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.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/4272268/Jonathan-Ross-epitomises-our-societys-declining-standards.html
He (mark thompson) explained to me that the role of the BBC was based on Matthew Arnold’s idea that culture could perform the elevating role in society which religion, because people ceased to believe it, had vacated.
words fail me.
(further to 9:42 am above).
Using BBC ‘Newsnight’ Esler interview methods:
Question to GAVIN ESLER:
‘Are you personally proud of all this?’:-
“Newsnight’s Gavin Esler splits from wife and moves in with raunchy violinist lover”
‘The answer is Yes’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1076641/Newsnights-Gavin-Esler-splits-wife-moves-raunchy-violinist-lover.html?ITO=1490
George R | 17.01.09 – 9:42 am | #
I have now listened to the piece you linked to; thank you.
I used to comment regularly on the Newsnight site; now not so much. It has been so discredited as a programme, and the site overtaken by a rather wearisome bunch, it is hardly worth engaging any more (maybe that was the intention .. a sad reflection on how freedom of speech can be so easily corrupted, and with the willing cooperation of those who should stand firm in its defence).
One thing I have banged on about for long enough is the classic Newsnight ‘twofer’, usually two extremes with the interviewer more there to stir things up than achieve balance or call unsubstantiated claims to account. Any pretence that the BBC was there as the advocate of kids was put to rest here. This was purely to put Israel in the dock by any means, and with any persons, available.
I actually clicked on the iPlayer a bit earlier then the segment suggested, and was pleasantly surprised, at least initially, to hear some highly pertinent questions posed of the Hamas ‘rep’. Sadly, he was allowed to totally waffle away and redirect into wild claims without much challenge. Maybe asking, if not discovering, is now deemed balance enough. At the very least, I would have been interested in the sense of pride this interviewee might have had at words and deeds that for some reason were deemed less ‘relevant”, at least to the flow decided upon by Mr. Esler.
As to the ‘pride’ jibe that was used and directed in such a manner, I would interested in how such a ‘technique’ is ‘professional’, ‘ethical’ or even within any guidelines. It was, at best, an incredibly rude provocation.
Sadly, at least for Mr. Esler, though I feel Mr Regev could have been warranted in a more forceful response, he was very measured. Having got a ‘no’ in every way possible, Mr. Esler still seemed determined in the face of all reason to make it a ‘yes’, doubtless to be spun as such elsewhere.
Another less that sterling moment in news management. But I am sure high 5’s all round in the green room at sticking it to the IDF and boosting the morale of Hamas.
Pity about the fate of kids still in that hell hole as a consequence, mind.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/7829568.stm
got this from conservative home, theres a missing word in the above piece ? ive read it four times and i cant find it.
As Gavin Esler is Jewish I assume he has to prove his credentials as part of the bbc ‘elite’ and their common cause ie ‘it’s the Israelis/Americans to blame…because of the Jews’ otherwise he might be asked to leave the gravy train.
Besides which he really doesn’t do angry very well – always makes him look an idiot.
Gavin Esler when angry achieves no more than a sub-Paxman sneer.
The BBC’s Obama faithful piously await for their religious moment.
Frei has an odd piece of ‘reporting’,
in which he starts off with a a very vague apology for his ‘prolonged absence’; but he has apparently just about shaken off his BBC sloth in time to indulge in his favourite pastime of ‘Obama hyperbole’:
“Apologies first of all for my prolonged absence.
“I offer no excuse other than seasonal sloth and general exhaustion but the hammering of the wooden platform in front of the White House for the Big Day has wrenched me from my slumber and forced me to reboot my computer.”
The BBC’s Obamamessiah is not President yet, but this does not stop Frei:
“Barack Obama has risen to the mounting challenge of crisis and expectation by flexing his muscles.
“He is David on stilts armed with a bazooka, kicking sand into Goliath’s face.
…”Now he also needs every dead President on his side.” ????
Has Frei finally flipped?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/world_news_america/7827592.stm
Mikewine 9:28
If the man who defaced the books had been Christian or Jewish, his religion would have been mentioned. Because he was Muslim , it wasn’t.
