. Just wanted to say thanks to all Biased BBC readers for making May our second biggest month in the past year! I am enjoying my time here and trust you all approve. I find it tough sometimes getting the time to blog here every day as well as on my own site, A Tangled Web. However such is the rich vein of bias that runs through the BBC that mining it is a joy.
THANK YOU
Bookmark the permalink.
And thank you, Mr Vance! Contrary to what some have said, I find the site a lot friendlier and compulsive reading – trolls, notwithstanding!
May I make a special plea? The general comments thread sometimes disappears to the bottom of the heap and gets very full, inhibiting both reading and commenting.
It would make the site even better if it were kept nearer the top and was regularly refreshed.
Thanks!
The big question is: are the views/opinions expressed on here having any actual effect on the Beeb itself do we think? For better or worse?
I’d like to think it was eroding that peculiar beeb mindset, that the money squandering behemoth was slowly but surely mending its ways, but it’s hard to be sure really, isn’t it?
Joy? Would you care to rephrase that? š
I’d like to second GCooper in everything s/he says.
sutekh – It’s almost certain that we are having no effect on the individual class warriors, ‘greens’ and general assorted liberals at the BBC.
Certainly, the senior figures are far too old and entrenched in their views to change and the younger ones, far too sure of themselves.
However, I would bet that the collective efforts of this site, plus the many increasingly popular libertarian/conservative blogs and websites are having an effect on the overall political temperature.
So, while I don’t think we have much influence on the intellectually hermetically-sealed BBC staff, they have to keep aware of the sea in which they swim. If they upset enough people, sooner or later politicians will feel sufficiently emboldened to start taking action against them.
As this site, and others, grow in popularity, that day grows ever closer.
However such is the rich vein of bias that runs through the BBC that mining it is a joy.
You can say that again. If it was iron ore you could have built every bridge in the world with it by now.
It is clear The BBC has an agenda which is obviously not a straight forward New Labour one. Very much not a Thatcherite one either, and it remains to be seen how much of a Cameron one it will or will not become.
Put another way it is not entirely a straight forward so called left wing agenda, but is certainly not a small c conservative one in any way at all.
Interesting is it not? That The Royal Family, especially over the last 10 years has, with only a very few exceptions, been getting the brown tong treatment from the BBC even more then usual.
It would be more productive then just mining for ever more mega tons of easily found bias, if you spent a little more of your intellectual capacity trying to work out where exactly The BBC gets its obvious agenda from. Especially as by its own Charter it is not supposed to display any obvious agenda at all.
It seems that if one lists the usual suspects for example The RIFA or The Council of Rome on this site, one gets accused of being some kind of Alex Jones incarnation, as if that would be such a bad thing. It would in my case , only because I am a rational, highly intelligent, incredibly good looking business man, and Alex Jones is a psychologically disturbed and a right ugly bastard, who makes his living from frightening people half to death.
This of course is like water off a ducks back to me, as Alex Jones was not even just a twinkle in his mothers eye when I found out who really runs this world of ours.
My paternal grandfather, a past Grand Master, told me all I needed to know just before he died, when I was only 10 years old. I have been working out the details ever since, with no help from Mr Jones Mr Icke or Mr Wells.
The BBC is like someone you ask to tell you if any cars are coming while you reverse your people carrier loaded with your wife and kids out of a blind side road.
The BBC informs you that the there is no cars coming, so you venture out into the busy road. Only to be immediately flattered by the proverbial big red bus. While the BBC in its most patronizing of tones softly announces, “you did not ask us about any Buses you silly little man.”
In context, Iain Dale has:-
“May Statporn”
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/06/may-statporn.html
I see the 5live phone in is indulging in a bit of collective masturbation at the selection of Obama getting the democrat nomination.
Am I alone in finding the BBC’s coverage of the Democratic Party’s internal process just a little over the top
Jumping BBC-approved candidate in mid-stream was deftly done though
Gaz,you are right,only now 5 Live have turned it into a debate on how racist is Britain/will we ever have a black PM.
