? He was appointed by Johnson as ‘Senior Advisor, Planning and Housing’. He served on the Porter administration during the ‘homes for votes’ scandal and during the period were the homeless were housed in asbestos ridden housing. So, does he have the right skills for the job? Possibly. Does the public have a right to know his background? Definitely. Does the BBC give us any background? No. Why doesn’t the BBC give us the background?
So when we read “news” it’s always important to consider what is left out as much as what is put in. Bias is a subtle beast.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
David Vance
Hi Nearly Oxfordion,
You are quite right, not reporting on something does not make one necessarily biased.
You guys seem to have a fool proof way to spot the difference between bias and stupidity.
So in this case, the BBC was simply stupid to not report the appointment. Would this also have been the case if Ken Livingstone had done it?
Gunnar, you and many others like you seem to have a real intellectual difficulty in understanding that not all anti-BBC posters are clones of each other. We don’t have identical views, and what one of us says is not binding on all the others to accept.
Bias arising from omission means consistently failing to report good things about one side and/or bad things about the other. There is nothing remotely ‘bad’ about this appointment, and it’s noticeable that you haven’t even tried to prove otherwise. You are simply playing with words and ‘clever’ digs. Won’t wash.
Your question is meaningless, a typical irrelevant ‘what if’ that specifies nothing useful. If KL had done WHAT? Appointed ex-Tory members? Appointed ex-Labour members? How can one answer such a vague question?
There is nothing remotely ‘bad’ about this appointment, and it’s noticeable that you haven’t even tried to prove otherwise.
So, let me get this straight, cos y’know I’m an illiterate soul. Boris Johnson appoints a member of Shirley Porter’s ‘homes for votes’ administration to the post of ‘Senior Advisor, Planning and Housing‘ and you think there is nothing wrong with that?
“Gunnar, you and many others like you seem to have a real intellectual difficulty in understanding that not all anti-BBC posters are clones of each other. We don’t have identical views, and what one of us says is not binding on all the others to accept.”
Nearly Oxfordian | 26.05.08 – 1:03 pm
N.O. – that is the main difference between the BBC apologists, that I do not agree with, but are worthy of engagement, such as David Gregory, and the sad trolls like hillhunt.
The former seem to get it, the latter do not (or deliberately choose not to).
Once more, stupidity and illiteracy from Troll:
“I’m looking forward to the next occassion that the BBC is accused of bias for calling those that attack US forces in Iraq as ‘militants’ and not the Biased BBC’s preferred term of ‘terrorists'”
I have never, not once, referred to those attacking military forces as ‘terrorists’, you lying scumbag.
I have referred to those planting bombs in marketplaces and restaurants as ‘terrorists’, and will continue to do so.
KDH was a –military installation–. Do you understand what that means, you pathetic little moron?
To claim that I am psychologically flawed because I am consistent and strict in my definition of hysterical, ignorant Israel-bashing as antisemitism, shows just how stupid and ignorant and vile you are.
“So, let me get this straight, cos y’know I’m an illiterate soul.”
Exactly,no point in going further.
N.O. – You’re very funny! 😆
“I’m looking forward to the next occassion that the BBC is accused of bias for calling those that attack US forces in Iraq as ‘militants’ and not the Biased BBC’s preferred term of ‘terrorists'”
I have never, not once, referred to those attacking military forces as ‘terrorists’, you lying scumbag.
I never said ‘you’, you total tit. You have already said that not everyone here thinks the same. I just said I am looking forward to the remarks on this blog when the above happens. Fuck me, learn to read.
“Fuck me, learn to read.”
Won’t the monitor jiggle about?
Can anyone else think of a reason for that article about Boris Johnson’s decision not to renew the deal with Venezuela to mention that Chavez was a socialist and “the Bush administration’s fiercest critic in Latin America,” other than to put a gold star by his name?
I don’t see how that has anything to do with what Boris had to say. Unless it was to put Livingstone’s crack about Boris’s “right-wing ideological agenda” into a certain context. Curious.
“I never said ‘you’, you total tit”
You said it as part of an attack on me, you wanker: a concerted attack over several posts in which you said it in the context of attacking my consistency (using the relevant paragraph as part of your so-called argument) and my psychological health. Learn to argue, twerp. But first learn to join the dots in your Blue Peter book, Stage I. It helps no end when you grow up and try to impress the adults with your logical thinking. In your case, however, it’s probably hopeless.
David Preiser (USA)
Yes I was left wondering what the “fiercest critic” sentence was all about. It was kindof clever though. Because it carries the unstated implication that everyone in Latin America is a Bush critic – but Chavez is the fiercest.
Nothing at all to do with the BoJO story. A lot of BBC pieces are like this – bring in one of their pet themes with no link to the story. Maybe its a game the reporters play to amuse themselves ?
Learn to argue, twerp.
Brilliant from someone who never publishes a single, verifiable fact. Really, it’s too easy to expose your weak ineffectual arguments. At least Biodegradable was a challenge.
I’m looking forward to the next occassion that the BBC is accused of bias for calling those that attack US forces in Iraq as ‘militants’ and not the Biased BBC’s preferred term of ‘terrorists’.
korova | Homepage | 26.05.08 – 12:21 pm
These trolls are inexhaustable.
As Nearly Oxfordian tried to point out here
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/9112365026948137257/#400443
we are capable of understanding the point that an attack on the military is not a terror attack, and the korova troll would acknowledge that understanding if he/she/it had any sense of fairness in debate. But the Iraqi who turns his attention from an attack on US forces to send two retarded women into a crowded market and blows them up by remote control to cause maximum carnage is the most foul of subhuman terrorists. One has to have absolutely no moral compass whatsoever not to see that. Like the BBC hacks who report on these terrorist-infested areas without once using the word to describe them or their attacks.
We have had many debates here on the T word, often with BBC hacks like Reith and Nick Reynolds. Anyone who had followed those debates would have noticed that the B-BBC-ers are not in total agreement on the issue. So we don’t buy these weak attempts to discredit people here by portraying them as mindlessly uniform.
And I note that Gunnar has yet to respond to my challenge over his sly attempt to draw us into another debate on the BBC’s despicable use of militant for terrorist by lying by omission about his previous energetic engagement in the debate:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3798497868164392252/#400042
Here’s gunnar’s deception:
Interesting. I am not saying that you are wrong, but could you please provide some evidence.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3798497868164392252/#400017
Yeah, right.