Friday arrives and so does this open thread……!
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- tomo Nov 15, 21:08
Weekend 16th November 2024
https://x.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1857437146392518822 jeesh… Can it get worse? - tomo Nov 15, 20:44
Midweek 13th November 2024
Stand-ups like George Carlin are thin on the ground at the moment… - Lefty Wright Nov 15, 20:42
Midweek 13th November 2024
COP29? It’s a worse disease than COPD. I want no part in this. - tomo Nov 15, 20:41
Midweek 13th November 2024
Caught some of it (Children in Need) on “company workshop radio” – it’s overwrought emotive stuff and maddening as …… - tomo Nov 15, 20:37
Midweek 13th November 2024
well, yes, to anybody with a little more than passing familiarity with the topics Wod-Jah addressed and knowing his hand… - Fedup2 Nov 15, 20:25
Midweek 13th November 2024
At least the kids in the ‘online hate unit ‘ can work from home and keep their ‘work life ‘… - Peter Grimes Nov 15, 20:11
Midweek 13th November 2024
There is a poster on Substack claiming to have been 3 ranks above her at HBOS and that she resigned… - pugnazious Nov 15, 19:45
Midweek 13th November 2024
lol…. ‘Robert Jenrick quipped: “Reeves said she was an economist. Turns out she’s just economical with the truth.”’ Oh heck…we…
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
The BBC is politically prompt in its deference to Islam by appointing a Muslim as head of religion, but takes its time in appointing a women newsreader, aged over 50, after sacking some:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6228087/BBC-searches-for-50-plus-female-newsreader.html
Radio 5 phone in with mincer boy Nicki Campbell is a real hoot. It’s a pro Gordon Brown phone in but not all going according to plan. “Tories are coming out of the closet” exclaims the mincer from Scotland oh and we get an endless list of Labour MPs (no Tory) on to defend Brown.
Despite the BBC admitting that most taxts and emails are anti Brown they only read out q 50/50 split.
The BBC is getting desperate. To all beeboids, you’re stuffed when the Tories take over.
I hope the BBC is privatised if(when) the Tories form a new regime, I have my doubts about that though.
The urge to tinker at the edges a little rather than make the effort and expend the political capital to enact the major change needed is showing in the Tory position I think.
Of course if Cameron doesnt take action against the BBC he is making a massive mistake that could well contribute to his downfall as PM.
The BBC so eager to protect and nurture the current regime will suddenly turn from a protective state organ to a severe and commited critic of the elected government, the change will be startling and begin the second Cameron walks into No10.
The blind eye and protective wall the BBC has built around the government will be torn down and behind it will be an attack force of fanatical investigative journalists that will make mincemeat of Camerons team, lets not forget that the civil service/quangoland machinery that runs government is now staffed with newlabour sympathisers.
From week one the BBC will start a regular job loss/GDP/BoT/ER report, from the start they will be reporting high street activity and never failing to find a string of eager critics itching to let fly at any Tory move.
Questioning of Tories spokesmen will become more intense and searching, the almost cosy chats with newlabour ministers by Marr/toenails will become a thing of the past and the number of oppostion MPs allowed a platform will increase straight away from the now occasional one to a veritable flood.
Who can forget the coverage that Prescott/Brown etc got on the BBC during the mid 90s!
sweet jesus..
‘Despite the BBC admitting that most taxts and emails are anti Brown they only read out q 50/50 split.’
so why admit it? They’re representing two arguments, and also saying one is far more popular than the other – otherwise they’d just be reading out the negatives, and then you might actually have a case
They should reflect public opinion not the camp beeboids view.
Even the BBC cannot avoid the ‘JIHAD’ word in this report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8274119.stm
The BBC illustrates the piece with a feel-good picture of a burqa wearing woman with two small traditionally dressed small children. Caption: Muslims live and worship freely in Australia despite occasional friction.
The message: This is a disturbed individual nothing to do with the vast majority of happy, well adjusted Muslims.
My memory of when I first saw this article was that it was illustrated with a picture of the accused, looking like one would expect a jihadi to look. If my memory is not faulty, why would the BBC change this picture?
Checking out former Treasurer Peter Costello on Muslims who want to live under Sharia Law here.
The Nicki Campbell phone in was an utter joke with an endless list of left wing callers (from Scotland and liverpool naturally) trying to talk about Norman Lamont and how much greater the one eyed snot eater is.
