It’s the weekend, and here is a new Open Thread. Enjoy…
Open Thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- atlas_shrugged Dec 19, 05:18
Midweek 18th December 2024
So they found him a razor to chop his beard off then. - Zephir Dec 19, 03:04
Midweek 18th December 2024
The liars caught out over and over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZX3XFzmTww - BRISSLES Dec 19, 00:58
Midweek 18th December 2024
Perhaps they’re looking to give Chopper (Ive done this, Ive done that ..) Hopeless his own show – he infiltrates… - StewGreen Dec 19, 00:25
Midweek 18th December 2024
GBnews new lineup statement doesn’t mention Dolan https://www.gbnews.com/shows/gb-news-makes-2025-programming-announcement - StewGreen Dec 19, 00:24
Midweek 18th December 2024
Foreign funded Client Earth have been using lawfare trickery to usurp democracy on UK enviro policy, for years They are… - wwfc Dec 18, 23:08
Midweek 18th December 2024
I wonder why this is happening more and more now let me think !! His 61-year-old father collapsed and died… - wwfc Dec 18, 22:50
Midweek 18th December 2024
Well looks like this site will not be around much longer happy heart attack and you paid for it yourself… - atlas_shrugged Dec 18, 22:39
Midweek 18th December 2024
A Turkish crime boss said to be one of Britain’s biggest drug dealers has won his human rights battle against… - Fedup2 Dec 18, 22:20
Midweek 18th December 2024
Me . Every year – I used to get flu and it took me out for 2 or 3 weeks… - Eddy Booth Dec 18, 22:18
Midweek 18th December 2024
[img]https://i.postimg.cc/fL5j2Zh2/Screenshot-20241218-215548.png[/img]
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
Interesting interview on BBC News 24 with a ‘defence expert’ (that normally means someone who has never served in the forces of course) Dan Plesh.
He was being interviewed on the accussation by two ex defence chiefs that basically the one eyed coward lied yesterday.
“It’s political” says Pleash (hint hint those evil Tories) I was surprised how defensive Plesh was of the one eyed fool.
So Googling Plesh we have a man who has campaigned for CND and Greenpeace, hmm, perhaps not so neutral as the BBC would have us believe.
Not been able to directly link him to NuLiebour yet but I’m sure it’s in there somewhere.
But that’s the narrative this weekend to try to smear the generals and big up the great war hero. Brown is our Churchill says the BBC.
Why would the BBC try to hide this persons political history and ties?
Dan Pleash has a book review on his own website where the reviewer describes him as “a political radical in the tradition of George Mombiot and Naomi Klein”
http://www.danplesch.net/whatthepaperssay/2004-11-The-Foreign-Policy-Centre-1-299.htm)
Martin, here’s the link you’re looking for:
http://www.poptel.org.uk/scgn/archive/articles/0206/page12a.htm
Plesch is a Socialist Campaign group guy though rather than a NuLabour one.
A MOUNTAIN TO CLIMB
Geert Wilders is now most certainly in the sights of Europe’s MSM. Yesterday’s Der Spiegel tells how “Wilders, Not Islam, ‘Is Holland’s Biggest Problem'” I felt quite at home, just as if I was reading the BBC website.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,681945,00.html#ref=nlint
Yes Wilders was on Newsnight last night being attacked by a white mini skirt wearing female (Maitlis) who of course can’t see the irony of defending a vile religion that would treat her as a second class citizen in her own Country.
Then on the News 24 paper review (and Sky) he was attacked again. Of course the media are just so out of touch with the views of the ordinary person in the street.
And, a few minutes ago on BBC 24 TV News, BBC’s Ms. Z. Badawi, propagandising for Zuma of South Africa, said, as an opening leading question to some panellist called Abdullah, dressed in Arab garb: ‘Don’t you think there’s been racism in the way some of the British media have criticised Zuma’s polygamy?’
BBC’s Ms. Zainab Badawi:
-comes from a Muslim family (Sudan), and said (2007 ‘Independent’ interview):
“One has to be careful when one uses expressions like ‘Muslim extremist’ or ‘Islamic extremist’. I would prefer ‘Islamist’ just as you have ‘Pacifists’ or people who use a religion in their own way. You could say it’s just semantics but I do think that ‘Islamic violence’ makes it seems as though it’s inherent.”
