This is where you can discuss any BBC-related issue that concerns you. Please use it sensibly, no abuse and no trolls!
Open thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- wwfc Dec 22, 19:28
Weekend 21st December 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCMlEHGHtjQ&ab_channel=LondonNPC - atlas_shrugged Dec 22, 19:19
Weekend 21st December 2024
Dis is zer German vetter station Alles ist normal und wunderbar. Heute ist vetter. Morgen ist jest vetter. Nexter vochen… - Guest Who Dec 22, 19:09
Weekend 21st December 2024
https://www.bloomberg.com/authors/AWBnLoYN_tg/olivia-rudgard Livvy is so sweet. - atlas_shrugged Dec 22, 19:08
Weekend 21st December 2024
A nation in grief as the rotating helicopter blade came a bit closer. - tomo Dec 22, 17:53
Weekend 21st December 2024
[img]https://i.ibb.co/DMrTDjx/chrome-y-OIa6k-JNIt.png[/img] - atlas_shrugged Dec 22, 17:26
Weekend 21st December 2024
This guy is actually quite funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaPbUvPOkD8 Apologies if this has been posted before. - Fedup2 Dec 22, 17:19
Weekend 21st December 2024
Excellent – the Marxists legislating to ban unapproved donations to other political parties – just a step to banning other… - atlas_shrugged Dec 22, 17:18
Weekend 21st December 2024
The wonders of bBC output. Where would we be without Planet Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2A07ToxkTI This is a 100% genuine episode bBC…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
nrg 4:16
Well done ! I am amazed that you managed to get a reply from the BBC.
It really makes hilarious reading although they wouldn’t have a clue what we are laughing at.
The Beeboids really do live in a parallel universe, totally untouched by reality.
The beeb are genuinely starting to annoy me now. They just did a report on Camerons plans for reform, letting labour take the credit. Then all James Landel said at the end was about Julie Kirkbride and the on going saga of expenses. It’s really not on. Imagine Gordon had come up with this?
Grant said 1:32 PM, May 26, 2009
“Llew 1:15
For the Beeboids it is not even a downturn, it is boom time as usual !”
They must have listened to me! On the 6pm news the same report has just been introduced with the newsreader saying (and emphasising) the word “Recession”.
They do listen. Sometimes. Maybe.
To Anonymous said.
Yes I noticed that too. Even if there’s news that paints the Tories with the tiniest bit of good light, the BBC will move to spoil it.
Ralph Peters…” WE made one great mistake regarding Guantanamo: No terrorist should have made it that far. All but a handful of those grotesquely romanticized prisoners should have been killed on the battlefield. The few kept alive for their intelligence value should have been interrogated secretly, then executed.
MORE..Ralph Peters New York Post
In fairness (yes really) I do think that there are some bigwigs at the Beeb who do try and reign in the bias every now and then, but they are fighting against an entrenched liberal / left mindset and some overtly malign individuals.
A good run on a topic on B-BBC sometimes produces results – there was a decent expose of Taliban barbarity today on Today for example.
Usually it quickly slips back to biased business as usual and it gets worse at the weekends when the supervison is left (pun intended) to the B team.
I see the BBC’s “comedian” Mark Thomas is on a crusade harrassing the Queen (Elisabeth Winsor he calls her, the socialist cunt) to prevent Thatcher from having a funeral.
http://www.markthomasinfo.com/section_policy_updates/thatcher.asp
Here’s the prick at the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/markthomas.shtml
He’s on tour in my area in a fortnight, i’m just wondering what sort of security he has…
I found this on the TV listings for tonight:
Simon Schama’s John Donne –
Simon Schama celebrates the life and work of…Britain’s greatest love poet, John Donne. … With the help of academic John Carey and actor Fiona Shaw, he undertakes a passionate appraisal and forensic examination of Donne’s work.
===================================
Now I happen to like Donne and I would be interested in a programme about him presented by John Carey or other specialist in English literature.
Why, though, is it presented by the academic historian and art historian, one Simon Schama?
Why is the former professor of English and literary critic, John Carey, relegated to a subordinate role, while the one with no expertise in the subject is most flatteringly credited with conducting an appraisal and forensic examination?