No Tory view from the studio (two Liebour MPs) and despite the beeboids admitting most emails and texts were anti snotty they only seemed to read out a balance.
Nicki Campbells “The Tories are coming out of the closet today” was classic biased BBC, as if somehow Tories have no right to ring into the BBC and complain about the jock gay boy.
More empty words from PM Brown, dutifully and uncritically reported by BBC:
“Brown urges tough stand on Iran”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8274059.stm
Of course, there is no mention of Brown’s soft stand on Iran in practice which is evident, e.g., in the small fact that the British government allows Iran’s state broadcaster to operate its propaganda ‘Press TV’ HQ in London on the Sky satellite.
Nice to see Iran has been found out again. So Barry’s plan to hold out a hand of peace isn’t working.
BBC naivity/complicity on Islam continues with this article, largely supportive of Shariah compliant finance in Britain:
“The steady rise of Islamic finance”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8270490.stm
This uncritical extract from that article is telling both of the British government’s dhimmi attitude to Shiah complant finance, and incidentally of the BBC’s uncritical stance too:
“Farmida Bi, one of the law firm’s partners, explained that London has attracted this kind of investment because the British government wooed Islamic money in the wake of 9/11, at the expense of the US.
“‘It was really September 11th that made being a Muslim a political statement and not just a matter of personal faith,’ she said.
“‘And with the Patriot Act, which made investments in the US difficult for many Islamic investors, there was a significant increase in Islamic investors choosing to invest in Islamic institutions and Islamic products.'”
“So while groups in the US were investigating terrorist connections with Islamic banks, Muslim investors pulled their money out of America.
“Some of the money got diverted to London, which had traditionally been a banking centre. The British government then helped further by changing regulations to give sharia-compliant funds a level playing field with conventional ones.”
The BBC seems to be oblivious to the existence of this knowledgeable anti-Shariah finance website:
http://www.shariahfinancewatch.org/blog/
Cassandra “I hope the BBC is privatised if(when) the Tories form a new regime, I have my doubts about that though. “
I share your doubts, however David Elstein in today’s Times seems a little bit more optimistic
“The present Government will never get its head around the simple proposition that funding Newsnight through a universal and regressive tax is unjust, and that funding EastEnders by a compulsory charge is unnecessary. Perhaps an incoming Conservative administration will prove as radical as the last one, which boldly embraced what was then the innovative Channel 4. Perhaps.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6848072.ece
Hope springs eternal!
I hope for a new Thatcher and dread a new Heath, the very last thing the UK needs is a rerun of the 1970-74 events where Heath took over from a socialist adminstration and completly messed it up setting the stage for another socialist regime and the utter disaster that entailed.
I hope for all our sakes that we are seeing a 1979 and not a 1970!
Re “Water Found On Moon” both CNN and the BBC are bigging up the “Indian” discovery, while most of the rest quote “NASA” because it was NASA instrumentation that conducted the tests.
Indian Success
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8272144.stm
Here Damian Thompson joins up the dots which the BBC cannot, or will not:
“The Calais ‘jungle’ and the Islamic settlement of Britain”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100010898/the-calais-jungle-and-the-islamic-settlement-of-britain/
Here’s a better link (don’t know why they need 2 documents on the same news)
India Hails Moon Mission ‘Find’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8274159.stm
India’s inaugural Moon mission has been hailed as a “grand success” by the head of India’s space agency, after helping find evidence of water on the Moon.
(paragraph 5)
Data from three spacecraft, including India’s Chandrayaan probe, has shown that very fine films of H2O coat the particles that make up the lunar dirt, US space agency Nasa announced.
Those righties all look the same to the folk at the BBC. I was just watching the BBC programme “Folk America”. Pete Seeger was talking about the activities of the John Birch Society. The subtitles instead referred to the John Burt society.
As ‘Harry’s Place’ points out, a few hours ago the BBC interviewed someone from Iran’s state broadcaster -which has HQ in London, courtesy of PM Brown- BUT the BBC neglected to tell its listeners the nature of ‘PRESS TV’:
” PRESS TV NOT PRESSED ”
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/09/25/press-tv-not-pressed/
“PRESS TV NOT PRESSED”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mv11q
@ About 8 mins.
Yes not at all pressed on anything said.
The BBC are still banging on about Sarah Brown’s Twitter activity:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8274530.stm
They just can’t help themselves…
Todays news
“Speaking after Mr Obama, the French and British leaders used strong language to insist that Iran would now have to disclose full details of its entire nuclear programme or face new and tougher sanctions.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8274903.stm
But we have been here before have we not?