A classic, blatant case of BBC pro-Muslim bias !
Grant | 17.01.09 – 11:54 am | #
Except it wouldn’t, because the story has absolutely zero to do with religion. The title from the source article has even been changed.
“classic”
ROFL
Reported by the BBC last month:
Dozens of people in the Iranian capital have thrown shoes at cartoon pictures of US President George W Bush.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7800587.stm
If you watch the footage you’ll see that “dozens” is quite a generous assessment, and yet this was deemed worthy of coverage. Now watch this footage taken earlier this week of a protest unreported by the BBC at which far more Iranians threw shoes at, burned, and drove cars over pictures of Barack Obama. Why was one a BBC story and the other not? Put simply, the BBC hates Bush and loves Obama. Put even simpler • the BBC is biased.
Richard Lancaster | 17.01.09 – 12:07 pm
the story has absolutely zero to do with religion
How do you know?
The plot has only thickened by Hakimzadeh’s refusal to explain his actions.
And indeed the plot does thicken. Spot the Caliphate:
The subject area was the engagement by West European travellers with Mesopotamia, Persia and the Mogul empire – roughly the area from modern Syria to Bangladesh.
peter wyngarde:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comme…- standards.html
He (mark thompson) explained to me that the role of the BBC was based on Matthew Arnold’s idea that culture could perform the elevating role in society which religion, because people ceased to believe it, had vacated.
words fail me.
peter wyngarde | 17.01.09 – 10:14 am | #
——————————-
Yes, quite. Isn’t it funny, though, that Charles Moore, over this convivial lunch, didn’t ask him what Matthew Arnold’s elevating ideal has to do with the likes of Ross, Brand and all the other juvenile foul-mouthed oiks that pollute the airwaves. Not to mention the likes of Eastenders and other dross.
Re throwing shoes. Remember this story, reported with much fanfare by the BBC a month ago?
The brother of the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at US President George W Bush has said that the reporter has been beaten in custody.
Muntadar al-Zaidi has allegedly suffered a broken arm, broken ribs and internal bleeding, his older brother, Dargham, told the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7785338.stm
Dargham popped up again in an AP report yesterday:
…concern was raised about his welfare after allegations that he had been severely beaten and tortured in detention.
The case’s investigating judge has said the journalist was struck about the face and eyes, apparently by security agents who wrestled him to the floor after he hurled his shoes, forcing Bush to duck for cover… another brother, Dhargham, told The Associated Press that he was told the wounds had healed.
“Muntadhar was in a good shape … and his morale was high. Yesterday was his birthday and some patriotic officers there organized a party for him and brought birthday cake,” Dhargham al-Zeidi said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090116/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_shoe_thrower
(Via Gateway Pundit)
Anybody else get the impression that Dargham might’ve been exaggerating when he spoke to the BBC, but the BBC wasn’t really bothered? It felt authentic. Fake but accurate.
Richard Lancaster 12:07
The point I am making is that the BBC will emphasise someone’s religion if they are Christian or Jewish, even if it has nothing to do with the news story, provided the person is someone the BBC disaproves of.
The classic example is Sarah Palin.
The BBC is pro-Muslim and anti-Christian and anti-Israel and its blatant bias reflects this.
“Is there another leftie protest due today or something? There must be for the Portland Place shilling level to be so high this early.”
There was one of about 50 of them in my town this noon, so I played at being either mighty brave or mighty stupid, by ripping up a Pally flag and saying to a Socialist Wankers’ “demonstrator” – “You like to dish hatred out by burning Israeli flags – now let me see you take it !”
After much shouting on their part, I walked away unharmed.
Any Questions. Thay have learned from their last visit to the States. They have managed to get an audience that more accuratly reflects the BBC’s views.
How many obama worshipers will the BBC be flying across tha Atlantic for Tuesdays annointing? How many of them above the level of assistant make up toucher upper will be flying economy?
Another “Obama angle” the BBC has missed – no mention in this report about Boy George that his last single was a celebration of the next president. Funny that, isn’t it?