LMO — No debate at the BBC as to when the Labour will have a female leader?
It’s only 30 years since the Conservatives had one.
Jack, assuming you’re not being ironic,there is much more mileage for a liberal like Derbyshire to pursue the race question than the gender one, even though she is a woman.
A great piece on Today this morning – it had John Humprheys almost audibly choking on his own liberal piety as Daniel Kawczynski MP accused the BBC of political correctness in ignoring the controversial issues around non-white immigration. He said the BBC was happy to focus on “white Christian” Polish immigration though and suggested that this has led to increased attacks on Poles.
(Blogged.)
Trying to ban someone for having the same web ;site title doesn’t endear you to anyone Mr. V. Lets hope that big oule google engine doesn’t go getting our two tangled web’s mixed up, I wouldn’t want anyone to think I was peddling hate to get hits, I do have standards you know!!!
DV,
Thank you for your efforts in the past year – I find the site more focussed than previously, and posters less inclined to be side tracked by beeboid trolls, or to indulge in Judean Peoples Front moments.
I think it is worth reiterating on a regular basis, the importance of posters writing to their MP’s frequently to demand an end to leftist beeboid bias and the licence fee gravy train. As revulsion over little piggies with their snouts in the publicly funded trough continues to mount, the size of the beeboid trough needs to be highlighted so it becomes a press issue.
Neil Reddin:
The Catholic Church is the Great Evil to many Beeboids, and they’d prefer Sharia to it.
Logic and history aren’t their strongest points.
Keep it coming, DV!
“Thank you for your efforts in the past year – I find the site more focussed than previously, and posters less inclined to be side tracked by beeboid trolls, or to indulge in Judean Peoples Front moments.”
A less charitable interpretation of which is that the site has become an echo chamber with which few can be bothered to debate.
C’mon guys DV wants a little pat on the back, the other writers who have been here from the beginning did such a bad job did they? Lets all hug DV, and think that all the high hits are due to his presence. Perhaps they are, perhaps people tune in to see just what a little hate fest is going on here. His treatment of muslims, Palestinians, Roman Catholics in N Ireland, homosexuals and on and on. Is there anyone other than white Brit male hertrosexuals that he does like.
He’s yesterdays man. and he treats this site as his own little kingdom. Why? Because his own is failing? Look at the hits on it. some posts don’t even get one comment……….
At least the others didn’t focus on their own agenda, but on the actual bias of the bbc.
Sort it out guys. Lets get the site back to what it was before he squatted. Focusing on the bias of the bbc. His posts are too close to incitement to be associated with.
“an echo chamber with which few can be bothered to debate”
Ignorant and obviously illiterate crap.
Calling your moniker ‘A Tangled Web’ and you expect me to treat your pathetic hillhunt disingenuous comments with anything other utter contempt.
I look forward to your ban.
If you genuinely believe the BBC to be bias, which I doubt I think that is clearly disingenuous, and you object, and you think it would be so popular, then set up your own blog and go for it, my guess is you won’t.
Last valuable seconds of my life I will waste on your trolling.
A Tangled Web:
yeah, right – we all remember you from way back when, posting often and incisively on BBC bias in the old days!
Or is it rather that some atavistic N. Ireland urges have obliged you to jump on board in the last 5 minutes and try to piss everyone off here?
I don’t think DV’s ever been offensive about Catholics in Northern Ireland. He has however been less than enthusiastic about murderous scum who owe everything to the vilest terrorism being included in government – which is a rational, defensible position (and one notably not shared by the BBC, which is quite relaxed about murder when committed by members of its approved groups).
Keep it coming, DV!
Nearly Oxfordian
“”an echo chamber with which few can be bothered to debate”
Ignorant and obviously illiterate crap.”