“Gordon Brown and President George Bush have warned Iran to accept their “offers of partnership” or face tough sanctions and international isolation” [16 June 2008]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7456081.stm
So what happened to the “tough sanctions”.
Not an issue of BBC bias technically…but anyhow.
The sanctions didn’t really appear as sanctions don’t ever work. They didn’t in Iraq, they just made Saddam rich and the people poorer. The thing with Iran is that no one knows where all of their missile facilities are (nuclear or otherwise) so a strike is risky as it would be impossible to stop them retaliating. Obama might get forced into a corner – act or the increasing worried Israel will do. I hope for the sake of humanity that Ahmadeinejad is just being a provocative sod, all mouth and no trousers. A lot of people like him just say all this anti-semitic stuff to appeal to a domestic audience who supposedly lap it up. The problem is that we simply might never have any way of knowing if they are building a bomb until it is too late. Should we take Ahmadenijad at face value? Probably not, but those who assume that his hostility towards the Jews means than a nuking of Israel is inevitable are mistaken.
I agree with most of what you say except the last bit. Who would have thought that anyone would fly planes into 2 massive office blocks. Fanatics do not reason like sane people. If you glorify death why should death worry them.
Gus
Agreed not bias but important
I agree with you particularly about Israel. I do not think Israel would be the target ( I have a bad feeling Iran already has the bomb hence the panic in G20 and Europe. Iran would be utterly destroyed if it attacks Israel and knows it. Now an attack on a European city is a different matter. Especially if there was initial confusion about the attacker. Would the West even retaliate? In Israel’s case retaliation would be instant as Israel would assume it was Iran at once.
Iran wants the West gone from the Middle East for good. Nuclear weapons give it the power to blackmail us. Israel is a convenient distraction from the real game and keeps the Arab nations on side.
Not mentioned often is Japan. This country depends on Gulf oil and has a most formidable military capability. If Iran is wary of any other country other than Israel it is probably Japan. Let us pray this passes but these coming days look very perilous.
Funny that this nuclear facillity in Iran has been known about for years. But only when the US condemn it – so do Brown and Sarkozy. Seems a bit strange to me.
“But serious concerns arise in 2002, when the US shocks the world with satellite images of covert nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak, proof-positive that Iran has a hidden agenda�one that carries ungodly implications.”
http://www.kumawar.com/assaultoniran/detail.php
Seven years later they talk about sactions!!! I bet Iran are shivering in their boots.
BBC ‘Today’ still propagandising for illegal immigrants (BBC’s ‘refugees’) of Calais ‘jungle’ this morning.
The interests of the British indigenous people come last to the BBC is this, as we licencepayers subsiding this propaganda are supposed to be impressed with listening to how these Asian and Africa illegals get to Calais.
Go to 08:10 am below (audio link):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8276000/8276052.stm
“BUT the BBC neglected to tell its listeners the nature of ‘PRESS TV’
…a bit like quite a few Brit writers who jumped aboard PTV (including some surprising ones – eh, Mr. Dale?) to take the Mullahcracy’s Rial.
Shame on all of them.
Whad’Ya Know the BBC are closet tory supporters
“Ben Bradshaw, the Culture Secretary, has accused the BBC of bias against the Government”
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6849622.ece
Which is precisely what makes the whole bias argument (from both sides) look ridiculous – it’s basically ‘you don’t agree with us = bias’
The BBC should be pissing off both sides
A government official complaining that the BBC doesn’t support the Labour Government at all times, versus legions of non-Tory Party citizens complaining the other way, and you see that as balanced? When ordinary UK citizens who are not members of the Party or named Derek Draper start complaining and blogging about the BBC being anti-Labour, anti-Warmingism, Islamophobic, and pro-Capitalism, pro-Any War Involving George Bush or Another Republican, then you might have the beginnings of a case.
The only thing that even remotely validates what you claim is the tragedy of 9/11. On that issue the BBC really has pissed off both sides. But only because they employed, and possibly still employ, a few Truthers (there was a bit of a scandal a couple years ago involving CBBC and 9/11 conspiracy theory, covered at length here at the time: http://biasedbbc.tv/2007/09/bbc-corrects-childrens-guide-to-911.html), and because whenever they bring up the question of trusting the BBC, Truthers invade the HYS comments with demands for the BBC to stop hiding “the truth” about 9/11.