State-funded journalist at the state-funded broadcaster faithfully reports government propaganda from a state-funded “charity”: Ketamine use ‘rising among young’
See this post at DK for a few salient facts the state journalist failed to mention:
… let’s have a butcher’s at the accounts of this ‘charity’ [pdf]:
Department of Health S64 Grant: £300,000
Other Government departments and EU: £710,629
Donations: £2,838
Out of this huge wedge of (taxpayers’) bunce comes the CEO’s salary of over £70,000.
1.) BBC, uncritical of Blears (as she angles for Muslim votes, and as she shows no insight into how the Koran provides motivation for Islamic jihad):
“Blears in Gaza extremism warning”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/default.stm
2.) ‘Wall Street Journal’ article:
“‘Islamic Supremacy’: The solution to a conundrum of language and policy”
(by James Taranto).
‘Jihadwatch’ comment by Robert Spencer:
“WSJ: Hey, let’s call it a war
against ‘Islamic supremacy’!
“James Taranto has had a great new idea: let’s not call it a War On Terror, but a War On “Islamic Supremacy”! Gee, Taranto, this is a terrific idea! Where’d you get it?
“In reality, I am glad to see my ideas, even if uncredited, breaking through in what has up to now been a reliably dhimmi publication.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024436.php
The BBC is pro-Muslim and anti-Christian and anti-Israel and its blatant bias reflects this.
Wrong, and for this reason.
Yes for sure the BBC is Anti-Jewish religion and anti-Christian religion, and in my opinion is every bit as anti-Islam as they are the other two. If the BBC needed or was instructed to be also Anti-Hindu religion it would also be so, and by the time the next news broadcast came on air.
The BBC is a TOOL of The British establishment. Agendas from which come from seemingly different places but are all interconnected at a higher level.
These include.
MI5 and 6, The Home office, The Foreign Office, The MOD, The Royal Institute on Foreign Affairs, The Tavistock Institute, The EU, The UN, and a whole host of other dodgy establishment selected groups far too numerous to list right now. Add to the above a more indirect subtle influence from our great universities, of Oxford and Cambridge and we are starting to get to WHAT THE BBC ACTUALLY IS, which is not at all what the BBC would like you to KNOW that it is.
Which is a mouth piece of the British Establishment, plane and simple. Especially if you then work out WHO is actually the effective head of ALL of these organizations.
Yes there is a single person that could very well be argued, is actually the head of all of them and it is NOT the Queen of England.
This person is said to be many things one of which is Jewish. Which is of course is another bit of establishment disinformation. This chap is no more Jewish then literally The Queen of England herself. But he is very much a Zionist all the same, as of course is the Pope in Rome. Who is the self proclaimed and proclaimed spiritual head of The Entire World, not just the Roman Empires Church. To my knowledge at least The Pope in Rome is not Jewish.
Please understand that just because The BBC says or indicates that Zionism and Judaism are the same thing, THEY ARE NOT all the same. It could be just as well argued that they are as good as theological and geo-political opposites.
There is NO logical reason why the British ZIONIST establishment should either give a toss about The Jewish Religion or for that matter the Islamic one. Other then this.
The BBC is the largest, most well funded, and by far and away the most powerfully influential promoter of International terrorism currently known to mankind.
However much the BBC may seem to be or be on the side of fundamentalist Islam. The actual ACTIONS of The BBC simply result in more dead people and far more Muslim dead people then any others.
The BBC divides EVERYONE regardless of Race Colour or Creed. While its bosses make hay or political capital out of the deaths impoverishment and disfigurement of innocent people.
It is clear that not even the employees of the BBC can possibly allow themselves to understand the above. This is mainly because many of them would not be able to do their job, and therefore spend their generous wages, if they did find the wits to work it out for themselves.
Experience tells us that TERRORISM as it is presented to us on our TV’s is a pointlessly bloodthirsty exercise that only results in any type of ‘solution’ if and ONLY if, and when and ONLY when, The two or more establishments involved in the conflict actually want there to be a solution. That is either on a temporary or permanent basis.