I regularily lurk on this site as I agree that the BBC is biased and I agree with most of the sentiments abour bias that are shared here. However, some of the accusations of bias are pedantic and some are frankly off the wall!
The reason why I believe this blog is becoming an echo chamber with which few can be bothered to debate is beautifully characterised by Nearly Oxfordian’s response. He is David Vance’s attack dog. His constant use of vitriol, personal abuse and charges of antisemitism are tiresome and undermine the purpose of this site.
I await his reasoned and civil response!
A rich, abundant vein it is indeed.
Perfectly satisfied, DV.
By the way – any news on the original blog owner? Andrew, I believe his name was. He became ill did he not?
I have to agree with the complaints to a certain extent. Newbies to the site don’t get a good idea of the full range of the BBC’s bias from recent posts.
Go back in the archives to when Andrew and Natalie were regularly posting and the range of topics was broader and dealt with bias on a case by case basis.
The self-knowing quality of BBC’s ingrained biases from Vance is good fodder for old-timers but will not sell newcomers on the BBC’s ugly discrimination.
The range of topics seems to have narrowed to the deepest trenches of religion and terrorism. While this is where the BBC shows the most bias – and most sickening tacit support for violence – there is plenty of bias elsewhere that is not being broached.
Echo chamber though? Not really. If you want a real example of an echo chamber then go watch Newsnight. The programme has disappeared up its own ‘ethical’, ‘green’ rectum.
Last night I expected a serious discussion on problems of food supply and what I heard was another fringe-loony-lefty-greenie-luddite tell us all that “catastrophic global warming” has to be addressed to deal with the problem and that we all need to become vegetarians to stand a chance. The obvious point, that efficient farming would solve all food supply problems (US farming is 5x as efficient as Russian for example) was totally ignored. Of course that would mean praising modern farming methods, technological progress and the great satan. No mention of GM, larger farms, better machinery, free trade, an end to subsidies, et al.
This morning he took his fight into the belly of the beast, telling John Humphrys on the Today programme: “The liberal elite of the BBC are using the Poles as a cat’s paw in a politically correct world to talk about immigration. Because you won’t do stories about more controversial immigrants you always focus on Poles.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/threelinewhip/june2008/poles-polls-liberal-elite.htm
The reason why I believe this blog is becoming an echo chamber with which few can be bothered to debate is beautifully characterised by Nearly Oxfordian’s response. He is David Vance’s attack dog. His constant use of vitriol, personal abuse and charges of antisemitism are tiresome and undermine the purpose of this site.
Drivel. I disagree with DV on several fundamental issues, incl. climate change, and have said so in no uncertain terms.
If you find charges of antisemitism where there is clear antisemitism ‘tiresome’, that speaks volume about your stupidity – and occasional displays of antisemitism.
“blog is becoming an echo chamber”
accurate description of the hillhunt aka “a tangled web” blog, not this one.
Tangled Web
“His treatment of muslims, Palestinians, Roman Catholics in N Ireland, homosexuals and on and on. Is there anyone other than white Brit male hertrosexuals that he does like.”
You either haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about, or have a great way of twisting things, like any good liberal I guess.
No, besides getting up the collective noses of the likes of you, Vance’s real skill is in exposing BBC/government humbug, anti-Semitism, the Islamic threat and corrupt, morally bankrupt entities like the EU/UN.
Come on then gobshite, what’s YOUR killer point?
Exactly.
You don’t have one.
Other than insinuate that Vance is homophobic / racially prejudiced when, as made clear in countless postings none of his objections are on racial grounds.
That won’t stop trolls like you making your cowardlyinsinuations, will it?
Nearly Oxfordian
“If you find charges of antisemitism where there is clear antisemitism ‘tiresome’, that speaks volume about your stupidity – and occasional displays of antisemitism.”