Not really something you’d want to base your argument on, though.
I see that BBC Pravda is bigging up Brown before his labour conference has even started. (main news, brown cheered by crouds) I shudder to think what the next few days will bring!
Yes the beeboids Iain Watson claimed that McCoward had returned form America after being “Lorded”. Really? I must have missed that bit then, was that when he was running around like a Dog on heat trying to sniff Obama’s arse every 5 minutes making an utter twat of himself?
McCoward is just a human embarassment to the Country and even the Liebour scum know that.
If one eye takes them into the election they are done for and the BBC is shitting bricks because they know a Tory Government WILL do something about the BBC once in power.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8276419.stm
Front page news apparently.
BBC luvs Livingdead.
Brown lover Iain Watson on the news goes even further now telling us that “Brown came back from America with his reputation sky high”
Really? What being seen as a litlte creep to Obama, an obedient poodle?
Clearly Iain Watson wants a bit of Gordon’s backside.
Indeed. The Beeboids were quick to call Blair out on it, but that was when it involved a war they were against. Furthermore, I bet nobody will snicker and ask Mr. Brown if he – a Christian and son of the manse – prayed with a US President whose church-going is well known.
” BBC’s big guns turn on broadcaster over excessive pay”
-‘Sunday Times’:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6850809.ece
bob,
picture this. You’ve got a mate. He spend all day slagging you off to friends he thinks are cool rebellious . He ignores them stealing from people he ignores them trying to control people he fawns at their every word.
One day in twenty he condescends to talk to you and on that day he says he likes your shoes or something irrelevent. The others get p+ssed off about the remark about your shoes. He gives in and says they’re crap.
Is your mate biased towards them?
Or, as you are trying to posit, he is balanced and fair as he has upset both sides
(Here endeth the parable of the playground)
Just watching Gordon Brown on Andrew Marr.
That is, Andrew Marr, he of the major political show that seems to be the only one that such as Mr. Brown seems willing to appear upon.
Can’t really say that he hasn’t tried, a bit, to make a few salient points.
But you have to wonder at the competency of an ‘interviewer’ who is either misinformed and hence ‘wrong’ (according to Dear Leader) or… at best… allows a bullying, blustering waste of space like Brown roll over him and churn out hypothetical stats on what the Conservatives ‘would’ do vs. what he and his GOAT herd have spent the last 12 years doing, and where it has got us, plus the consequences of their current headless chicken style of knew jerk government.
Oh, And every day you are forced to give some of your dinner money to your friend or you will not be allowed to play in the playground even if you only want to play with the other kids and not him
And why on earth has Andrew Marr pre-scuppered a reasonable question on whether the PM is a delusional drug addict by prefacing his question with some ramble on the PM’s eyesight, which Gordon Brown promptly used to totally not answer the question.
I think, at some point, in the fluster that followed, Mr. Marr meekly tried to suggest it had not been, but allowed Mr. Brown to swat it aside by… oh… lying. Again.
Yes he allowed the one eyed prat off the hook, but the sweat on Brown’s ugly face told the truth.
Does he mean us?
JohnTusa, in a letter to the Sunday Times, suggests some tinkering to return the BBC to be (almost) everybody’s favorite
So there you are. I think you would have fun with this agenda. You would find it liberating. I believe the licence fee payers would say “Ah, now that’s the BBC should behave!” With them behind you, you could fight the real battles with your real enemies.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6851111.ece
BBC insider Tusa (continued):
“After the pips, pay cuts at the BBC”
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/article6850632.ece
“Speaking Truth Unto the BBC”
(Charles Moore and Sir Christopher Bland: A Dialogue):
‘Standpoint’ magazine –
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/dialogue-october-09-charles-moore-christopher-bland-bbc?page=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C2
– BNP on ‘Question Time’, 22 October:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5369581/straw-labours-choice-to-take-on-nick-griffin.thtml
BBC News Channel, with the help of Robert Harris, are adopting a stance very sympathetic to Polanski even using the old favorite “alleged” despite their online report stating “Mr Polanski fled the US in 1978 after pleading guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with an underage girl.”.
Is their sympathy with a great artiste whose peccadillos are beyond the understanding of the little people? Is it due to that vindictive hang ’em high US legal system? Don’t know, but I don’t remember Mr Glitter being cut any slack.