Badawi says that “as someone who comes from a British-Arab-African-Muslim background, I see now that public opinion does need a lot of guidance on a lot of issues.”
Watch out for Ms. Badawi’s “guidance”.
Zainab the global messenger”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/zeinab-the-global-messenger-451561.html
Great to see Wilders destroy her childish attempt at an ambush, when she ‘stealth-quoted’ the Bible at him.
The self-absorbed flouncing arse clearly underestimated her mark.
The page mentions the bias in a “Childrens Question Time”…imagine no “kid asked Lammy about the state of Higher Education that he was/is repsonsible for-nor the tuition fees that they`ll be paying before too long. Such ide creepy cultural bias of the bloated socialist lime Gree beeb( The Greeb!)
Thought it best to warn you about the Any Questions Time pincer movement going on at the Beeb.
Heard them both and note the baying mob of social workers, gays and Muslims(an unholy alliance alright!) who sneer and houd a Boris or a Ken-as if foxhunting has been turned to Tory taunting . The agendas and questions are all about the Tories unfitness to govern whilst the recent causes of the shambles like Red Ken or Lord Adonis get no blame for the last 13 years. The Dimbleby bores no doubt sent their kids to the Academies and Mosques where they choose to muse at licence payer expense.
Am deeply worried about the rent-a mob who are getting in now to shout down a Tory and let Liebour off any hook. This certainty of the public sector agit prop cloud of mailice and prejudice is leading us fast into a Child Protection hell of their making with dissent to be a sign of your need for rehabilitation-much like that champion of the chattering classes Jon Venables!
I warn you now-if we don`t get wise and be ready to create something else-Shipman will get a plinth in Trafalgar Square for his visionary methods for reducing the burden of the old upon the taxpayer-and Sutcliffe will get a column in the Guardian!
R4 any questions left me incoherent last night it was so slated. I noticed that the ex-beeboid they had on the panel (or should I say ‘foam fllecked’ panel)has graduated from Beebland to senior editor of the New Statesman. How many BBC editors end up working for the Mail?
I had the misfortune to hear a bit of the “One Show” as the vote for any one as long as it is not tory show is apparently called. Brigstock is a truely talentless affront to broadcasting. If he is so concerned about Africa and so unconcerned about the likelihood of transmutation of aid into AK47’s, perhaps he would care to sell all his assets and hand them to a Somali war lord for equitable distribution to people in need. I would be willing to subscribe £50.00 to assist him if, in the event that the tories (or should I say mail reading scum) win, he elects to depart from this fascist hell hole to console people in need in the third world. Come on Marcus, make us proud of you by standing up for your principals head off (permenantly) to Eritrea to oversee the distribution of your wealth. I suggest that we set up a B-BBC pledge fund
Beeboids in Northern Ireland are fretting as to why their beloved Sinn Fein is not embraced in the Republic of Ireland as it is in the corridors of broadcasting house.
Divided votes:Why is Sinn Fein struggling in the south? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8552909.stm
Notice how this Beeboid parasite – the offspring of an Irish nationalist press baron – does not use the terms Northern Irland or Republic of Ireland, and does not think that Sinn Fein IRA’s bloodthirsty past might have a bearing on the matter.
Here’s at least one honest report from the BBC about Mr. Brown’s performance at the Chilcot inquiry.
He’s visiting Afghanistan, and apparently is the only one who left his jacket and tie at home. But they do bring out the criticism, even though overall the piece is slightly weighted in favor of the defense. At least they spell out the criticisms, instead of the more usual “critics are critical” vagueness.
Still, I get the feeling that overall the BBC is uninterested in the result of Mr. Brown’s inquiry. They wanted Blair’s head, won’t get it (you could sense Beeboids dying a little inside every time Mr. Brown defended Blair’s actions), and instead they’re having to discuss boring things like defense expenditure. The Beeboids know the public cares about the troops, even if they don’t, so they have to deal with it. I noticed none of the the ones live-blogging the thing had anything to say about the virtues of Mr. Brown’s thinking of the MoD in time of war as just another government department begging for money. One of them noticed he laughed at the time, but apparently to the BBC that’s a display of confidence, not mendacity.