Therefore
We are expected to believe that the self same people who have the only ultimate power to actually stop a certain international situation but so far have refrained from doing so.
Have not also had a large or exclusive part to play in starting the problem in the first instance, and helped using mainly the money and power of The UN, to keep the whole murderous show on the road ever since doing so.
We are expected to believe by the BBC and our political pundits. “That wars and terrorism just happen, because the people got mad with each other for some silly reason, ordinary people are just nasty like that, and that is just the way it is.”
NOTHING can be further from the actual truth. Or if it is then wars in the last 100 years have started and finished for a very different reason then all of the ones that came before them.
Which of course is impossible. Wars and conflicts happen now for almost exactly the same reasons that they always did in the past.
The only real difference is that then we had our established churches spreading disunity, disinformation and hatred among the common people. Now we have The BBC doing their old job for them, at again our personal expense.
We should consider ourselves fortunate. that we only have the thugs and liars, namely the TV tax inspectorate. In the old days not going to church and putting your penny on the plate, could end up getting a earlier born peasant, burnt at the stake.
IMMCO
The BBC is not a REAL friend of Islam. As it is not a REAL friend of any ordinary people, still desperately hanging on to their material existence, anywhere on this entire planet.
Atlas shrugged, it is a shame that buried within your (too) long comment are some very valid observations, is it possible for you to post a abridged version of your posts without forcing me to have to scroll past some rather outlandish conspiracy theories?.
Sorry correction
That should read The Royal Institute for International Affairs. But of course you can add to the list The Bilderberg group and the Council on Foreign Relations to a lesser extent.
So there are a lot of people and organizations potentially at one time or another in the BBC’s pie. However all of these roads all lead directly or indirectly to the same persons front door.
Atlas shrugged | 17.01.09 – 5:54 am |
Actually it was Stalin who was employed by the Rothschilds.
have to scroll past some rather outlandish conspiracy theories?.
Outlandish they may be. But outlandish does not mean incorrect.
Sorry it was long, but you really do need to read the lot to make proper sense of any of it.
If you do not have enough dots to join up, you can not form enough of a coherent picture.
This is one very important way that the BBC hides real information from the unsuspecting and lets face it chaps fairly stupid, very highly busy and even more extremely highly disinterested public.
The dots are all there, whats worse is they always have been. However very few have had the balls to even go there. Some that have, have quite literally been murdered in cold blood, in the cold light of day
But the important dots are hided within so many other ‘disinformational’ type dots. That the short attention span of the average individual, can never find the wood for all the BBC’s many large forests worth of trees, that are daily put in their way.
There is much comfort in being part of a mind controlled majority. The BBC knows this, as do all of the greatest propagandists.
Very few people like to stand out like the small child and tell the assembled masses that the King, not only has no cloths, but he has been lying to them all, all of their lives.
After all why listen to a child ( eg Atlas shrugged ) when rich or also very important people in nice suits ( eg Tony Blair and Gordon Brown ) all seem to be able to clearly see the Kings new cloths, and believe everything the despot tells them?
Fortunately for yourself I don’t mind one little bit. In fact I positively enjoy being one of the only ordinary people in this or any country that actually knows for 100% sure almost exactly how the world does indeed work. Also why it so often does not do anything of the kind, 9 years into the 21st century, for gods sake.
I only seem to myself to have a mind as large as a planet, simply because it also seems to myself, so many do not have minds of their own, at all.
Atlas shrugged | 17.01.09 – 3:42 pm
what do you call someone who calls the public stupid, yet uses the word ‘disinterested’ wrongly in the same sentence?
Atlas Shrugged, I honestly can’t guess who you are referring to, can you kindly give me a clue?
No it was also Stalin, that was employed by The Rothschild’s. It is said by those that claim to know. That Stalin was far closer related to the Rothschilds then say Obama is to George Bush, which is also far too close for any type of comfort.
Can’t blame it on him being Muslim after all. Best to put it down to him being an evil capitalist bastard.
