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.
BBC’s politically selective reporting on PAKISTAN:
1.)
BBC reports this:
“‘US strike’ hits Pakistan village”
[Extract]:
“A US strike on a Pakistani village near the Afghan border has killed at least nine people including suspected foreign militants, Pakistani sources say.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7651249.stm
2.)
– BUT, the BBC does NOT report this:
“Pakistan’s spies ‘support terrorism'”
[Extract]:
“A leaked report from Spain’s intelligence service has accused Pakistan’s spy agency, the ISI, of supporting terrorism.
“Broadcast on Spanish radio, the report said the ISI provides terrorists in Pakistan with explosive material and hand picks governmental targets for the terrorists to eliminate. ”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022972.php
The bBC, its adoration for the Taliban and another story.
Afghan victory hopes played down
The UK’s commander in Helmand has said Britain should not expect a “decisive military victory” in Afghanistan. Brig Mark Carleton-Smith told the Sunday Times the aim of the mission was to ensure the Afghan army was able to manage the country on its own.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7653116.stm
The BBC leads with this story that the Brits will never win in Afghanistan and that only by talking with the Taliban will peace come to the region.
Really here is what Smithy actually said in that ‘Times’ article;
”As he prepared to hand over to the marines, Carleton-Smith admitted that it had been “an intense summer”. But he insisted: “That intensity has been less a product of resurgent Taliban and more the result of a larger international military footprint. We’re controlling more, our perimeter is wider, more people are living in our enclaves.” He said British forces had killed six senior or mid-level Taliban commanders and successfully transported a US-funded turbine to the Kajaki dam to prepare the way for a supply of electricity. “We’ve taken the sting out of the Taliban for 2008,” he said. “As autumn turns to winter those who are foreign will return home and restore themselves and only reappear after the poppy harvest in May or June.” The number of civilians caught in the crossfire has also been reduced. “We’ve dropped fewer bombs than on any of the previous missions,” said Carleton-Smith.”
And
”While getting the turbine to Kajaki was the high point of the tour, Carleton-Smith admits that the low point was sustaining so many casualties. In June Britain’s 100th soldier died in Afghanistan. “Our casualty figures have been substantial but they have to be kept in context,” he says. “We may in the course of 2008 have in the region of 50 fatalities in Helmand, but in 1972 more than 100 British soldiers were killed in Northern Ireland, on our own streets.” He insists that time is on the side of the Afghan government. “The young people want betterment of their lives. What the Taliban can’t do is deliver progress and development. As long as the international community can stay the course, over time the Afghan government capacity will grow.” He argues that the international community should aim not for victory over the Taliban but to reduce the insurgency to a level that can be contained by the new Afghan army. “If we reduce our expectations then I think realistically in the next three to five years we will be handing over tactical military responsibility to the Afghan army and in the next 10 years the bulk of responsibility for combating insurgency will be with them.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4882417.ece
It appears the bBC is telling porkies. (Halal version) when it comes to defending their ideological masters.
The bBC, its adoration for the Taliban and another story.
The bBC, its hatred for Sarah Palin and half the story.
Palin makes Obama terrorist claim
US Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin has accused the Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, of associating with terrorists. She said he had been “palling around” with an ex-member of US-based militant group Weather Underground, which opposed the Vietnam War in the 1960s.Mr Obama once served on a charity board with a member of the group, but he has denounced its activities…. She attacked Senator Obama over his link to Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground, which waged a violent campaign against the Vietnam War. The group was blamed for a number of bombings in the US in the 1960s.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7653132.stm
Get that the BBC says Mrs Palin called The bBCs hopeful for the Whitehouse. “A terrorist”
No bBC, she is on record of saying;
“Our opponent though is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough that he is palling around with terrorists who would target their own country,”
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1005/breaking3.htm
But that isn’t the direction of my post. The bBC makes this assertion that the Weather Underground only blew things up because of their objection to the Vietnam war. Really?;
The first attack by that militant group was the bombing of a number of police cars in Chicago on December the 6th 1969 in retaliation for how the police shot the leader of the black panthers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton
In fact the vast majority of WU bombings and killings were in solidarity with obscure causes (such as Cuba/Prison riots/ alleged sterilization of poor women. Than bitching about Vietnam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)#Chronology_of_events
That may explain how they were still robbing banks in 1981 in which to fund their Pinko Marxist ideology. Which in a nutshell sums up the bBC to a tee.