The MoD overspent by £1.1 billion? It’s an own-goal for the ex-generals, really. The BBC knows the public isn’t going to get too upset about Chancellor Brown not throwing even more money down the Iraq hole nobody likes. Just a few more days on this, and it’ll be over. Unless all the ex-generals make some big united public outcry about needless deaths caused by a lack of support from the Treasury, they can soon gloss right over this and get back to reminding everyone about what things were like under Mrs. Thatcher.
What never gets pointed out though David is the MoD is usually forced ot buy British made crap that takes years to produce is full of flaws and doesn’t do the job instead of buying US off the shelf which is what the GEnerals would like, but they don’t have to face the voters. Well OK neither does Brown but that’s why the MoD is so inefficient at times.
The AEW Nimrod (at least 2 billion wasted)
The SA-80 rifle crap crap crap crap
The army Radio system crap crap crap
And many many more
Good point. I guess that’s one more thing the ex-generals will have to bring that up themselves.
We won’t get a critical article of Labour’s BARONESS ASHTON like that from the BBC.
Her husband is the BBC’s favourite pollster, Peter Kellner, who was on BBC ‘Today’ last week analying the negative effect of Lord Ashcroft.
‘Mail’:
“Who earns more, Hillary Clinton or Baroness Nobody? Cathy Ashton… even though she’s the laughing stock of the EU”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255840/How-Cathy-Ashton-laughing-stock-EU.html#ixzz0hQKBhEG9
The BBC banging on about the New Light patrol vehicle that the monged one announced today, except of course this vehicle has been announced before, but the BBC of course fail to point that out.
Pravda on message as usual.
Useful Jew Tim Franks reveals world-wide anti-Semitism and the anti-Jew editorial policy at the BBC, but seems to be unaware of what he’s saying.
Jerusalem Diary: Found tribe
Franks goes to what he calls “the occupied West Bank”, to report on a so-called “lost tribe” of Jews from India who have moved to Kiryat Arba. He’s compelled to inform us that the entire world considers the area to be “occupied territory”. Fair enough, I suppose, but it’s so important to him and his editor that, when quoting one of these Indian Jews as saying that Jews have a right to live there, Franks repeats again that the world considers this to be “occupied” territory.
The blatant world-wide anti-Semitism, apparently condoned by BBC editorial policy, is in this bit:
The international consensus is that Jews should not be settling in Kiryat Arba at all – that it should be part of a new Palestinian state.
The reason I say this is anti-Semitic is that there is no other group of people on earth whom the rest of the world believe aren’t allowed to live anywhere they want due to ethno-religious reasons. Yet the BBC finds this unremarkable. Time and time again they report on the “occupied West Bank” or some such, and the idea is clear: Jews should not live there.
The problem here is that this isn’t about whether or not Jews should be in control of the area, or whether or not there should be Israeli troops or checkpoints or fences or anything else. This is about Jews not being permitted to live there, full stop, regardless of who’s in charge. If this were a Palestinian-controlled area, Jews would be expelled, and there would be no condemnation from the rest of the world, and the BBC wouldn’t bat an eye.
There’s never a discussion at the BBC of why or why not Jews would continue to be allowed to live in Hebron or any other place outside the 1948 borders. It’s taken as read that Jews have no right to live there, regardless of who’s in charge, yet nobody is allowed to challenge this.
The settlers want to live in places like Hebron for religious reason, not nasty military ones. Sadly, the two are always conflated when Israel’s involved, with the result being that everyone approves when Jews are denied their relgious desires.
If a State of Palestine was created tomorrow in the West Bank, including control of the Jewish settlements, why shouldn’t Jews be allowed to live there as citizens? They clearly wouldn’t be, and the BBC doesn’t see a problem with it, and matter-of-factly states so-called international opinion that they will be expelled.
There is no term for this other than anti-Jewish bias, and it seems to be BBC editorial policy.
