When politicians or pressure groups come up with proposals to gladden the heart of a right-thinking Guardian reader, accentuate the positive. Think the ongoing pro-euthanasia campaign (aka “helping people die“).
When they come up with proposals to horrify same, look around for negative quotes – and make the negative reaction the headline.
The recent formation of a cross-party group calling for a cap on immigration illustrates this neatly.
The papers report this development pretty straight – even the leftish Indie and Mirror. Only one national paper leads on negative reaction. I’m sure you would never guess which one.
The BBC follow their lead (or does the Guardian follow the BBC ?) with this – opening headline and introduction focused on negative reaction rather then the proposals of the newly-formed group.
(The BBC do have a bit of previous on this topic)
UPDATE – here’s another example – also immigration-related – of the BBC reporting the negative reaction as the headline. I wrote at the time :
There’s a pattern here. When a proposal fits the agenda the Beeb present it straight. When it offends liberal sensibilities the (negative) reaction – rather than the proposal – becomes the headline.
Truly sickening, but expect more of it as Britain settles into a coming winter of discontent.
When politicians or pressure groups come up with proposals to gladden the heart of a right-thinking Guardian reader,
There are no “right-thinking” Grauniad readers, are there?
The Guardian survives on Govt. Job advertising.
The BBC survives on Govt, Telly Tax.
Follow the money!
So as the Mirror reports: 81% of New Labour voters: (are there still that many?) want cuts in immigration.
New Labour voters mind you!
The figure amongst the rest of Society would no doubt be higher – but the BBC of course coldly ignore the wishes of the common proletariat and run straight to their oracle at the “right on” guardian to cover the story with a Fabian slant.
How out of touch have the BBC become with the rest of British Society?
And do they actually care anymore?
Things to do in 2010:
1) Obliterate New Liebour
2) Dismantle the BBC in its current form. – They’re taking us for utter plonkers!
Lurker in a Burqua:
The Guardian survives on Govt. Job advertising.
The BBC survives on Govt, Telly Tax.
Despite all that, and despite the huge cover price the Grauniad makes a massive loss.
It’s survives by rading it’s profitable outlets, like the Manchester Evening News.
Ther Grauniad is the perfect socialist paradigm. It’s white middle class readership is subsidized by the working class readership of MEN.
The Graudian is over-manned and overpaid, its editor has TWELVE assistants, dogbodies, gofers.
I kid you not. My brother is a sub-editor on the MEN.
Also note that on this subject we are given a bifurcation choice;
be welcoming to all immigration and thus part of the intelligent,succesful nice group.
Have any doubts and be stupid, a loser,nasty.
This is reflected in the establishments (three main parties + BBC) attitude= we want immigration but the ignorant lumpen proletariat will vote for the BNP unless we “apreciate their concern” and “listen”.
No halfway house for the likes of the BBC. You cant be against any more immigration without being xenophbic, even if you`ve lived and worked amongst more foreigners than any of them.
The political left, Guardian/BBC included, is ideologically driven by a presumptuous ‘multiculturalism’, which includes as central the pursuit of their Mass Immigration project.
This project amounts to an open-door ‘policy’ in which, effectively, the number of immigrants residing in the UK is decided by immigrants, NOT by indigenous Britons. The ‘multicuturalists’ are inclined to ignore the scale and rate of mass immigration into the UK, to avoid the issue of numbers, and to merely mouth platitudes about diversity.
Paul Weston has some comments on all this:
“1. Mass immigration is undemocratic. A survey carried out in 1970’s Britain showed that 90% of the population was against mass immigration, which at the time was not quite as ‘mass’ as it is now. Recent surveys, although no longer as high as 90% (a testament perhaps to the power of forty years incessant drip-feed propaganda), still suggest that the majorities in Western countries are against further immigration, yet Western governments everywhere have disallowed a referendum on this important issue whilst increasingly flooding their countries with anti-Western, unassimilable immigrants.
“2. Race and minority status are relative. To be a Pakistani minority in Britain is all well and good, but there are one hundred and sixty million Pakistanis in Pakistan and they therefore outnumber the British by one hundred million people. One cannot, in a reasonable world, come from such large a group and claim the ethnic spoils available by dint of minority status in a different country, simply because one chose to leave one’s country of origin. This argument holds equally for Africans and Muslim Arabs.
