Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.
General BBC-related comment thread!
Bookmark the permalink.
Tomorrow on BBC news:
‘Obama has a shit and reads the paper’
‘Obama goes for early morning jog’
Kick out plotters, Sugar tells PM
He told the BBC News Channel that it was easy to “blame the top man”, but current tough economic conditions were not the fault of the prime minister
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7539062.stm
So now, The State Broadcaster wants to do a puff piece on the PM (their boss and Editor in Chief) and so they choose Sir Alan Sugar…………………………who just so happens to feature in on of The State Broadcasters most highly rated programs!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/apprentice/board.html
Brilliant!!
………Just keep on paying your license fee folks,
http://www.foxnews.com/hannityandcolmes/index.html
I hope that works. Click on videos right of Corsi, Rove’s interviews are lined up with Corsi’s.
So you are telling me you would not see this kind of ripping on BBC? Do you have alternate teevee over there? We Fox for alternative to the CommieNewsNetwork, but also Rush Limbaugh and Hannity and Colmes. Colmes needs his head squashed.
Osama is a fuck head. He’s like Britney, except she can sing and dance (a bit)
Now Osama is backtracking on no oil drilling and he’s trying to generate a smokescreen to hide yet another flip flop on policy.
But fear not, McCain is finally starting to get a head of steam up on his campaign and the latest polls show him neck and neck and doing better in the marginal states.
As I said before, McCain WILL be the next Ppesident of the USA.
The surge in Iraq is working well, the Deomcrats are happy to see Americans paying more for their petrol.
Just like the fat one eyed jock here, people have seen through the lies.
As someone once said. You can polish a turd as much as you like, but it will still be a turd.
There is a new book out about Osama and I think the people who sank John Kerry are behing it (The Swift boat stuff)
From what I’ve heard it really has dug some bad shit up about Osama.
However, don’t expect it to even get a mention on the BBC.
The Swiftboat story destroyed Kerry, yet the BBC hardly ever mentioned it or the book (Unfit for Command)
Simon Mayo had an endless list of authors slagging off George Bush, but NOT ONE mention of the only book that had any influence on the last US election.
David:
Tomorrow on BBC news:
‘Obama has a shit and reads the paper’
‘Obama goes for early morning jog’
———————-
Shouldn’t that be, ‘Obama goes for early morning log’?
Martin:
I linked in the post above the video of Corsi ripping Obama, and talking about the book you mentioned – Obama Nation.
Great title, eh?
But better is Carl Rove on the subject of Obama, please see the videos.
Of course, this isn’t the only article on the ongoing US election from the BBC website within the last few days — not that you’d notice from Biased BBC.
And of course, the comments get swamped by the likes of Martin who makes the repeated use of “Osama” when he means “Obama”. He thinks it says “I’m a humorous individual whose comments are funny” when really it says “I make unfunny racist comments whose opinions are well-regarded only by people stupid enough to think David Vance is not an arrogant c*nt who thinks that confusing BBC programmes with Channel 4 ones doesn’t portray him as of sub-par intelligence”.
I’m sure your entry fee could be refunded, Scott.
“Of course, this isn’t the only article on the ongoing US election from the BBC website within the last few days…”
Possibly not, but it has something in common with them. They are all puffing Obama, aren’t they?
Obama’s insinuation of McCain playing the race card is typical liberal double speak. The fruit of Liberalism is hypocrisy. Liberals are projectors – whatever they are doing, they accuse the other guy of doing.
Instance, that most white Americans would readily vote for Collin Powell, Condi Rice – black AND a woman – and it is difficult to imagine either of these two classy, experienced diplomats ever referring to color in a run for public office, their records stand for them.
Obama must appeal to color because it’s all he has, oh yes and he’s Neo, THE ONE. White voters supporting Obama do so from white guilt, a phenomena of the masochistic, liberal, middle class suffering the Well Intentioned Blues. They want a black guy in there to prove they aren’t racist, to make up for the whites only water fountains and rides in the back of the bus, to assuage themselves of the pains self flagellation causes all white liberals; because deep down, they are racist and sexist beyond compare.
When a liberal looks at someone, they see sex, color, religion, and sexual orientation. By sex and color they pigeon hole each human being. They pride themselves that they cultivate One World, One People, a Global Village, and yet they do nothing but muck up the whole; and they hate being white. Therefore they hate what is white, moral, straight, solid, tried and trustworthy, anything Christian, anything capitalist. They despise the warrior class and demean the warrior and wars fought for just purposes. They enjoy all the warrior protects, yet spit on him.