BBC’s ‘OUR WORLD’
-How true! BBC 24 hr TV News is re-running its pro-Castro, pro-Guevara propaganda from BBC’s mr. FREI.
It is ‘their world’ of the BBC. In their fantasy political dreams! The gullible Beeboids in their empty ‘cultural relativism’ go for:
Islam, Marxism, expansion of state control, mass immigration, state only education, BBC state subsidised broadcasting, re-writing of history.
Well said David. Spot on.
I noticed by the way, a seemingly more sympathetic slant to another “lost tribe” report, this time from a group in Zimbabwe, the Lemba.
As an anthropological curiosity the beeboid report seemed to be genuinely unbiased.
But let them follow their Indian bretheren to liberated Jewish land, and they would quickly become a sinister, (and black!) settler group with evil designs on olive trees, etc, in the eyes of the beeboid natural order.
All part of the evil plot to keep areas of our planet Judenfrei.
Pure evil. So must be the BBC, as it buys into this nazi ideal.
Something you won’t learn from the BBC:
‘Jihadis’ Have Hamas Running Scared in Gaza
After all, according to the BBC, jihadi’s only exist to fight against nasty foreign policies of the US and evil Israel. So the Beeboids won’t really inform you about things like this.
The commander of Hamas’ armed wing recently penned an urgent letter to Hamas leadership in Damascus lamenting what he called Hamas’ “deteriorating” authority in the Gaza Strip.
In the dispatch, Ahmed Ja’abri claims that Hamas is losing control over the territory, according to reports by London-based Arab-language newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat quoted by the Jerusalem Post.
Dhimmi BBC playing games: caves, as usual, to Muslim (‘Asian’) political pressure:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8553098.stm
David Cameron’s wife Samantha may have voted Labour in the past – and could even vote for Gordon Brown in the next Election, one of the couple’s closest friends has claimed.
Senior Tory MP Ed Vaizey raises the extraordinary possibility in a Channel 4 film to be broadcast tomorrow.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256061/Mrs-Cameron-voted-Labour-Source-suggests-Tory-leaders-wife-voted-Blair–vote-Brown.html#ixzz0hS4R0ARj
There is only a few weeks to an election and the conservatives are on a mission to lose. These people do not deserve to win. What planet do they live on?
Not only is Camerons wife a Labour supporter but it seems like the whole conservative party are too. I bet Churchill is rotating in his grave
This story turned out to be a wilful misinterpretation of Vaizey’s clumsily-framed assertion that Cameron’s target voter was “the (kind of) woman who sleeps with him”, a sort of upmarket ‘Worcester Woman’ who may once have voted for Blair and who may still be naturally sympathetic to centre-left ideals. Absolutely no allegations about Samantha Cameron’s personal voting intentions or history were made, and from the TV evidence the original report was either malicious or incompetent.
Mr. Crick seems to have managed admirably to turn the available ‘facts’ into some kind of story, not that it has impressed many, or much:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/03/politically_divided_couples_ar.html
One can only presume that, unsatisfied with merely ‘interpreting events’, as suggested Aunty sees her mission now to have moved on to wilful misinterpretation.
Anyone see the BBC fast track puff piece about plucky little Maldives efforts to become ‘carbon neutral’?
Its funny how the BBC forgets to mention anything that distracts from the Maldives poster boy status for the AGW cult. The BBC neglects to mention how much AGW cult cash has been injected into the Maldives leaders bank accounts to help them peddle the fraud, no mention that the actual sea levels around the Maldives are in fact not rising at all.
There was a direct effort to find a small nation that could be used as an example of the supposed effects of global warming by the AGW fraudsters and the Maldives was chosen because it is low lying,tiny and had er…uhm..maleable leaders who could be er…persueded to flog the AGW/help us we are drowning like the polar bear scam, very telegenic is the Maldives and that is just what the fraudsters like in a poster boy!
The BBC in its haste to peddle the heart string tugging pictures forgot to present a full and accurate picture including all the uncomfortable facts. One has to wonder how much buyoff cash has been sunk into the Maldives by the AGW fraudsters, my guess its lots and lots.
The BBC is an institution that Stalin and Lysenko would be proud of!