“3. White Europeans internationally are a global minority themselves, making up only fifteen percent of the world’s population, and declining. In the case of continental Europe, the EU Institute for Security Studies predicts that by 2025 white Europeans will make up only six percent of the global population.”
Paul Weston, ‘Multiculturalism -Merits and Debits’
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/03/multiculturalism-merits-and-debits.html
Laban: I was interested to see the words “determined rationality” appear in the BBC press release you quoted.
“With determined rationality, Anne’s answer is that once her illness has reached a critical point, she will take her own life.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/07_july/18/walters.shtml
The use of the word “rational” (as in “speaking as a member of the rational wing of the Republican party…” – Justin Webb last week) has been used often in BBC-speak lately.
Perhaps someone can suggest what “rational” is the code for?
John Bosworth | 08.09.08 – 4:24 pm |
Rational = Groupthink
Laban: Has anyone else noticed the regular stream of ‘alzheimer plague’ stories the BBC runs?
Most aged people lead contented, independent lives, but the idea that the country is clogged with mindless, wrinkled zombies all helps with the BBC’s ‘euthanasia now’ agenda.
I have to laugh when I hear talk of multiculturalism. Driving across South to North London last weekend the most noticably absent segment of the population was the English. Been through Wembley and Kingsbury recently? – monoculturalism. I have no problem with Asians – otherwise no doctor, dentist or pharmacist – but I notice how they many seem to prefer to live among their own culture. Funny that. Because if you suggest the same, they set the dogs of racism on you. The West Indian and Somalis are the heart of the gang knife-wars, yet its a “black” problem. No it isn’t. Its a cultural/ tribal difference problem. Uncomfortable with difficult ideas, the BBCGuardianistas, as they take you to places you don’t want to go.
The entire population can see it, but not apparently our national broadcaster.
>>>>In the fiscal year from from April 2004 until March 2005, the BBC spent a total of £568,343 on recruitment advertising in a total of 49 newspapers. The recipient of the largest amount of revenue from such BBC advertising was, by far, The Guardian. Nearly 41% of the BBC’s expenditures, or £231,944, went into The Guardian’s coffers. To put this into some perspective, this is over two and a half times more than the amount received by the next largest recipient, The Western Mail (a Welsh paper) which received £92,388, or just over 16% of the total expenditures. The Times/Sunday Times received a combined total of just £53,326, or a shade over 9% of the total. The amount received by The Guardian alone is approximately equal to the next seven largest recipients combined. And one of those seven, The Manchester Evening News, which received £11,100, is in fact itself a member of The Guardian Media Group.
link here
http://theamericanexpatinuk.blogspot.com/2005/11/bbcguardian-partnership.html
I advocate a policy of zero immigration. It`s not that I think we would have zero immigration, but if a figure of say,50,000 were allowed in every year, the do gooders would finagle the figures and stystem to let in four times that.
Bring the figures allowed in to as low as possible so that the pro unlimited immigration cant cheat as much.
While many will applaud the principle of the cross party group’s thought actual implementation will be very difficult.
Anyone from an EU country will still have a right of entry so those affected will be fall into two groups – those who intend to live here but may well return to the U.S.A., Australia etc. and those who intend to settle permanently and bring other family members here as well. I would suggest that it is the latter group which puts the greatest strain on services and contribute least to the common wealth.
Can anybody provide the figures for the number of English right of abode citizens who marry someone from the Indian sub-continent and then chose to settle here rather than on the sub-continent with their spouse. More interestingly may be the division of the figure into males and females with the right of abode.
Similarly is a figure available for family members who move from the sub-continent to live here?
Did not the Danes introduce an age restriction of something like 24 for any Danish citizen who wished to marry someone from outside of the E.U. and then live in Denmark. I believe they also remind them that they could equally live in the non-Dane spouses country! I believe this has had some effect on Danish immigration!
I have sat at work the only nayive English speaker surrounded by people speaking Polish.
Does that happen much at the Guardian or the BBC?