Is there a political point to this? Is it an example of dumbing down? Is it the B’oidy love of creating “celebrities” and elevating them out of all proportion to their ability or worth? Is it because they think the proles wouldn’t be interested in the prog itself without some inducement through the prospect of seeing a “celeb” presenter? Is it because they have Schama under contract and couldn’t think what else to do with him?
I think we should be told.
Anyway, I don’t really want to watch it now. I don’t want to feel manipulated and that it is just being used as a platform for some agenda or that it is being dumbed down. Harumph.
BBC 2 ‘Newsnight’ tonight is scheduled to analyse:
EAST TIMOR.
Lest the BBC tries to ignore, or to sanitise the historical role of ISLAMIC JIHAD there, here is some relevant reading:
“Islamism’s other victims: The Tragedy of East Timor”
(by S.Trifkovic)
‘frontpagemagazine.com’ Nov 25 2002
[Extract]:
“Under Suharto the” [Indonesian]”army rounded up all the children from the Christian missions” [in East Timor]”and forced them to attend state schools. Passive resistance to Indonesian control was widespread and zealous Muslim officers responded by ordering soldiers to kill the villagers’ pigs, an important element in their basic economy. They soon proceeded to killing people: by September 1973, over 30,000 civilians had been killed by Indonesian troops, the number rising to an estimated 100,000 by 1990.
“In the motivation patterns and perceptions of the actors on the ground, killers and victims alike, East Timor was an Islamic jihad against Christian infidels, identical in form and purpose to other tragedies caused by Islam’s insatiable appetite for other people’s lands, property, bodies, and souls. Dili’s bishop, Mgr. Coste Lopez, later stated: ‘The soldiers who landed started killing everyone they could find. There were many dead bodies in the streets.’ They had been told that they were fighting a jihad and whole villages, for example Remexio and Aileu, were slaughtered.
“In Dili hundreds of the ethnic Chinese minority were shot and thrown off the wharf into the sea. In Maubara and Luiquica, the entire Chinese populations were wiped out. Nineteen ships were moored in Dili harbor to remove looted cars, radios, furniture, tractors and whatever else could be ransacked. Churches and the seminary were looted and their books burnt. Many priests had moved to the hills with their flocks and were able to report on the massacres of children in Lospalos, Viqueque, Amoro and Sumalai. Priests were beaten, churches invaded and their congregations arrested. By November 1976, the death toll had reached 100,000. The military focused on the more educated strata of Timorese seminarians, teachers, nurses and public officials.”
[…]
“Once East Timor was out of the way the next target was the Christian minority in Indonesia itself. In 1999-2000 the persecution, destruction of property, and killing of Indonesia’s Christians amounted a deliberate campaign of religious cleansing, actively abetted by the Indonesian military, which is overwhelmingly Muslim. Independent television footage has proved that there have been numerous instances of soldiers, marines and police taking sides.
“The worst atrocities were committed on the island of Ambon, where an upsurge in violence followed the arrival of 2,000 Laskar Jihad members—a militant Moslem force determined to join the ‘holy war’ against the Christians on the island—from Java and South Sulawesi. Indonesian soldiers sent to the Molucca Islands were fighting alongside militant Muslims, leading to calls by the Christians for a neutral UN peacekeeping force. Most of the fighting took place around the city of Ambon. Violence in North Halmahera has resulted in up to 100,000 people fleeing their homes for the jungles and mountains.
“In the face of the Muslims’ better co-ordination, and signs that the Indonesian armed forces aided (or at least not prevented) Muslim attacks, the Christians were in disarray. The campaign of anti-Christian violence finally abated in 2001, after Muslim migrants from the overpopulated islands of Java and Sulawesi had been well established in the homes and on the lands of expelled Christians.” (S. Trfkovic.)
Millie (8.39 pm)
I wish someone would say “For Godsake hold your tongue” to Schama.
Schama on Donne, comedian Armando Iannucci on Milton (Carey should have done that one too), Good Grief Rhys Jones on everyone else…
What about Dale Winton for T.S. Eliot next?