It’s happened before, happens now and will doubtless happen for ever more.
But for the life of me I cannot comprehend how BBC employees are allowed to engage in rampant personal opinion on their twitter pages.
Especially when they seem to feel the need to include in their bios to top right the objective national broadcaster for whom they do God’s work, plus its URL, which pretty much binds their employer to their views.
Bob Geldof, part of the BBC pantheon of charity saints and demi-gods, has actually registered a complaint to Ofcom about a BBC World Service report that a lot of the aid money he raised in Ethiopia went to buy weapons. Good for the BBC for finally investigating this kind of thing. They should have done this years and years ago, when St. Bob and St. Bono first started their charity noise for Africa, as many people have been complaining for ages that much of the money raised inevitably winds up in the wrong hands.
Geldof says there’s not a shred of evidence, and that the BBC has been taken in by opposition leaders and others. He also says he’ll sue Ethiopia and spend any money he gets out of it on aid. I hope he’ll have a different distribution mechanism in place if it comes to that, but good for him for caring and taking responsibility, as it’s far more than most celebrities do.
In defense, the World Service boss says “there’s a clear public interest in determining” what happened to the money raised. Very true. Especially, I’d say, since the BBC lends so much support to these causes, and their own credibility is at stake. They ought to be doing this for all the charity concerts and appeals they promote with your license fee.
There must be some amusing upper-management discussions going on right now. Do they dare fight this and anger St. Bob, and risk losing the ratings and celebrity schmoozing they get whenever he does one of his charity shows? And, if their report turns out to be accurate and the charity result turns out to be corrupt and discredited, will this affect the BBC’s ability to get ratings and celebrity appearances from all the other appeals they promote every year? Interesting times, if this goes anywhere.
The World Service made the wrong choice about ratings and cash versus reporting the truth back when China blocked them briefly for critical reporting about Tibet during the weeks before the Olympics. They chose business over journalism in that case, at least while the Olympics lasted. I wonder what they’ll choose this time.
I see that Harriet Harman is still pushing the Lord Ashcroft story and of course the BBC are happy to assist and thus try and keep the public’s attention away from the UK economy’s collapse and the misdirection – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8554219.stm
Here’s yet another pathetic gaffe by The Obamessiah which the BBC will not report, even though they spared no effort to tell you about even the slightest thing which made George Bush look foolish.
Apparently, the man the BBC kept telling you was brilliant and worldly and educated and infinitely intellectually superior to His predecessor doesn’t know the difference between King Arthur and Henry VIII.
(The “he” is Chicago spinmeister and the President’s closest aide, David Axelrod)
Sitting at his desk next door to the Oval Office last week, he was tearing into a five-inch corned beef sandwich on rye with a Flintstone-size turkey drumstick waiting on deck. “I am the poster child for the president’s obesity program,” he said.
A few minutes later, Mr. Obama walked in unannounced, scattering two aides like startled pigeons. “Hey,” Mr. Axelrod said by way of greeting (no “sir” or “Mr. President.”) Mr. Obama surveyed the spread on Mr. Axelrod’s desk with a slight smirk.
“What is this, King Arthur’s court?” he asked, then pulled Mr. Axelrod aside to talk about a health care speech he was about to deliver.
This is from the New York Times, so the Beeboids know about it. But since they still swear by the brilliance and deep knowledge of the candidate who said He was visiting all 57 states of the US, this won’t alter their opinion of Him one bit. And it’s another gaffe of His they won’t tell you about, nor will there be any jokes about it from the myriad of Leftoid comedians who get air time on the BBC.
As the BBC advocates: vote Labour for more ‘diversity’, through even more mass immigration, paid for by higher taxes on British people:
“British taxpayers to fork out millions more in benefits for EU migrants”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256108/British-taxpayers-fork-millions-benefits-EU-migrants.html#ixzz0hWg8YR48
Thank you Labour’s Baroness Ashton.
It’s hyperbole – but wait till the BBC hears about this!:
“Cameron unleashes Immigration battle”
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/162045/Cameron-unleashes-immigration-battle
The BBC sees a parallel between the Palestinians’ “struggle against Isareli occupation” of the West Bank and that of the Scots against the English. I guess they want you to think of Yassir Arafat as the Palestinian William Wallace.