Obama is foul, a charlatan, a wolf; his pack of wolves want in the white house, and the sheepdogs aren’t going to allow it. In a way it is good he didn’t visit the wounded in Germany, his presence demeans valor and sacrifice, he isn’t good enough to wipe his shoes at the door where heroes are housed.
Scott: Hey if you don’t like it hear, fuck off. Unlike the BBC, you’re not forced to pay.
Oh by the way, I use the term ‘Osama’ as a dig at the media (and Obama himself) who continually go on about him NOT being a Muslim and the continual fuck ups in the media where people keep calling him Osama Bin Laden.
Buy you know, you’re right. From now on it’s ‘Obritney’ not ‘Osama’
betyangelo u.s.a.: Yep I saw both interviews. People will respond much more to that, than Obritney spouting off to a couple of hundred thousand dope taking Germans.
GCooper: “Possibly not, but it has something in common with them. They are all puffing Obama, aren’t they?”
Nice to see you sidestepping the whole “David Vance is an unreliable commentator” issue. Of course, we’re all too stupid to question David Vance her at Biased BBC, aren’t we, so of course the fact that he’s a liar that can’t even admit his mistakes doesn’t matter: he can still stake a claim to the moral high ground, no matter how many times he can be proven to be an unreliable witness.
Martin: “Scott: Hey if you don’t like it hear, f*ck off. Unlike the BBC, you’re not forced to pay.”
Maybe not. But if one is to paint oneself of as a critic of the BBC, a smidgen of credibiity would help. Which is where DV falls down on far too many occasions.
And to get that credibility, holding oneself to the same standards one expects from your opponents ought to be a prerequisite. Mindless sycophancy by a bunch of brain-dead idiots isn’t enough.
BTW, if you’re going to act all superior, it may help your cause to not confuse “hear” with “here”. Kind of deflates your whole holier-than-thou attitude. Ta.
Scott writes: “Nice to see you sidestepping the whole “David Vance is an unreliable commentator” issue.”
I am not interested in your teenage spat with Mr Vance. I am not here to debate that. I am here to attack the lying, propagandising hypocrites at the BBC for whom you either work, or who have you in their thrall.
If you are dim-witted enough to believe the BBC is anything other than wholly biased on the subject of Obama then you are a fool. And I’m afraid that’s really all there is to be said about you.
Hey, Scott. If you think we’re so stupid here why don’t you f*** off back to your own blog? Looks like you’ve got quality content there – just like Al Beeb. Do you extort people as well?
Martin
I think you are very funny and enjoy your posts. As a reward here (as recently posted on Guido) is Littlejohn Bitchslapping the Toynbee Idiot:
Thanks again for the laughs.
GCooper: “I am not here to debate that. I am here to attack the lying, propagandising hypocrites at the BBC for whom you either work, or who have you in their thrall.”
False, and false. If you’d bothered to engage your brain you’d have been able to ascertain both quite easily. But then, that’s not really the Biased BBC way is it?
disillusioned_german: “Hey, Scott. If you think we’re so stupid here why don’t you f*** off back to your own blog?”
How on earth can I compete with such high quality debating techniques?
Oh yeah, that’s right. Quite easily. By remembering that I outgrew such techniques while still at school. Still, never mind, with an intellect like that there’s sure to be a vacancy as a Biased BBC writer any day now.
Hi Ed,
You state:
“They go on to report “The latest row began when the McCain campaign claimed that Mr Obama had “played the race card” by warning that the Republican would try to scare voters about how Mr Obama looked unlike “all those other presidents on the dollar bills” – all white men.”
Notice how the row began- not with the Obama accusation but… McCain, of course.”
Not sure about your argument. What you have posted, clearly attributes “all those other presidents on the dollar bills” – all white men.” to Obama Barack.
And yes, MacCain’s camp claimed that OB played the race card if the Times is to be believed.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4439045.ece
PS: I am no fan of the BBC news output but find your this site’s bias somewhat troublesome.
Scott writes: “False, and false. If you’d bothered to engage your brain you’d have been able to ascertain both quite easily.”
The first was one possible explanation for the second, which is plainly observable from your fawning BBC advocacy.
Can you suggest a third?
What I find interesting is that it’s not a story until the Obama team comments on it, and the Obama comment is the story. Until that comment, the story was essentially “McCain accuses Obama of playing the race card” – but did the BBC report it at that point?
Tom writes: “What I find interesting is that it’s not a story until the Obama team comments on it….”
That’s an excellent observation, Tom.
It’s a regular BBC technique, often used with domestic politics. A newspaper, for example, runs a story exposing a problem with a ZaNuLabour policy. The BBC ignores the problem, but leads, instead, with the rebuttal it has been fed by ZNL’s PR monkeys.