Jason | 17.01.09 – 8:27 am
Calling him “rich” will leave the casual listener/reader with the impression that he’s Jewish. Clever, sly bastards!
Once a communist always a communist.
Why are the BBC not reporting the greed and avarice of the communist leader of the Unite union, one Derek Simpson.
Union chief Derek Simpson’s secret deal over perks and pay rise
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5533387.ece
The BBC are filth.
Anyone that equates spelling or other unconnected abilities with stupidity is very stupid indeed. I also suggest that you no longer trust anything your doctor tells you, as I have yet to find one that can even spell correctly never mind write in a manner anyone outside a pharmacy can understand.
Try to show your own intelligence instead of your clear and dangerously so ignorance by attacking or destroying the message and not the messenger.
Please understand I dont get paid for doing this, and I do not have a concert tour or a book pending. which is why you will not see the words like Illuminati, Unidentified Flying, objects, Elvis runs my local fish shop, Lizard people run the world, or any other forms of forest like disinformation.
BTW.
I know exactly what the word disinterested means and have used it in a correct and logical context.
GAVIN ESLER: to Mark Regev, Israel spokesman, (only slightly paraphrased, check original which is more egregeous if anything)-
‘Are you personally proud of what Israel has achieved – 1,000 Palestinians dead, 346 of them children, 79 women, 13 medical workers, 16 ambulances destroyed, U.N. schools and other buildings attacked – are you proud of all that?’
MARK REGEV answers, and then:
GAVIN ESLER:’The answer is “Yes”.’
George R | 17.01.09 – 9:42 am
That’s a tactic that’s been used against me on the BBC blogs
Them: “Are you a Zionist?”
Me: “I believe in Israel’s right to exist as the national homeland of the Jewish people.
Them: “I’ll take that as a “Yes” then!”
Them: “Do you believe the Jews have a biblical right to the land of Palestine?”
Me: “Israel’s rights are enshrined in the British Mandate, the UN’s resolutions and Israel’s own declaration of Independence as recognised by the UN. There’s no need to talk about ‘biblical rights’.”
Them: “That’s a “Yes” then!”
There was one of about 50 of them in my town this noon, so I played at being either mighty brave or mighty stupid, by ripping up a Pally flag and saying to a Socialist Wankers’ “demonstrator” – “You like to dish hatred out by burning Israeli flags – now let me see you take it !”
After much shouting on their part, I walked away unharmed.
Mark | 17.01.09 – 1:30 pm
BRAVO!
:+:
Chrissakes, has Atlas’ nurse taken the weekend off?
The search box on BBC news does not work in Firefox.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Has anyone else experienced this?
So if I understand correctly, Atlas, the Pope is in charge of the BBC, via the Establishment. Hm…
Mind you, Atlas, the BBC IS the establishment, as much as the other institutions mentioned. How did you miss that?
TPO – they did, this morning on Today.
TPO – they did, this morning on Today.
Anonymous | 17.01.09 – 4:22 pm |
Thankfully I don’t get the far-left propaganda of ‘Today’ in Canada.
However why is it not on the BBC website?
Why don’t you give yourself a name?
Are you Lancaster or that silly little boy Alex Reynolds?
TPO – so you base your comments on here based on what? The BBC’s website?.
‘’I’m just hoping I don’t spoil Obama’s’s big day’ A modest quote from Hugh Edwards from today’s Daily Mail TV and radio guide. ‘Obama’s words will resonate long after his term in office is over’ is another as the BBC sends our Hugh over to the USA at our expenses to do the job the veritable army of Beeboid journalists already there are not up to.
Now I am not going to comment more on the OTT coverage of a ceremony that should perhaps in the UK have one minute of air time, at slot number five in the 6 O’clock news courtesy of a short clip bought from an American news channel. I know how to get value for my licence tax.
However, there is one is more telling quote from our sycophant in Washington; ‘’ When I say ‘studio’ I actually mean rather basic arrangement of a few cameras and lights. An outside broadcast is often ‘’rigged’’ within a few hours. Really!? Explains a lot, doesn’t it?