This is a history fail on a number of levels. Suffice to say that comparing the attack by surrounding Arab countries on Israel in 1967 to Edward I’s campaign in Scotland is pretty close to being an all-out lie. But the BBC sympathizes with the Palestinians, and rewrites history so that you might feel the same way.
Iraq is wrapping up its second free democratic election since Sadaam Hussein was removed from power, against the wishes of the BBC and their fellow travelers. Naturally, John Simpson can’t rain on that parade hard enough.
Bombers fail to derail Iraq’s election success
The headline is just about the only positive thing in the whole piece. Simpson spends most of the article reminding everyone how violent it is, we can’t call it a success really. He even tries to discredit the election process itself by describing the ballot as being “unwieldy and awkward”, explaining that there are just too many candidates and factions, and it makes people trust the politicians even less.
Simpson can’t find a single positive thing to say about the courage or dedication of the Iraqi people themselves, trying to make the best of their country. That’s the key: it’s their country now. But Simpson doesn’t want you to dwell on that.
He even reveals his own blindness, and the Narrative which we’ve noticed many times from the rest of the BBC:
The campaign of sectarian killing is beginning to seem like mindless nihilism, rather some sort of clear-cut political strategy.
Beginning to? It’s been that way the whole time. These people were never the freedom fighters or dutiful Muslims engaged in a perfectly understandable struggle against an illlegal invasion that the BBC and most of the Left made them out to be. Shia versus Sunni violence existed for its own sake long before George Bush was a twinkle in his father’s eye. Those who practice caveman Islam have always been nihilistic butchers who value death more than life.
But the BBC sympathized with them from the start, not because the Beeboids actually support jihad, but because of their own imagined Narrative about who these people were, and what they wanted, and against whom they were fighting. It existed mostly in their own heads, of course. John Simpson is just now noticing reality.
On the crashingly boring BH (broadcasting house – geddit?) on Sunday morning the self-anointed humourist Christian O’ Connell managed to have an interesting section on ‘what the papers say’. In fact they should keep this bit and bin the rest of the programme.
Anyway, somewhat disappointed that none of his guests had penned a circle round the BBC’s Big Story of the Decade (the precise residency status of the man who contributes 1% of Tory funding) Christian had to dive in with ‘So does anyone have a view on the Ashcroft saga?’.
BBC Open war on the Tories.
Let’s hope it’s reciprocated after May 6.
Not one for BBC to report: another indictment of mass immigration and E.U.:
“Migrants will get benefits after three months”
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/162105/Migrants-will-get-benefits-after-three-months
‘Mail’ headline:
“‘Hypocrite’ Harman refuses to answer questions about Labour’s major funders”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256169/Harriet-Harman-refuses-answer-questions-Labours-major-funders.html#ixzz0hZku2ejm
BUT –
Pro-Labour BBC headline:
“Lord Ashcroft should lose party role -Harman”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8554219.stm
Just a minor bit of bias in Barbara “Tears” Plett’s report on International Women’s Day at the UN.
Women’s rights under spotlight at the UN
Overall, her piece is fair enough. The BBC is criticizing the UN for a change, which is nice to see. The main point of the report seems to be a criticism that the UN’s efforts on women’s rights aren’t functioning properly because their agenda is driven by donors and mandarins, and not enough attention is paid to “women on the ground”.
Any credit given to Plett for finally seeing the reality of what the UN is all about is diminished by her going to Mary Robinson for a comment to back up her claim. Robinson complains that the UN’s program is “far too top down”, and they aren’t listening to real people enough. Which is really funny coming from the former Human Rights Commissioner at the UN, a department whose agenda is largely driven by….well, you know.
But the BBC forgot about that, and instead in the caption listed her only as the former Irish PM. No mention at all that Robinson is exactly the kind of UN mandarin the report is complaining about. As she’s spouting the narrative the BBC wants, though, she gets a free pass.