Here are the FBI files on them
http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/weather.htm
The bBC, its hatred for Sarah Palin and half the story.
BBC NOW REWRITES WHAT PEOPLE SAY TO AVOID USING “TERRORIST”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7653114.stm
Palin makes Obama militant link
US Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has attacked Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama over his association with a former 1960s radical (SIC).
Mr Obama served on a charity board with Bill Ayers, a founder of the militant (SIC) group, Weather Underground, which took credit for a number of non-fatal bombings in the US in the 1960s but is now a professor at the University of Illinois and has denounced (SIC) his radical activities.
This is arrogant advocacy non-journalism from the BBC, which seem to be based directly on Obama Campaign talking points. That is NOT what Palin said or did.
1. She attacked his terrorist associations not his “militant” associations. Her quoted words said that Obama was “palling around with terrorists”
2. Ayers (Obama’s pal) has NOT “denounced” his terrorist past. On the contrary he said he wished he had done more at the time.
See this link to confirm the veracity of my statement about Ayers and the mendacity of the BBC.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31471_William_Ayers_Stepping_on_the_US_Flag_in_2001
This sentence in particular was lifted by the BBC…
“Obama, who was a child when the group was active, served on a charity board with Ayers several years ago and has denounced his radical views and activities.”
…from the AP, and had NO independent veracity. This is what is DISPUTED by the McCain campaign, and the BBC should have pointed this fact out. Unless, of course, they do not see their job as presenting both side of a news story.
What the BBC did is take the Obama explanation as if it was an established fact, and rewrite the Palin quote to fit its amoral worldview.
hey pounce — our two posts crossed. I guess those who read your links will see terrorist, and those who follow mine see “militant” and “radical.”
The BBC’s favourite vanilla use-friendly terms for “terrorists.”
‘Independent’ interview with Sky’s ADAM BOULTON:
“I’m more open to the idea that politicians may be lying to me”
[Extract, Boulton on BBC]:
‘BBC TV, he says, “has grown up predominantly as a producer’s medium and an editor’s medium and the presenter is added on at the last moment. Nick Robinson, [the BBC’s political editor] knows a lot more than he is able to put in his packages. If you take Newsnight, I am constantly amazed at the standoffish relationship between the institution and Jeremy [Paxman]. It’s been bubbling under for a time.”
‘The corporation is ripe for reform. “My view is that we’re clinging to nurse with the BBC …. The BBC is so large and so well-funded that there isn’t much point talking about a Sky monopoly. Given the size of the BBC, there is probably only room for one commercial news organisation that can be viable. Sky News struggles to break even, and the reason is that so much of the market is filled by the licence payer.”
‘Without the BBC, he says, the media would be “more pluralistic, more vital”. As it is, he thinks Sky News and ITN should be allowed to merge • an unlikely proposition. “I think there is enough money out there that we don’t need the BBC. I just think it’s gone mad. The BBC is a monster.”
‘Rupert Murdoch, proprietor of Sky News, would doubtless agree.’
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/im-more-open-to-the-idea-that-politicians-may-be-lying-to-me-951399.html
The depressingly huge size of the problem faced by people who just want an end to the BBC’s bias against British people and the west has been revealed on this thread, and particularly by the Shadow Sercretary for Culture …, Jeremy Hunt. The Conservatives are at least as favourable to the BBC as NuLab and that is why I find it hard to see why the BBC is so pro-Labour when the Conservatives pursue exactly the same policies in every sphere.
On the bright side, at least we now know how huge the problem is. Would any Conservative supporter agree with their spokesman?
Sky News struggles to break even, and the reason is that so much of the market is filled by the licence payer.”
Maybe because it’s also crap, with a crap repetitious format that’s well past it’s view by date, and is filled with many folks who have associations with the BBC.
Why Sky doesn’t follow the Fox model of lively opinion shows and a sprinkling of straight news hours, beats me.
Maybe it’s the government “Regulator,” but that’s weird, because while Fox has many conservatives on air, it has equal (if not more) “liberals.”
Which is why FNC certainly is NOT struggling financially, as its audience continues to rise every year.
Sopel on Politics Show went to extra lengths to get David Cameron to admit that Mandelson is disliked in the Tory party – so much so that his name is actually used for something else. But why did he not ask Harriet Harman about the dislike of Mandleson within the Labour party with the same amount of energy? She has just allowed to peddle the lines about ‘serious times… serious people’. Now, for me, it’s far more serious that a government party is split than the opposition having a name for an unpopular minister…
The EU’s role in the financial crisis
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/10/05/do0506.xml
turns out that the EU really is the rather large elephant in the corner.