Is Obama Another Jimmy Carter?
“During the U.S. Presidential primaries last year, I had expressed my misgivings that Barack Obama might turn out to be another Jimmy Carter, whose confused thinking and soft image paved the way for the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.
Jimmy Carter took a little over three years to create the image of the U.S. as a confused and soft power. Obama is bidding fair to create that image even in his first year in office.
More..Forbes.com
Millie 8:39
Simon is the BBC’s favourite left-wing historian. I expected him to replace Bill Oddie on “Springwatch”. Maybe next year.
Have you noticed how the BBC is now consentrating on Tory expense claims. There is nothing on the front page about ministers not paying tax on the the money they have been given to pay for tax advice.
The BBC is once again inverting tonight’s Telegraph sleaze allegations…
Whereas, the Telegraph leads on this story: “MPs' expenses: ministers not exempt from tax laws and must pay, says taxman.” The BBC has chosen to highlight: “Tory MP claimed £500 for petunias.”
Now I’m not trying to defend John Greenway and his green-fingered expense claims, but surely the Telegraph has the two stories in the right order of prominence. Greenway is after all an anonymous backbencher – I for one, hadn’t even heard of him before tonight. Clearly the same cannot be said for the 30+ ministers caught up in accountancy story. Add in the salient fact that HM Customs had previously warned MP’s that tax advice – on expenses – was a benefit in kind, and should be declared as such (it appears that they ignored this advice) & I’d have thought that the main story was pretty obvious.
But not in Beeboid land. Not only does the BBC article fail to mention these latest revelations against GVN ministers, (nor have they updated earlier articles pertaining to the original story) but 90% of tonight’s expenses round-up is devoted exclusively to Tory sleaze. They even found room to note: The journalist “Mr [Simon] Heffer said he would consider opposing Sir Alan, MP for Saffron Walden, unless he repaid £12,000 in public money he reportedly claimed for gardening work at his country house.” Why did they bother to include this statement when as Ian Dale reports, Sir Alan had issued the following press release this morning… “…In terms of total expense claims I currently rank 582nd out of 646 MPs. However, my claim for gardening help has caused concern. Out of respect to my constituents I am this week repaying the sum of £12,000.” Now the BBC must know that Sir Alan has already agreed to repay the money – because of the above press release, and the fact that the Telegraph have altered their original story accordingly. But guess what, they don’t mention that he has already agreed to repay the money in the article – what a surprise.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8069292.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5389918/MPs-expenses-ministers-not-exempt-from-tax-laws-and-must-pay-says-taxman.html
http://www.iaindale.blogspot.com/
Then we have the following story: “Cameron in 'people power' pledge”. Note how both Jack Straw and the Lib Dems are quoted as rubbishing these proposals, near the top and bottom of the story. At least 30-40% of the article is given over to their analysis.
Now compare and contrast with this story: “Clegg wants petitions to axe MPs”. No opposing opinions are sought or quoted from other parties. The Lib-Dem proposal is not challenged in any way. Of course it’s the same with Brown. When he makes a big speech, no dissenting voices are allowed. Opposition statements are rarely quoted & certainly not near the top of any report. So why is it one rule, for one party leader, and another for the other two?
Please explain BBC trolls…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8067505.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8066148.stm
BBC 2 ‘Newsnight’ tonight on EAST TIMOR:
BBC failed, as anticipated, to understand, or refer to by name, the history of ISLAMIC JIHAD there.
Craig said…
I wish someone would say “For Godsake hold your tongue” to Schama.
Schama on Donne, comedian Armando Iannucci on Milton (Carey should have done that one too), Good Grief Rhys Jones on everyone else…
What about Dale Winton for T.S. Eliot next?
9:28 PM, May 26, 2009
———————————–
Well, exactly. I completely went off the idea of watching another of the progs as soon as they mentioned Griff Rhys Jones. I don’t want some comedian or TV “personality” getting in the way.
The BBC used to do book programmes with proper literary people (whether writers, academics or critics) but it seems like a lifetime ago.
Now that they have belatedly decided to do something, they come up with this dumbed and celeb-infested patronising nonsense of a “season”.