<img src=”http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/09/26/article-1216375-06980036000005DC-84_468x358.jpg” alt=”Will Gompertz”/>
‘Daily Mail’- “Maverick: Will Gompertz’s appointment to the well-paid job” [as BBC Arts Editor] “surprised many in the BBC.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216375/BBC-Newss-150-000-star-arts-editor-reported-presented-needs-months-training.html#ixzz0SO1DYT4K
According to the ‘Mail’, the BBC’s Razia Iqbal, was apparently interviewed for the post, but the ‘Mail’ suggests that she was ‘overlooked’.
Is it likely that the BBC would overlook someone who is on the UK’s ‘Muslim Women Power List’? The BBC didn’t overlook appointing a Muslim as head of BBC religious broadcasting.
“Taxpayers fund the ‘Muslim Women Power List”
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/02/taxpayers-fund-muslim-women-power-list.html
Anyway, according to the ‘Mail’, Ms. Iqbal is thinking about whether to sue the BBC:
“It has been rumoured that one of the other candidates, long-standing BBC arts correspondent Razia Iqbal, may even take legal action against her bosses over the appointment.”
Simply to give the BNP and Nick Griffin a fair assessment, the BBC has commissioned one of its preferred people, Indian-born, Marxist Kenan Malik, to act as the sole representative of the British licencepayers here:
“Who’s afraid of the BNP?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8275282.stm
All morning, the BBC have been wondering aloud whether the car scrappage scheme “due to run out this week – hurry, hurry, hurry!” will be extended or not.
Enter stage right, Mandelson who announced that the car scrappage scheme will be continued.
That was a coincidence, wasn’t it – didn’t the BBC raise this qustion at just the right time. What clever bunnies they are.
A news item earlier asked Hattersley why the hall was half empty – a screen behind him showing this to full effect. He said that it wasn’t – reminiscent of the Iraqi information minister – there are no tanks here..
As I type, Dennis McShame is allowed a rant on Pravda 24 at the Tories as having weird, homophobic and racist allies and to me, implying that they are too.
I want my licence fee back – with interest.
“A news item earlier asked Hattersley why the hall was half empty – a screen behind him showing this to full effect. He said that it wasn’t ”
Do the Beeboids ever get tired of aiding & abetting Liebour’s patent falsehoods? Last night on R5, Stephen Pound was seeking to downplay Labour’s unpopularity & stated that opinion was running against all governments, his chum Stephen Nolan interjected “what about Germany”. Pound not to be deflected claimed that Merkel was losing seats in her heartland (something I have not found reported elsehere). Will Nolan reflect on how his chum has roped him into this propaganda?
Is anyone else sick of the BBC’s support for the ousted President of Honduras? Here’s a guy who attempted to violate his country’s Constitution, and was kicked out by the Supreme Court, the legislature, and the military. Because he was trying to follow in the footsteps of his mentor, and BBC darling, Hugo Chavez.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/100952
What does the BBC do? They tell you that he was…shock, horror…“forced from office at gunpoint”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8279243.stm
And then they get an interview with him. The Beeboid support for him is obvious from the questions:
Question: What is the international support for your return?
A: I am in the Brazilian Embassy. [Brazilian] President [Luiz Inacio] Lula [da Silva] and Foreign Minister [Celso] Amorim have opened the doors for me. This is useful for us in calling for a dialogue.
I just spoke to Secretary Insulza [Jose Miguel Insulza of the Organization of American States] who will come in the next few hours. The United Nations will also come, in a commission to begin a dialogue to rebuild Honduran democracy.
So, none really, other than BBC favorite neo-Marxists and Revolutionaries. Rebuild democracy. What a joke.
Question: Have you established contact with the armed forces of your country?
A: No, not yet, I’ve only been here for a couple of hours. We haven’t had the time to do it.
He was thrown out of office for violating the Constitution and attempting to establish himself as President-For-Life, like Chavez has done. He acted against the laws of his country. Why would he possibly have any right to contact the military now? Why would the BBC suggest such a thing, unless they think he is the rightful leader of Honduras?
Question: What would be the conditions for establishing a dialogue with the coup leaders?
A: Well, the main thing is the support of the people, which is essential for starting a dialogue.
It’s not a coup, dopey Beeboids. He was forced from office because he violated the law and was attempting to change the rule of law in the country. That’s not the same thing as a coup. Unless, that is, one thinks he is the rightful leader of the country, and was wronfully removed from office.
Come see the bias inherent in the system.