“Jack Bauer | Homepage | 05.10.08 – 1:23 pm ”
sky news is hamstrung because of Ofcom “fairness” rules.
America had something similar until the 1980s when it was abolished – and thus gave rise to conservative talk radio, and thus Fox News.
archduke:
“Jack Bauer | Homepage | 05.10.08 – 1:23 pm ”
sky news is hamstrung because of Ofcom “fairness” rules.
Ah yes. That’s the fairness (sic) rule that means five leftists for one conservative.
I can see how equal time for conservative viewpoint and the raving socialist/marxist/commie viewpoint breaks OFCOM’s so-called “fairness.”
Jack Bauer | Homepage | 05.10.08 – 11:28 am | #
The BBC has now put up a profile of the Bill Ayers terrorist group the Weather Underground:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7653486.stm
As expected, it’s a whitewash – the only time they use the word “terrorist” is in the opening paragraph in which they relate how Sarah Palin has accused Obama of “palling around” with terrorists.
The words “terrorist” or “terrorism” are subsequently left out of the article. They do a semi-adequate job of describing their crimes I suppose – it’s about all you’re going to get from the BBC. But right at the bottom is proof beyond doubt that the BBC is in the tank for Obama to the point where it’s prepared to discard any journalistic standards:
“During the late 1990s, Mr Obama served on the same charity board as Mr Ayers.
Such was the threat engendered by the group that a tenuous association with a former member can still cause ripples in a presidential race three decades later.”
The BBC deliberately and dishonestly misrepresents and downplays the link between Obama and Ayers as the two having merely “served on the same charity board”, and then states that this was a mere “tenuous association” which is causing “ripples” – in other words, the overall message is “what’s all the fuss about?”.
Yet if the BBC had any journalistic integrity whatsoever and was not so preoccupied with gushing at the feet of the Obamessiah, they could have done some cursory research and found out for themselves just how far the connection between Obama and Ayers go:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html#printMode
The Beeb is basically taking the lead from the New York Times, which printed a story claiming to “debunk” the connection – a claim which has been exposed as a whitewash. The NYT deliberately ignored incriminating documents given to it and failed to mention “key connections”:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77075
All of this is known, of course, to the BBC. But they choose not to report it for a reason. That reason is that they have taken it upon themselves to use the money of the British license payer in order to become part of the campaign of a candidate in a US election. This is grounds enough to have the BBC shut down.
Jason | 05.10.08 – 5:41 pm |
The BBC has now put up a profile of the Bill Ayers terrorist group the Weather Underground:
Called it.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93JSBFO0&show_article=1
palin on the offensive – linking obama to terrorist bill ayers.
about time too.
That link says that Bill Ayers is a Professor at the Univ. of Illinois at Chicago – professor in what? Are these positions given to traitors e.g Ward Churchill et al?
Local London BBC news tonight had a segment on how Sharia banking was protecting Muslims from the effects of the credit crunch (with much approval). Apparently the Asian approach of eschewing holidays and new cars means that they are less likely to struggle.
Ahhh the “A” word. “Audacious” – “The (WU) group’s most audacious attacks came in 1971, when they bombed the US Capitol, and a year later when they attacked the Pentagon”
The audacity of it. Daring too, no doubt. Just like 9/11. Schoolboy admiration for murderous acts neutered as “audacious”. Makes me vomit.
Jack Bauer: I notice too the “non-fatal bomhings” reference in that BBC mis-report about the Weather Underground terrorist.
As if the Weather Underground terrorists never killed anybody!
That is no doubt the impression the BBC wants to create, lest it taint the Beeb’s Obama worship.
On the subject of Obama, here’s a laugh. Watch this clip of Sean Hannity asking an audience of Obama worshipers if they can name one specific achievement of the man. Caution: if you have a mouthful of food then swallow it first.
Has the BBC told new Labour Immigration minister, Mr. Woolas, that the unswerving ‘multiculturalist’ BBC does not accept ‘Migrationwatch’ type policies of a ‘migrant limit’ on numbers for the UK, and does not like to discuss it positively?:
‘Immigration minister Woolas proposes migrant limit’ (Telegraph) –
[Extract, from ‘Telegraph’ report]:
“Phil Woolas, who takes up his new post on Monday, said Government policy must reflect the need for an upper limit on the size of Britain’s population, in order to provide confidence to the native population that migration is ‘under control’.