It’s very exciting isn’t it. Would you rather the BBC were anti american?
Anonymong | 17.01.09 – 4:59 pm |
as exciting as hemorrhoids.
Atlas,
Why not set up your own blog where you can blither on about conspiracies to your heart’s content, and thus not take up vast areas of space on this one?
We ALL believe EVERYTHING you say about the Establishment and all that, really we do.
I’ve thought about what you say(as you keep on begging us to do. Now go away. PLEASE.
Anonymous: so the BBC is PRO-American now is it? That wouldn’t by any chance be because they’ve just elected a democrat would it?
Atlas Shrugged
the BBC hides real information from the unsuspecting and lets face it chaps fairly stupid, very highly busy and even more extremely highly disinterested public.
Disinterested means impartial, having no interest in {of a financial type etc}, while uninterested means indifferent to, etc.
Uninterested was the word you wanted…..whatever you may say now.
And the English Speaking Union is not run by the Illuminati.
Careful with that globe now.
Anonymous | 17.01.09 – 5:27 pm |
are you channeling the spirit of hillhunt,or are you he i wonder.
Al beebs eco fascists must sense the climate change fraud is comming to an end and are now starting a new eco fraud; catastrophic light pollution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7821298.stm
are you channeling the spirit of hillhunt,or are you he i wonder.
sean. | 17.01.09 – 5:34 pm |
He’s probably that silly little boy Alex Reynolds
TPO – so you base your comments on here based on what? The BBC’s website?.
Anonymous | 17.01.09 – 4:46 pm |
Ducked the question I see.
Why is it not on their website?
As to what I base my comments on, well the BBC pumps out its propaganda via the World Service, the oddly named “BBC America’ and a number of other sources.
Oh and from 1977 to 2007 I was resident in the UK.
Good enough?
BBC report on Labour’s MASS IMMIGRATION Utopia:
“Citizenship test plans published”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7829265.stm
1.) Example of the Mass Immigration reality in Labour’s Britain today:
‘The Sun’
“Saudi scroungers trash £2m house at taxpayers’ expense”
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/article2138521.ece
2.) Example of the Mass Immigration reality in Labour’s Britain tomorrow:
‘Jihadwatch’:
“Netherlands: “Moderate” Muslim pol calls for Muslims-only district of Amsterdam” (* estimated Muslim population of Amsterdam 180,000 of 750,000, 24%)
[Extract]-
” Here we see the next phase of the stealth jihad: first Muslims push for special accommodation of Islamic law, even when it is at variance with the law of the country they are in. Then there often follow demands that non-Muslims also conform to Islamic sensibilities — cf. the attempt to compel a British supermarket demanding it stop carrying alcohol. Then comes, here, a demand for a separate Muslim enclave — and of course, such enclaves already exist all over Europe.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024440.php
More climate lunacy – the website reports without challenge a report from the fanatically pro-AGW group Worldwatch that says “CO2 dumping” must end and the world energy systems must be re-engineered if massive temperature rises are to be avoided by 2050.
Whoever writes this garbage is under the influence of a new McCarthyism, and a new version of the type of thought processes that filled Germany with hate against the Jews.
The BBC flow of propaganda is deeply damaging, especially to the old people who will die prematurely in their tens of thousands because they can’t afford to pay escalating fuel bills.
Anonymous: 5 27pm: REF: DISINTERESTED
————————
USAGE NOTE: In traditional usage, disinterested can only mean “having no stake in an outcome,” as in Since the judge stands to profit from the sale of the company, she cannot be considered a disinterested party in the dispute. But despite critical disapproval, disinterested has come to be widely used by many educated writers to mean “uninterested” or “having lost interest,” as in Since she discovered skiing, she is disinterested in her schoolwork.
Oddly enough, “not interested” is the oldest sense of the word, going back to the 17th century. This sense became outmoded in the 18th century but underwent a revival in the first quarter of the early 20th. Despite its resuscitation, this usage is widely considered an error.
—————————–
That’s from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.