Presumably they will then tick a box and go back to their reality- TV pursuits and other rubbish, all but ignoring literature and other arts (not to mention science) for another ten years or so.
Grant said…
Millie 8:39
Simon is the BBC’s favourite left-wing historian. I expected him to replace Bill Oddie on “Springwatch”. Maybe next year.
10:50 PM, May 26, 2009
===================================
Hehe. You may be joking but I wouldn’t put it past them at all.
everyone is a fascist here
Ah, that takes me back to my student days in the 80s. Happy days! Anyone to the right of Tony Benn (or Pol Pot) was a fascist then.
Anonymous 11.18 pm,
Belatedly (3.21 GMT!) the BBC has changed its tune:
Taxman probes ministers' returns
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8069371.stm)
"Revenue officials are investigating if MPs have broken the law by not paying tax after claiming personal accounting costs on expenses, the BBC understands."
"The BBC understands"!!!! Yeah right. Try to ignore a story then, when you can't ignore any longer, run it late & claim credit for it!!!
In the same article, the Beeb are continuing their pro-Brown spinjob.
Again they mention only two of the nine dodgy Cabinet ministers:
too-eager-to-replace-Gordon David Miliband and, of course, expendible Brown-basher Hazel Blears.
What about the worst offender, Hoon? Why protect Darling? Where’s
Jacqui Smith?
The Beeb has so many biased agendas it’s hard to keep up.
“Save Gordon!”
Is BBC "political correspondent" James Landale a Downing Street plant?
Why is he helping one faction in the Labour Party against another?
Shouldn't the non-Brownites in the Labour Party be protesting about this continuing bias?
They should read this blog & beware of the BBC!
(That's enough from me!)
BBC: “Taxman probes ministers’ returns”.
Well the BBC have finally come round to the story. but notice how the omit one crucial piece of information from the Telegraph story – none of the shadow cabinet have made similiar claims. So last night the BBC tried (and failed) to make a Tory backbencher Today’s sleaze story and today they fail to tell us (the license-fee payers) that only one political party was up to this particular trick.
And they call themselves journalists.
Anonymous 11:18
Wonderful expose of BBC bias ! Great stuff !!
Anon 2:55
“Everyone is a fascist here”. Well I guess that gives a small counterbalance to the BBC where everyone is a communist.
So where does that get us ?
Millie 12:04
The BBC gave up on serious science programs years ago. Even the, otherwise excellent, Attenborough program last night on the amazing latest primate fossil was spoilt for me by loud, meaningless music and stange noises which made it almost impossible to hear what the scientists were saying.
I don’t know if it is deliberate or just stupid, but it is all part of the dumbing down process and bias against science and in favour of “arts”.
BBC report on its chum Obama, forever reaching out to Islam, as next week:
BBC report, ‘Americas’ page:
“Obama to visit Saudi before Egypt”
[Extract]:
“..he will travel to Cairo to give a major policy speech addressed to the Muslim world, and then go on to Germany and France.”
Sounds just like the BBC’s chum, Labour Foreign Secretary, D. Miliband, who is forever reaching out to the Muslim world, as e.g. in his visits to Turkey, as part of Labour’s campaign (curiously not mentioned by Labour in run up to 4th June E.U. elections) to get 75 million Muslim Turks into E.U. as soon as possible.
Well what a surprise. 11am Radio 4 gives Billy Bragg a full half hour to prattle on about some obscure 1930s pacifists/ conchies / commune dwellers.
Full of grating aged voices as bad as Bragg’s, boring as hell. All making heroes of the miniscule minority of people who refused to fight in World War II.
And we are forced to pay for this crap.
The BBC has a yellow pacifist streak right through it – from Bragg’s sort of bilge right through to issues like Sri Lanka and Pakistan.
GeorgeR 10:40
If Obama visits Saudi and Egypt and not Israel, that really says it all !
Grant said…
…Even the, otherwise excellent, Attenborough program last night on the amazing latest primate fossil was spoilt for me by loud, meaningless music and stange noises which made it almost impossible to hear what the scientists were saying. …
8:57 AM, May 27, 2009
===================================
Almost every programme the BBC does is spoilt by annoying music played over whoever is speaking and drowning out half of what is being said.