He said: ‘On a common sense level there has to be a limit to the population. You have to have a policy that thinks about the population implication as well as the immigration implication.’
Mr Woolas’ comments appear to signal a shift in Government thinking.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/3139992/Immigration-minister-Phil-Woolas-proposes-migrant-limit.html
Strange isn’t it – but when this exact policy was used by Howard in the last election campaign the BBC quoted everyone who was against it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3678788.stm
Allan@Oslo:
“That link says that Bill Ayers is a Professor at the Univ. of Illinois at Chicago – professor in what? Are these positions given to traitors e.g Ward Churchill et al?”
Ayers is a Professor of Education at the University of Illinois.
A ‘Distinguished’ Professor no less, which means that he is considered to be a world leader in his field.
Millie Tant:
“Jack Bauer: I notice too the “non-fatal bomhings” reference in that BBC mis-report about the Weather Underground terrorist.
As if the Weather Underground terrorists never killed anybody!”
I thought the only fatalities were ‘own goals’.
I notice that the BBC’s whitewash of Ayres fails to mention that AFTER 9/11 he proclaimed he was proud of what he did and wished he’d done more.
”I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&scp=1&sq=weathermen
This interview was given at the time he was serving with Obama. So this lie that all this happended with Obama was 8 is bollocks.
Why is it that I can finds this article in about 5 seconds but the left wing twats at the BBC cant?
archduke: Actually Sky News is very liberal. It’s full of ex beeboids. I notice that Mandelson gave his interview ot Adam Bolton at Sky. Can someone remind me of a link bewtween those two? Isn’t Bolton married to a friend of Mandelson in Nu Liebour who worked with Mandelson?
Sky also did a very poor report on the Palin Ayres story today. Rather angered me. If Sky keep doing that I’m going to cancel my subscription with them for sure. I don’t like their cosying up to the left like the BBC.
Boulton married Anji Hunter – Blair’s long time chief of staff.
In Peter Oborne’s excellent book “The Triumph of the Political Class”, he devotes a whole chapter to their wedding – which was attended by just about the entire NULAB movement.
Oborne makes the point that media and politicos (especially NULAB) are virtually interchangeable now that they swap roles continually and share almost identical career paths and sources of (mostly public) funding.
An excellent read – if somewhat depressing.
Anon | 05.10.08 – 10:49 pm | #
A ‘Distinguished’ Professor no less, which means that he is considered to be a world leader in his field.
By whom? Other Marxist professors?
I have to laugh at Rory Cellan-Jones’ comments in his latest blog about inacurate reporting on blogs.
Read it for a laugh then think to youself Matt Frei and Justin Webb BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/
Anyone watching Fox News? They’re airing a Sean Hannity special which pulls no punches in detailing Obama’s long and close ties with anti-American, anti-Jew and anti-white terrorists and radicals.
It’s worse than I thought. I had no idea of the scale and breadth of this man’s connections with some of the most odious people in America. It’s really making me realize that the liberal media really IS just an arm of the Obama campaign – the way they’re ignoring and downplaying these connections is disgusting. Look at this latest Beeb piece:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7653849.stm
The BBC are NOT doing the job they’re paid to do – for ideological reasons. End the Beeb.
Now they’re doing a program about the root causes of the financial crisis – Democrats and Obama are all over it of course.
Which raises the question: why aren’t we hearing any of this from the BBC? Or any other of the Obama broadcasting stations (the liberal MSM)? Why is Fox News alone actually exposing this stuff?
Classic BBC waffle last night. On Radio 5 Up all night they were talking about that evil SarahPalin and how dare she attack St Osama.
Someone texted in asking the female Beeboid journalist who Tony Rezko is. Beeboid answer? “I have no idea, good night”
Only this sort of unprofessional crap can come from the BBC.
They are telling US that they have never heard of the scandal around Obama and Rezko?
They probably haven’t, heads in the sand is one of the BBC’s favourite positions.
I have to laugh at Rory Cellan-Jones’ comments in his latest blog about inacurate reporting on blogs.
Martin | 06.10.08 – 12:39 am | #
The ”mainstream” press is alive with such pieces these days.
Thing is, like the political commentariat’s odd, slavish support of bunker-mentality policy, when they do so on, ironically, their blogs, they get rightly slaughtered.