Re- the Guardian/BBC political ideology, I am reminded of the political journey of one journalist, Anthony Andrew, who used to be part of that group, but who no longer is:
“The Fallout: How a guilty liberal lost his innocence”
[Extract]:
“In 2001 Andrew Anthony was 39, a successful Observer and Guardian journalist who had just become a father. He was perfectly poised to settle into English middle-class middle-age life. A signed-up member of the liberal left, he’d even spent time supporting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the 80s. There were assumptions that, like wallet and keys, he never left the house without: the greatest menace to world security was America; crime was a function of poverty; Israel was the source of all the troubles in the Middle East.
“Then came the wake-up call: 9/11. Shocked by the response of liberal friends and colleagues • a belief that America had it coming, a determination to understand the perpetrator rather than support the victim • Anthony was forced to re-examine and unpick his prejudices. It seemed there were other threats in the world far more malicious and dangerous than America. Could he really go on tolerating the intolerable?”
http://www.randomhouse.co.uk/catalog/book.htm?command=Search&db=main.txt&eqisbndata=0224080776
The Esther Rantzen episode of Who Do You Think You Are contained the BBC’s usual pro immigration bias. About 50 mins in, the BBC presented its pro-immigration opinion as fact by calling Polish Kings “enlightened” for inviting mass immigration.
The BBC puts it’s pro-immigration opinions into as much of it’s output as possible – and then presents this left wing opinion as being indisputable fact.
The Guardian Media Group, funnily enough, makes most of its money from Autotrader !
The BBC follow their lead (or does the Guardian follow the BBC ?)
David you asked the question, so please read the answer carefully.
The answer is neither.
They both follow directions from the Bilderberg group, as does our national government, ALL other European national governments and that of the European Union itself.
The Guardian Newspaper and the BBC do not follow each other, they do not need to. They both know what the agenda is, where it is coming from, and very importantly why the establishments orders MUST be obeyed.
It seems that this site of all sites, and much of the rest of the population have no idea what is going on in the world or why, and refuse to pay any attention when told EXACTLY what the TRUTH is.
The Bilderberg group are not part of a conspiracy theory. They are a potentially or otherwise lethal, highly conspiratorial, not so secret anymore, masonic based, long existent FACT of life.
If you and others refuse to see the big red bus speeding towards you all, and also at least TRY to get out of the way. You can hardly be surprised or complain much, when its enormously massive 24ct gold wheels run right over your tiny minds.
Just because the media do not under any circumstances EVER mention the Bilderberg group, or the Council for Foreign Relations, The Council of Rome, or the Royal Institute for Foreign Affairs, for that matter. Does NOT mean these lying FASCIST bastards do not exist or that they are not effectively, a collective, not so secret world government. That not only has the absolute POWER to totally stop the entire worlds MSM from even mentioning their names, has actually BANNED the entire western media from doing so, since these two unelected and therefore totally unaccountable FASCIST organizations were first created.
Or do you trust the BBC far more then you seem to make out? Maybe you secretly work for them yourself. I would have thought that by now you and others would have learned that the BBC MUST not under any circumstances be trusted to honestly inform the public of anything more important then the sporting results.
It looks like Mark Easton has stepped into the debate warning us:
“The Cross-Party Group on Balanced Migration sounds moderate and consensual, but what it is arguing for is extremely radical.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/map_of_the_week_crowded_britai.html
Radical for who? The BBC groupthink? Clearly the MPs and peers can’t be representing “normal” people when making these proposals.
Mark then sets out to debunk the “myth” that we are over-crowded. He uses data from the 2001 census, so it is only 7 year out of date! We all know there hasn’t been any major migration since 2001, right?
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/enlargement_process/future_prospects/negotiations/eu10_bulgaria_romania/treaty_2003/index_en.htm
Mark’s maps show that, outside London, we’re not so crowded after all. Everybody knows migrants hate London and never want to live there, so that’s all right…
For the record, my personal view is that migration has strong economic and humanitarian benefits, not least in terms of individual liberty.
However, I would expect a balanced BBC to examine and highlight the concerns and proposals, to question, but not to rubbish them outright. Arguing against these proposals is someone else’s job not the “impartial” BBC’s.
“The Cross-Party Group on Balanced Migration sounds moderate and consensual, but what it is arguing for is extremely radical.”
Something which would NEVER be remarked on the BBC about a group such as NACRO or the Joseph Rowntree foundation.
So that`s most of the world radical then ?
(try getting off a plane in any country outside the EU and tell the immigration officer you`ve come to settle)