All it does is create noise, distract from what we are trying to enjoy and create a feeling of discomfort and downright irritation. At its worst, it is like dripping-water torture.
Having too much money, they have to find ways to spend it. That’s why we get all this juvenile “music” and the manic drumming that spoils practically
every programme.
“Anonymous said…
everyone is a fascist here
2:55 AM, May 27, 2009″
Untrue of course.
But given the one person you can be sure of on a blog is yourself the simplest logic shows that there is at least one – ‘Anonymous’ him/herself, who by their own statement admit he (or she) is a fascist.
News which the BBC decides to censor:
‘thelondonpaper.com’ (27 May):
“THREE of hook-handed hate preacher Abu Hamza’s sons face jail over a £1m car scam.
“They were part of a gang which targeted luxury cars such as Mercedes, BMWs and Range Rovers that were left in long-stay car parks.”
Just as the BBC’s reporters, Lyse Doucet (‘the humanity of the Taliban’) and Barbara Plett (‘tears for Arafat’) show what they feel towards Islam, so too the Pakistan army:
‘islamicterrorism.wordpress.com’:
“Pakistan soldiers prefer fighting ‘Hindu India’ than Taliban ‘Muslim friends.”
One would have thought that today’s message from the Islamic jihadists in the form of the bombing of the Pakistan ISI in Lahore is crystal clear.
On the right side of the BBC Science & Environment page, there’s a link to “The Green Room”. I like how the Beeboids have twinned “Environment” with “Science”, in order to assure the reader that all their Environment stuff is thoroughly, 100%, hard science and cannot be questioned. Giving “Environment” equal billing actually diminishes the importance of Science in general, but I’m sure the wide scope and amazing achievements of Science overall are not as important as getting the “Environment” Narrative out there.
The link I’m talking about is just below the close-up pic of a mouse. The subtitle is “Environmental opinion and debate”. Of course, one look at the page itself reveals that the only “debate”, as far as the BBC is concerned, is just how dire the situation is and how drastic we’ll need to get in order to save the planet.
In other words, there is no debate. The BBC just leaves the word in there as a pretense. This isn’t surprising, though, because we all know that the BBC has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.” In actual practice, no space at all.
Yet, they have plenty of space for ways to bring in an economic and political agenda from the Left with reports concerned about poverty. No alternative viewpoints.
haha, still going on about “tory” MP Kirkbride. That #cough# backbench bad egg in the “tory” party. Those nasty bl00dy “tories.”
The Beeb’s shocking headline: North African migrants invade UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/05/map_of_the_week_north_african.html
Relax, it’s about butterflies.
Red Lepond 5:17
You mean it’s about Global Warming !
Here's another weird use of the bogey-word "conservative" by the biased BBC.
In an article about Colombia's Marxist-Leninist "insurgents" the Farc,
('Oldest insurgent force marches on', http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8068548.stm)
in which we learn of its Cuban inspiration, its links to the IRA & ETA and its revolutionary socialist aims, there is this strange sentence:
" Whilst the Farc are ultra conservative in their doctrine and tactics, they have proven themselves to be adept businessmen, latching onto the drugs trade and taking their cut from all the links in the narcotics chain…"
Ultra conservative in their doctrine? Ultra conservative, & linked to the drugs trade too?
When the Soviet Empire was collapsing, the BBC called the hard-line Communist badies who opposed their beloved Gorbachev "conservatives". The hard-line elements of the Communist Party in China responsible for the Tiananmen Square massacre were "conservatives". Whenever Iran's most hard-line nutters do anything that even the BBC can't bring itself to support, they too are called "conservatives".
In what sense is it not misleading to call a far-left, revolutionary group like the Farc "ultra conservative in doctrine"?
Dhimmi time.
Here's an extract from a BBC web article about the Egyptian "cleric" Abu Omar (Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr), who claims to have been kidnapped in Milan by the CIA & tortured in Egypt. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8070665.stm):
"The former head of Italy's military intelligence agency has told a court he knew nothing about the kidnapping of an Egyptian imam in Milan six years ago.