The lazy, arrogant notion that we should believe anything we read any more is spectacular, especially from the BBC, and that there is this odd notion that sources might not be trustedworthy in not posting porkies without being verified is a professional own goal of the highest order.
I was just watching this morning’s report of the accusations of racism in the Met.
I will be interested in how this plays out.
All this has come to a head mostly during the recent multi-year tenure of which ex-mayor and which, now ex-, head of the Met?
As far as I can gather Mayor Johnson has responded, quite quickly (if only with another ‘inquiry’, like they ever do anything). I wonder how some media will address this so soon after the critiques of his role in the resignation of a bloke he said (during his campaign) he couldn’t work with. And, it seems, was at the head of this latest PC- (in all senses of the word) ‘spat’.
Which is cropping up a lot these days. It seems we are now in a society where senior managers have to work with/keep employed/promote folk that they cannot work with (tricky one, I agree), but who also may not be up to the job.
Nothing like a target, quota or positive advocacy (with inevitably unpopular views – which possibly get deemed racist? – amongst those within not being blessed) to keep things feisty in the state of Denmark.
Odd way to run an efficient business.
And I must keep an ear out for the way words fly about. I am never too sure these days what ‘racist’ or ‘racism’ means, but there is surely a difference between proven examples of it and any Tom, Dick or [insert name of balance here] using it to set up a compo claim with the support of the media?
Martin | 06.10.08 – 12:39 am | #
Slavish reporters join Microsoft in cloud cuckoo land
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/05/media.microsoft.ballmer
I am not sure, but it seems some in the Guardian at least are seeing Aunty as a relative whose marble retention might suggest some distance is required.
Brendan O’Neill:
Marcus Brigstocke does stand-up routines on how global warming sceptics are evil and deluded, which, seriously, at a time when sceptics are publicly branded as “deniers” and serious commentators say they should be denied air-time, is about as fresh or challenging as making a joke about Thatch. What next, a comedy routine on how awful paedophiles are? As Antonia Quirke said recently in the New Statesman, Brigstocke, like so many other political comics and satirists of our time, “just assumes the audience will be complicit in the utterly bog-standard, unsurprising bit of wafty liberal observation that is coming out of his mouth.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/05/comedy?commentpage=2
Peter Cuthbertson adds:
Exactly. On the way to Birmingham last Friday, a friend and I turned on Radio 4 to hear the Lib Dem celebrity Sandi Toksvig (who?) present a news quiz programme in which no one wavered from this attitude. I was entirely unsurprised that if you put five liberal elite luvvies in front of a microphone, those would be the views you get. What is striking is the obvious belief that the views are politically subversive, and the smug assumption that they are shared by all.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/10/todays-edgy-com.html
Martin:
archduke: Actually Sky News is very liberal. It’s full of ex beeboids. I notice that Mandelson gave his interview ot Adam Bolton at Sky. Can someone remind me of a link bewtween those two? Isn’t Bolton married to a friend of Mandelson in Nu Liebour who worked with Mandelson?
Sky News channel is shockingly BAD!
It’s boring, intensely repetitious and polluted by ex-beeboids, who have all be trained in the insidious Institutionally Leftist method. A total yawn fest.
However it is actually FREE as part of any Sky package, so you are not really paying for it when you take out any Sky subscription.
DB | 06.10.08 – 9:54 am | #
The funniest thing about all these intensely UNFUNNY leftoid “comedians” is how they all think they are these edgy, anti-establishment iconoclasts, as they defend the status quo.
When they are, in fact, THE ESTABLISHMENT with frackinn’ knobs on.
Every unfunny thing they utter is pre-approved by the current British Green Shirted, global warming kook, socialist mouthing, big government establishment
They are about as anti-establishment as Norman Wisdom was in the 1950s. And at least Norman had the added bonus of being amusing.
On reflection and recall, Norman Wisdom was quite iconoclastic and anti-establishment of his time.
In fact, Norman Wisdom was a funny mocker of the stuffy British establishment of the 1950s. The little everyman battling the powers that be.
While the likes of Briginstock (or whatever the eff his upper-class twit name is) supports the powers that be.
Whilst attacking those who do not agree with the status quo.
Brigstocke is currently on a ship in the Arctic with some other right-on celebs and artistes. If you haven’t done so already check out the ship’s blog for some hilariously pretentious twaddle. For example artist Francesca Galeazzi:
One of my projects on board consisted of an artistic response to the melting and retreat of glaciers as result of climate change. My response was to place a park bench on a newly formed iceberg or floating ice-shelf off the fast-moving coast of West Greenland. A bench which, in its fragility and remoteness, becomes a silent witness of the dramatic changes that are occurring in the Arctic. A bench with nobody to sit on.