Clear antisematism needs to be exposed. Your use of that charge when Israel is critised in any way is what I object to.
sutekh: What it and the internet does allow is for people not to simply swallow the BBC “line” about Islam, climate change etc, but to seek other sources which as we well know often shoot the BBC down in flames.
Obviously there isnt some inner leftist, islamist cabal like the wonderful FAG in Team America meeting in the caves of steel at Broadcasting house to plot the over-throw of reactionary “family values”, and the permament hegemony of New Labour, half-wit unscientific Greenery, Shami’s self-dramatising “human rights” and anti-amercianism; but equally there is senior managment decision making, particularily about news and personnell that perisistently and increasingly stupidly favours these positions. What is fascinating is that in the new online media and news environment precisely those people now lurking here, who saw the BBC as the upholder of civilised values during the fearful conservative revolution of the 1980’s now see in the BBC a threat to the same values and an arrogant promulgation of a limited set of Mr Marrs metropolitan media elite prejudices. All this against a background where the new media’s faults (instability and recklessness in political commitment for example) are becoming clearer and the value of an orgnaisation like the BBC with its insutitional sense of reliability like law or medicine more obvious and relevant.
To use one the BBC’s own favoured (and deeply flawed) scriptural texts the MacPherson Report there is “insitutional political correctness” and a ghastly piety about the BBC and above all a bias against understanding – bring back Lord Birt, they hated him because he was right about them!
I am extremely grateful to those who set up the website and those who put time and effort to draw attention to BBC bias including Natalie, Andrew, Ed and David. So much is done by the BBC and the present government to divide and rule. By individuals putting in the time and trouble to identify bias in their particular sphere of knowledge helps the rest of us to see when we are only given part of a story.
Matt: The problem is the BBC see’s Israel as “evil” and the Palestinians as “good” a bit like four legs good, two legs bad.
Lets be honest, Israel could be a lot more “forceful” on the terrorists that attack her than she is.
Not only that, but MANY of the stories pumped out by the BBC have been shown to be based on lies or hearsay.
And the BBC is supposed to be the most respected broadcaster in the world. I don’t think so.
The BBC has a view of Israel (eveil bastards that deserve to be wiped out) and they will “big up” any story no matter how bad the source is if it fits their agenda.
The BBC view is if you throw enough mud, enough will stick.
Well not with MY tax money. Fuck the BBC and the jew hating scum that work there.
David Vance,
My thanks for keeping this blog going (and thanks to Ed as well).
Also, I think making a book out of all this is a fine idea.
Martin
“The problem is the BBC see’s Israel as “evil” and the Palestinians as “good” a bit like four legs good, two legs bad.”
I totally and fully agree. However, that does not justify some of the abuse that flies around here.
If you are contributing to/moderating a blog about bias, introducing your own bias is counterproductive and hypocritical.
Pretty soon, the only contributers to his site will be those who see BBC bias everywhere and trolls. Everyone can abuse everybody else.
Is that what people want?
It was asked earlier whether this site is having any effect on the leftists in the BBC. Clearly it isn’t because it cannot: these people have a mission and will not be dissuaded. However, this site is having an effect on me (I get very good links here which I forward to colleagues etc.) and it is having a good effect on visitors who attest to being aware that their suspicions of BBC bias are confirmed. Naturally, one hopes that visitors to this site will pass on their info to friends and colleagues as I do. Much thanks to DV.
Matt: What do you expect when the BBC presents lies dressed up as truth? It’s getting harder and harder to find the truth in many BBC stories.
Why should I believe ANY story pumped out by the BBC?
Martin,
So you are saying that that the way to deal with BBC bias is to be as biased as them!
We should view all the media with sceptisism. Everyone has an agenda.
“We should view all the media with sceptisism [sic]. Everyone has an agenda.
Matt | 04.06.08 – 4:47 pm”
Remove the status as state broadcaster.
Stop making us pay the compulsory legally enforced poll tax licence fee.
Then it will be an even playing field and I will agree with you.