Last week Radio 4 carried a fawning “profile” of Susan Rice, Obama’s senior foreign policy advisor. With some chummy quotes from James Ruben – a longstanding BBC favourite.
Of course – no mention of the fact that while working in the Clinton administration she was largely responsible for failing to grab Osama bin Laden from the Sudan in 1998 :
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/29/132456.shtml
Nor any real probing of why she advised damn-all action on Rwanda when she was in charge of African affairs for Clinton.
The accent was all on “she is an expert on Africa, will raise Africa’s visibility”. Visibility – Huh ? How about the enormous aid packages that Bush “The Heartless Cowboy” has organised for Africa ?
No mention of arguments that she is vehemently anti-Israel – the “it-is=all= Israel’s=fault” school of thinking. Not openly anti-semitic like a lot of Obama’s Chicago friends – but she sounds like a dangerous appeaser. (Just like Samantha Powers, Obama’s erstwhile advisor who was all over the BBC channels in the spring – until she blabbed her mouth off too much and got canned by Obama.)
There are plenty of references to Rice’s anti-Israel stance on the Web. So why no mention of this in the profile ? Because her views are consonant with BBC group-think – so not deemed worth exploring ? Or because BBC hacks only follow the left-wing media in the US, haven’t got a clue about the political undercurrents in the presnet campaign ? Don’t they KNOW that Susan Rice is a highly contentious figure ?
The Susan Rice profile was presented by Michele Hussain – who evidently knew Rice in Washington. I wonder how many of McCain’s advisors are known to these BBC hacks ?
The profile was then repeated on Radio 4 – and also on the World Service.
I await the BBC having a similar profile on a senior McCain advisor. Waiting till the cows come home, probably.
Oh – and meanwhile – the top news on the US campaign is surely that Obama had a sligh bubble in the polls after his overseas trip – but the bubble has burst, Obama and McCain are neck-and-neck in the 2 major tracking polls ? Why do I have to go to US news sites to find this out ? The BBC US operation costs millions pf pounbds – but delivers damn all reliable info.
Martin, the Osama substitution is very unfair and uncalled for. Osama bin Laden is nowhere near as much a threat to the Free World as that other empty-suited, platitude-drooling, grievance-mongering, race-baiting, terrorist-associating, racist-befriending, left-wing nonentity (how many redundancies was that?).
You sir, are a big, meenie-bobeenie racist (by conflating that shithead terrorist and Osama bin Laden), and your carbon footprint is offensively large.
Tom FD- exactly right!
It’s starting. A few mocking references. Polls falling. Soon a few more reporters will decide it’s safe to examine Obama’s voting record and take a deeper look at his own words in his book. He’ll fall a little further and be trailing in the polls and the flop sweat will break out throughout the party and they will begin to wonder why they chose this inexperienced Chicago pol. Suddenly Barack will decide it’s a good idea to go to town hall meetings with McCain but it will be too late. Figure him to win 8 states and the District of Columbia and have the BBC and US MSM explain the loss away as the filthy rascist Americans not being able to look past his skin color and lack of any concrete accomplishments.
What can change this?
If during a debate McCain starts drooling or an alien bursts from that bulge on his cheek and runs across the stage, Obama will win. Short of that the prophet Obama pbuh is toast and he’ll take the party down with him although they’ll still hold on to slender majorities in both houses.
But I could be wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time. I’m pretty sure the alien thing would cost McCain some votes as smuggling illegal aliens is a hot topic right now.
TomFD, GCooper,
We see this trick a lot at the BBC: the first we hear about some new tory policy is when labour criticise it – and the whole story is framed in terms of the criticism instead of the original policy or announcement.
This might not be the right thread to comment on this but I cannot find a “general thread”.
Another landmark in “impartiality” was reached today in Lisa Jardine’s “A Point of View” Radio 4 at 8:45 this morning. In slagging off anthropomorphic climate change scepticism she shows her deep misunderstanding of the origins of legal process in England by claiming that the English confrontational system of trial is a direct descendant of the Roman Republican system epitomised by the trials starring Cicero. That England’s system derives from development of the Common Law brought here by our Anglo-Saxon and Viking ancestors escapes her. But, of course, she is trying to make another rather more serious and controversial point. That point is that the system of finding the “real” truth by setting out the opposing “truths” epitomised by “An Inconvenient Truth” and “The Global Warming Swindle” might confuse the punters.