Unfortunately for Francesca things didn’t go to plan. Long story short:
Thus the bench might going back to London, having ‘seen’ the Arctic, as a testimony of the search for the perfect iceberg that never materialised.
BBC can’t even get basic factual reporting right!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7654182.stm
“The pound fell against the dollar, hit a five-year low against the yen and a seven-month low against the euro.”
Err the pound is up about 3 cents in the last month alone against the Euro currently 1 pound = 1.2931
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/currencies/fxc.html
I’ve just listened to part of R4’s You and Yours. Big mistake. A drone from Oxfam argued that no more coal- powered power stations should be built in Britain, ever. What were her credentials for talking such moonshine? We weren’t told and presenter John Waite just assumed she knew what she was talking about. ‘Balance’ was provided by an Eon spokesman. That will be the same Eon that is benefitting massively from the government’s ludicrous subsidy on ‘renewables’ and plans to build the biggest eyesore (windfarm) in Europe.
DB – great link
The ships blogs will provide enough material to keep private eye’s Pseuds Corner busy for generations to come…
Hilarious article:
How to save the BBC
We should be celebrating its success – yet the corporation is under attack from all sides, writes Polly Toynbee
The BBC stands as the only truly admired emblem of Britain; trusted, envied and valued, a gift to the rest of the world. The proof is that BBC online is the third most visited website in the world.
Blimey, you have to admire her front (as in chutzpah). But doesn’t she realise? Is she totally witless? Any endorsement of the Beeb from a poisonous embittered old Leftie like her as all the proof anyone needs that the Beeb is as irredeemably bent as a corkscrew.
Here’s the BBC at its biased best:
Obama being associated with the former terrorist, sorry militant Bill Ayers gets four paras
McCain being associated with Charles Keating, gets most of the webpage.
The headline: ‘Obama digs up past McCain scandal’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7654311.stm
Justin Webb was interviewed on the BBC today promoting his news book. Oh hang on a BBC journalist writes a book (clearly using BBC money as after all he wouldn’t be in the position to write such a book if not living on the tax payer in the USA) and then gets the BBC to promote it for him.
I nearly crashed my car when I heard him say he thought McCain was originally going to win but now he’s not so sure. A piss take?
What got me were the left whingers writing in to complain how right wing he wa about America.
Oh dear.
Nice find, Ralph.
Before the BBC starts to reproduce more Obamessiah campaign fliers about McCain and Keating, here’s some background:
McCain Profile: The Keating Five
This is not an apologia, but what looks like a pretty clear assessment of what happened 20 years ago. I remember this quite well because I grew up in Arizona, was living there at the time, and my grandmother was one of those who lost her savings when Lincoln went bust.
Everyone can read this for themselves and decide just how many points McCain should lose for this mistake, or if it compromises him now in any way.
McCain’s hands were not clean. He did very little to help Keating, much less than the four Democrats did, including his sort of rival Arizona Senator, Dennis DeConcini (who had other problems as well). I always got the sense that McCain’s culpability was exaggerated a bit in the press, since that made the scandal a little more comfortably bi-partisan.
The BBC isn’t lying about this, but they sure have no problem telling you that the Obamessiah campaign has put a video about the Keating scandal online for you to see. They even provide a link to it. I guess that’s their wonderful Public Service that Mark Thompson keeps going on about.
The BBC article Ralph linked to above also has Obamessiah quotes about it (compared to a mere three words by Sarah Palin and nothing whatsoever from The Obamessiah’s actual opponent). Oh, and they seem to take every opportunity to remind everyone that Bruce Springsteen and Jay-Z are pimping for him as well.
Gotta love the last line of brilliant political analysis:
Voter turnout could be vital in deciding the outcome of the 4 November presidential election.
“Could be”? Excellent work, Beeboid sub-editor. Don’t want to go out on a limb or anything, right?
Idiots at the BBC. This might cheer you up.
The headline: ‘Obama digs up past McCain scandal’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world…cas/ 7654311.stm
Ralph | Homepage | 06.10.08 – 4:19 pm
No scare quotes there. A McCain scandal? He was cleared of any wrong doing.
The rest of the Keating 5? All Dimocrats.