Nicolo Pollari, who resigned over the affair, said documents showing he had no involvement in the CIA kidnapping were classified under secrecy laws."
So the BBC asserts as a fact that it was a "CIA kidnapping".
Wikipedia, however, says "he was allegedly kidnapped by the CIA", and uses "alleged" and "allegedly" repeatedly throughout its feature. If there is doubt the BBC should have made that clear. Otherwise, it is misleading us.
Also, the BBC article neglects to mention things that might be of interest to its readers. The "imam" in question is a member of an Islamist organisation dedicated to the overthrow of the Egyptian government – a group linked to the murder of President Sadat & behind the terrorist campaign that climaxed in the Luxor massacre of 1997. The US and the EU understandably consider it a terrorist group.
This is very shoddy journalism from the BBC.
PAKISTAN: the BBC is not concerned with reporting Islamic jihad attacks on Christians.
No BBC report on this:
‘Jihadwatch’:
“Pakistan: Jihadists attack historic church, burn Bibles, destroy altar and cross — police reluctant to investigate”
{Extract]:
“They are not investigating it as they would if the attack had been on a mosque.”(27 May.)
The BBC reported yesterday about the new President’s first Supreme Court nomination. There’s a bit of controversy going on over here about her, but it’s not because she’s yet another elitist Ivy League type, and would if confirmed make a two-thirds Catholic majority on the Court.
The BBC glosses over – and, as usual, blatantly misrepresents – the controversy like this:
Conservative activists have already challenged comments she made a few years ago that a judge should not dismiss their own gender or ethnicity in deciding cases, our correspondent says.
Judge Sotomayor’s actual statement:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
If a white man had said the equivalent, the Left and the BBC would be screaming bloody murder. Instead, Beeboid Richard Lister tells a little white lie. The link above is to a criticizing article by a black woman in a non-Conservative magazine. Further, Forbes Magazine can hardly be considered a Conservative activist rag. Many of those crying foul over this little gem of a racialist statement are Libertarians (and stoner Libertarians at that). Yes, I know, from a Beeboid perspective Libertarians are so far to the right they can’t tell the difference.
The fact is that the BBC is once again using Saul Alinsky-like tactics to demonize and neutralize criticism of something they support. While there are certainly “conservative activists” complaining about Judge Sotomayor’s racialist remark, the BBC seriously waters it down to the point where it’s a dishonest account.
Typical of the BBC, because Judge Sotomayor’s nomination ticks nearly all their most important boxes: She’s a minority, she was appointed by their beloved Obamessiah, she’s extremely anti-gun ownership rights, and she thinks minorities, especially minority females, are superior to white males.
So they deliberately misinform the public. If any BBC viewer starts to hear complaints about her, all they need to know is that these concerns can be summarily dismissed as noise from conservative activists.
Don’t trust the BBC on any reporting on US issues.
David,
I wouldn’t bother reading Justin Webb’s blog entry on the Sotomayor story, if I were you. He finds “the most fascinating and uplifting fact about Judge Sotomayor” to be that she’s a successful diabetic. Justin is not lacking in superficiality. That’s the best he can do!
When he comes back down to earth again, will he reflect that the nomination, to this casual non-American observer at least, might just suggest that Obama could be a mere human being after all, perhaps even a mere politician with an eye to partisan advantage?
It’s not too cynical to think that her nomination might, as you say, tick the right boxes with Hispanics, women and liberals and that this box-ticking line of thought might have been at the front (rather than the back) of Obama’s mind – rather than the thought that she was the best candidate. (Oh, and she might win the diabetic vote for him too, eh Justin?)
“Ahead of next week’s European Parliament elections we asked families across Europe about their preferences, to see if there is a generational difference in voting trends.
We asked families in four European countries to debate the issues surrounding the election and tell us what emerged. “
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8055506.stm
4 families? – really 4 people were asked – how statistically significant is that?
“We are keen to speak to people about their experience of this period in Sheffield. Were you in school? Or in work? Were you or a member of your family made unemployed? Did you go on strike? Did you work in the steel or mining industry? Do you remember the city changing? What happened to your family?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/8058999.stm
Why the 80s – why not the 60s or 70s?