For her the “closely argued” and consensually accepted truth of the Gore film (although she admits that in a court of law • ah you see where she’s coming from • some of the “facts” were found to be . . . er . . lies) is contrasted with the outpourings of a “vocal tiny minority” through the Channel 4 documentary. She doesn’t claim that any of the facts contradicting AGW in the “Swindle” were lies but relies on the finding that the warmist scientists quoted/interviewed were misled into taking part in a polemic. She likes polemics but not if they contradict her “truth”. So we have on TV a simulacrum of (to her) the discredited English system of getting at “legal” truth opposed by her preferred “false but accurate” argument of the BBC impartiality mind-set of which she is such an enthusiastic proponent. She closed the programme by wondering if the vocal non-consenting minorities should (a la Hansen) be silenced • if not prosecuted • for daring to oppose the consensus.
Lisa Jardine is the daughter of Jacob Bronowski. The final image of Dr B, in his “Ascent of Man”, standing in the mud at Auschwitz is implanted in my brain. He wept and said that Auschwitz and, by implication, all the other hell-holes constructed by Man, is the unavoidable destination reached by the denial and silencing of truth. Were he still alive I don’t think Dr B would be proud of his daughter.
Umbongo – Yes, indeed. I commented about this in much the same tones on the general thread, when the programme was originally broadcast, a few days ago.
Jardine is a disgrace to her parents and to the proper academic tradition.
Scott
A cursory examination of your blog would suggest that you are a Guardian-reading homosexualist with a Dr Who fixation. Is that a fair assessment?
It also appears that you see the BBC as a potential source of income, and that you are a Labour voter, or perhaps Lib Dim, but definitely not Conservative. Is that right?
Could it be that your own prejudices cloud your perception of the BBC’s output? Or are you hoping that your public displays of loyalty will attract the attention of a BBC commissioning editor? Do you realise that your are the very caricature of a BBC fanboy?
By the way, it appears that you don’t give much space on your blog to views that contradict your own. If anyone were sufficiently interested to comment, they might accuse you of bias 😉
“PS: I am no fan of the BBC news output but find your this site’s bias somewhat troublesome.”
Me 2.
I found this place because I was pretty pissed off with the BBC over various matters but the alternatives out there seem to be even scarier.
Anyway, I’m cured now, the Beeb really doesn’t look too bad any more, especially compared to the alternatives.
Scott | Homepage | 02.08.08 – 11:33 pm | #
Actually the most frequent insertion of the name Osama for Obama in the US media comes from lefties. Ted Kennedy being the most famous example. And Dan Rather a mere two weeks ago.
So… how exactly is deliberately saying Osama for Obama racist? Unless said bozo thinks it’s racist to mock a black man running for President on any level.
Is that what you think Scotty. You can’t make fun of Obama, and if you do that is a de facto proof of a person’s “racism.”
I guess that’s what you believe. Which, oddly enough, is what makes YOU the racist Scotty (doesn’t know).
ady:
“PS: I am no fan of the BBC news output but find your this site’s bias somewhat troublesome.”
BBC… TV Tax revenue £3.2 billion. Audience, what at least 10 million.
biased-bbc… small independent blog. NO FUNDS. Regular posters say… 30?
Any you find it’s biased-bbc that is “troublesome.”
Hey, manchild. Grow a pair. Grow up. Whatever. But do try to get some sort of perspective.
Or is it that you and the rest of the hysterical beeboids who post here just can’t tolerate ANY criticism of that poor, weak, defenseless BBC.
Boo-frackin’-hoo.
ADDENDUM
When David was fighting Goliath, let me guess… you were rooting for Goliath.
A bit OT (but the next general topic thread might come too late), but can I alert readers to next Tuesday’s The Choice:
The Choice
Tuesday 05 August
9:00am – 9:30am
BBC Radio 4
“Michael Buerk interviews people who have made life-altering decisions and talks them through the whole process, from the original dilemma to living with the consequences. Dutch politician Geert Wilders discusses his decision to make a provocative anti-Islamic film.”
http://www.radiotimes.com/ListingsServlet?event=10&channelId=55&programmeId=82456754&jspLocation=/jsp/prog_details_fullpage.jsp
It’ll be interesting to see how the usually-sympathetic Buerk handles this one.
Surprising that the BBC chose Jardine to make her echo-chamber comments every sunday, isn’t it? Who would have thought they’d go for a soft-left pseudo-intellectual with right-on views on knife-crime (all a figment of the Daily Mail’s imagination) and ‘dangerous’ climate change?
And the Jardine slot used to be Alastair Cooke’s – gawd how standards have declined.
I saw this in the transcript of the Fox discussion on the book about Obama. If it is factually correct, then it is seriously worrying.
HANNITY: You — you go into Obama’s far-left domestic policies, income redistribution, his Global Poverty Act.
CORSI: His support of abortion, even late term.
HANNITY: After a child was born.