Until then the BBC has a special status and has to be held to a higher standard, end of argument.
BaggieJonathan
“the BBC has a special status and has to be held to a higher standard”
Agreed.
Matt: As Baggie Jonathan says, the BBC could spout whatever bollocks it likes (like the Guardian does) but I don’t want to be funding it.
This seems to be a problem for the failed lefties on this board.
They want to be able to spout their shite at the tax payers expense.
Fund it yourselves you lazy drug taking idiots.
The problem with State Broadcaster status having being hi-jacked by a bunch of Gramscian lefties is that people abroad might get the mistaken immpression that the guff they spout is actually the opinions of most people. Were it to be put on a fair commercial basis it would soon be put into context, as are The Guardian and the Morning Star.
Until it is, “Nation shall speak misinformation unto nation”.
Phil – and that is precisely what does happen. Most Americans I know (and I know and work with a lot) believe the central position in British politics is far to the Left of where it actually is and they believe that because of the BBC.
What the World Service does is, if anything, even more shameful. At times its programmes are beyond belief.
((The reason why I believe this blog is becoming an echo chamber with which few can be bothered to debate is beautifully characterised by Nearly Oxfordian’s response. He is David Vance’s attack dog. His constant use of vitriol, personal abuse and charges of antisemitism are tiresome and undermine the purpose of this site.))
Ignoring anti Semitism would be making it the norm and eventually acceptable. NO the BBC must be attacked every time it publishes anything with an anti Semitic vein. This letter is so obviously written by someone anti Semitic.
Lemar, sure: the figleaf/alibi/gambit/whine by antisemites, to wit ‘You keep complaining about antisemitism’, requires only the reply our American cousins would give: ‘Yes, I do – duh!’.
I was once involved, in a small but eye-opening capacity, in a World Service programme about the ME. The sheer incompetence – the amateurism of the producer and his team – were gobsmacking.
Lemar
“Ignoring anti Semitism would be making it the norm and eventually acceptable. NO the BBC must be attacked every time it publishes anything with an anti Semitic vein.”
Agreed.
“This letter is so obviously written by someone anti Semitic.”
No it isn’t! I have never critised Israel on this blog or, in fact, anywhere. Are you saying that because I reserve the right to do so I am antisemitic?
As I have posted before, This is equivalent to the gross abuse of the Race Card.
Agrue, debate, but do assume a supposed moral high-ground where you are right and everyone else is wrong.
“the figleaf/alibi/gambit/whine by antisemites, to wit ‘You keep complaining about antisemitism’, requires only the reply our American cousins would give: ‘Yes, I do – duh!’.”
Woff! Woff!
No debate – no rationalisation. You are right and I am wrong.
Good Lord! I post a little informal thank you and immediately the moonbats descend to attack me and those who broadly take the same line as me. The sheer stupidity of those who accuse independent thinkers such as Nearly Oxfordian of being an attack dog is amusing, indicating that they cannot read.
David Vance
“The sheer stupidity of those who accuse independent thinkers such as Nearly Oxfordian of being an attack dog is amusing, indicating that they cannot read.”
Stupidity. Cannot read. Moonbat. What reasoned arguemen! Nearly Oxfordian is arrogant and aggressive – a bad combination. You clearly think that this is acceptable. This says a lot about how this blog is moderated and about where it is going.
No dissent from the party line is tolerated. You complain about BBC bias but you refuse to accept your own bias.
To those Beeboids claiming that Mr. Vance is anti-Catholic:
I have not posted here much at all, but I have been reading Biased BBC for some considerable time now. As a staunch Roman Catholic myself, I feel obliged to say that, to the best of my knowledge, during that time Mr. Vance has never expressed any anti-Catholic sentiment.
If you want anti-Catholicism, I’m afraid you need look no further than the BBC. I could furnish you with a veritable litany of examples of anti-Catholic bias from the BBC.