Now we all know where this is going to lead (Bloody Thatcher) – no doubt it will be ready to be aired just before the next election.
John Horne Tooke said…
4 families? – really 4 people were asked – how statistically significant is that?
JHT – awesome!
“Me ‘at’s off to the Duke.”
Epic BBC bias.
Top dude.
No doubt the nest topic will be “Do you remember when Labour got to power in 1997 – did you lose your pension – did you have to sell your house to go into a nursing home – did you get the sack from your job for not being politically correct?”
Some how I doubt it.
BBC presents British poetry as leftist propaganda (BBC 2 TV series).
Last night the BBC gave us more of its American chum: Obama Schama, on the poet, John Donne.
Tonight, another BBC chum and Labour luvvie, Mr. Iannucci, deferred to Labour MP D. Blunkett, and to ex-Guantanamo detainee, Moazzan Begg, for political and poetical inspiration on the poet, John Milton.
The BBC: and how it continues to use licencepayers’ money to subsidise its political interests, in its propaganda output.
“From the Atlas Mountains of Morocco, millions of North African butterflies are arriving in Britain – expected to be the largest migration of the Painted Lady species ever seen in the UK.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/
This is nothing unusual it happens every year
“Painted ladies do not hibernate in Britain; instead they migrate to and from northern Africa. They can arrive in early spring, but late May and June are more usual. They are fairly common across Britain, numerous in some years.”
http://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/wildlifegarden/atoz/p/paintedladybutterfly.asp
And here is the normal distribution of “Painted Ladys”
http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/distribution.php?vernacular_name=Painted%20Lady
Craig @ 9:44 PM, May 27, 2009
It’s not too cynical to think that her nomination might, as you say, tick the right boxes with Hispanics, women and liberals and that this box-ticking line of thought might have been at the front (rather than the back) of Obama’s mind – rather than the thought that she was the best candidate. (Oh, and she might win the diabetic vote for him too, eh Justin?)
Yes, I caught Justin Webb’s post on Sotomayor. First of all, though, I meant that those were BBC boxes being ticked. The Senate approves Supreme Court nominees. Further, the President is more concerned that she’s exactly the kind of activist judge on the exact issues He’s looking for: a different set of boxes to tick, although there is some obvious crossover.
As for the blog post itself, that’s just another example of ol’ Justin using his taxpayer-funded position as the North America editor of your official state broadcaster to advocate for a political cause in which he has a personal stake. Just because he admits his personal interest doesn’t make it right.
BBC political propaganda for Labour, and against Tories is stepped up on BBC 2 ‘Newsnight’ tonight, AHEAD OF THE ELECTIONS NEXT THURSDAY, 4 JUNE.
That well-known Scot and Labour luvvie, Ms, K. Wark, spent much of the programme criticising only Tory MP expenses (not Labour ones).
What are the political interests of Ms. Wark?
‘Daily Mail’Nov 2007
“Kirsty Wark and the bugged emails story you WON’T be hearing on ‘Newsnight'”
[Extract]:
” Under fire: Newsnight’s Kirsty Wark
“She would tear any other public figure to pieces on ‘Newsnight’, questioning their probity with her hectoring tones and demanding answers over allegations of greed and deceit.
“But this time it is the rather patronising ‘Newsnight’ presenter Kirsty Wark herself who has been drawn into the centre of the story, and any television grilling is definitely out of the question.
“Wark, darling of the soft Left and pin-up of London’s metropolitan elite, has become embroiled in a vicious legal battle in which her husband is accused of committing industrial espionage to protect his career.
“And to add extra piquancy to an already juicy story, the row is turning into a cat fight between Wark, 52, and another media queen, the bleached blonde former member of punk band Von Trapp, Muriel Gray – a television personality and author renowned for her acid wit who first came to notice presenting the youth programme The Tube.
“Not for the first time, the unedifying spectacle raises questions over Wark’s suitability as an impartial presenter on BBC’s ‘Newsnight’, where she has courted controversy in the past over her close friendship with politicians and her financial dealings.”