CORSI: A child was born…
HANNITY: In Chicago.
CORSI: Obama, in the state senate, wanted the child killed if the mother desired an abortion.
State funded, vehemently gaurded legislation by the Left. More than 50% of abortions are by black mothers, whose race comprises 13% of the US population.
Slow genocide?
In light of such facts, who is the racist.
On the abortion of black babies (and the fight against it) see http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jun/27/black-pastors-hit-political-parties-on-abortion/
On Obama’s stance on abortion: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html
I haven’t got the slightest inkling what Barack Hussein actually believes.
From the Washington Post op-ed:
“…When Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer was pressed to affirm that she opposed the medical killing of children after birth, she refused to commit, saying that children deserve legal protection only “when you bring your baby home.” It was unclear whether this included the car trip…”
Shocking, isn’t it?
It is a hatred of human beings.
The planet is full of it – islam hates humanity, the sole reason islam hates the west is that we have seperated church from state.
I suppose the actual implimention of murdering the child after birth would fall into the hands of the doctor. At the same time we charge women who abandon born children in trash cans with murder. It makes no sense.
The fact is that there are 40 million missing Americans. Their numbers are replaced by illegals who wave Mexican flags, and who are supported by liberals who make allegiance to the Mexican flag to show solidarity, and who force the Spanish language down our throats. Even the toilet paper package is written in Spanish.
mccain is going to win this one. i have no doubt about it.
when it comes to voting in the booth, americans will ask
“who the f**k is going to drill for oil, and who is going to kick the shit out of the al qaeda terrorists? mccain or obama?”
its a simple choice. and thats what it will come down to.
“Allan@Oslo | 03.08.08 – 2:03 pm”
holy crap… is that true???
my god -thats gonna just demolish the Obama campaign…
!!!!!!!!!!
“disillusioned_german | 03.08.08 – 4:03 pm |”
still dont understand why blacks vote Dem, when the vast majority of the good pastors are actually social conservatives.
note i said GOOD pastors… not the Rev Wright nutjobs (who are in an extreme minority… funny how Obama allied himself to that crowd…)
by the way – isnt it interesting how abortion is still a hot political issue in the U.S , and rightly so.
and yet , its all hushed up and not even talked about over here…
somethings not quite right with that. its a serious moral issue that offends and indeed, appalls a heck of a lot of people in the UK.
Archduke: The same question would be “Why do so many American jews vote for the DemocRATS?”
I’ve joined the Republicans Abroad German Chapter a while back because it’s the party of Abe Lincoln (remember him and what he did for blacks) and Ronald Reagan.
Whoever votes DemocRAT needs a lesson in European style socialism.
ady | 03.08.08 – 10:41 am |
Me 2.
I found this place because I was pretty pissed off with the BBC over various matters but the alternatives out there seem to be even scarier.
Anyway, I’m cured now, the Beeb really doesn’t look too bad any more, especially compared to the alternatives.
Yes, but you were pissed off that the BBC was too biased in the opposite direction. You came here looking for fellow travelers who thought that the BBC was far too pro-Israel, tool and pro-US, and pro-Iraq war, and pro-religion. And you were severely disappointed to find out that this was not the point of Biased BBC.
Then you lied in your first and second comments, and demonstrated bigotry and ignorance with your “religious tribal wars” screeds.
In your anger, you still lurk around here.
Your credibility is non-existent.
At least Scott had a somewhat valid point about David Vance not having a 100% perfect score. Which of course misses the larger point of the blog.
At least Scott had a somewhat valid point about David Vance not having a 100% perfect score. David Preiser (USA) | 03.08.08 – 11:23 pm |
It’s pretty easy: there still are some european conservatives who believe Al Beeb (and other european msn outfits) regularly put out partisan, leftist bullshit.
David Vance may not get right it 100 percent off the time but he’s got my full confidence. If you don’t like DV’s views visit the Guardian or Al Beeb websites.
disillusioned_german | 04.08.08 – 12:52 am |
David Vance may not get right it 100 percent off the time but he’s got my full confidence. If you don’t like DV’s views visit the Guardian or Al Beeb websites.
I was differentiating between Scott’s dissent and ady’s venomous trolling. DV is not perfect, and at least Scott’s comment was aimed at that. That’s different from trolls who just hurl insults and don’t even try to make a point about BBC bias.
I may have some differences of opinion with DV, but as I have said before, one main poster and everyone reflexively saying “me too” is not the real point of this site. So it’s no big deal to me if I don’t agree with absolutely everything, or if there is an occasional sloppy post made in haste or anger. There is far too much real evidence of BBC bias coming through from everyone for that to matter much at all.