One tiny positive is a camera shot just before the end, showing the delegation from Iran. Three women in full swaddle, with a dominant male. The woman next to him looks oppressed just sitting there. It’s only a couple of seconds, but in the context of the voice-over and in contrast to the rest of the women attendees, I see that camera shot as a subtle criticism of Iran and oppressive Muslim countries. Which is better than nothing from the BBC.
Evan Davis had on a Leftoid community activist from the Complaints Choir to discuss what he portrays as a growing movement of activism. The broader topic of the segment is the need for a bunch of Socialist-type efforts which the Young Foundation says the government must pay attention to. I assume this can only mean they want funding, but Davis just lets the Young Foundation guy promote his cause unquestioned.
Davis clearly giggled at clip of the choir singing, and later sarcastically referred back to it. He was basically expressing an editorial opinion of the music, and even though I agree that it was crap, he shouldn’t be doing that. Lousy amateur singing doesn’t undermine the cause at hand. But it’s acceptable at the BBC for presenters to express their opinion of all kinds of things as they go, and I’m sure nobody thought anything of it.
The real bias here, though, is the treatment of the Complaints Choir. Davis says this is a new way for people to get their voices heard if they don’t like the way their town or country is being run. It’s all very soft, totally uncritical, just air time for the cause, really.
At no time did we learn if all these people who are unhappy with government and trying to do something about it are white and middle class. When it’s the Tea Parties in the US, the BBC consistently points out (when they deign to report on it) that the people doing it are white and middle class, conservative, don’t like big government, etc. But when people are agitating from the Left, there is no mention of race or class or political persuasion.
If it’s an integrated movement which moves across race and class boundaries, we ought to be told, as that would be (using BBC logic) the only way it could be credible. If not, we ought to be told that, too. It’s left unexamined due to BBC bias.
The BBC’s coverage of Nigeria is an absolute disgrace.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8555018.stm
Have a guess the members of which religion were killed here and which were the killers.
You’ll have to guess because the report merely describes “muslim-christian” tension and the headline puts it down to ethnic not religious reasons.
Even the guardian has it as sectarian and religious based tension.
Of course they sink even lower and ‘suggest’ the vile slaughter was some sort of righteous reprisals for earlier misdemeanours, had they been a handful in Bosnia or Iraq no doubt the BBC would be calling for warcrimes trials, but in typical racist as well as religious bias fashion of the real face of the BBC as they are black and christian victims they call for nothing.
The BBC – just plain sick.
Why is it I sound like Mandy Rice Davies so often? As WATO (world at one) kept reporting that Bob Ainsworth had said that Gordon had given the armed forces all they had wanted (needed?) – I kept shouting at the raidio ‘Well he would say that, wouldn’t he’ inevitably the dear BBC doesn’t seem to need to query if it is true?
Mark Mardell is promoting ObamaCare again. No analysis, no alternate viewpoint ever seriously considered, just another brief bit of propaganda about the domestic agenda of a foreign country.
Now he’s even openly sympathizing with his subject:
He thinks they should go for a majority vote, after all, not abandon the project. To be honest, as a reporter it is one of those moments one’s heart sinks and you think: “How can I salvage this?”.
No joke, Mardell is emotionally involved. As usual, he chooses his words carefully. His interview subject isn’t in lock-step on all issues? Opinion is “fluid”. “Change” means only going with nationalized health care and massive debt, with no other possibilities allowed, such as fixing the government-run health care that already exists, or breaking localized insurance monopolies to reduce costs. None of this is ever considered by Mardell. No, to him, “change” means only making one specific choice, but the term is vague enough to sound magnanimous.
And Mardell now seems to be ennobling his beloved Obamessiah by saying that he almost believes that He would seriously sacrifice a second term for His Health Care Plan For Us. The worship never ends.
I know the religious-speak I keep using when disucssing the BBC’s coverage of the President is getting old, but the Christ angle really is coming full circle here. During the elcection, and for the first 100 days of office, the BBC kept telling us that electing a black man would redeem the US from the sin of slavery. Moreover, He was going to be The One who will save the country and eventually transform the world. Now that it’s clear that’s not going to happen, Mardell is suggesting that He will sacrifice Himself for us. The parallel couldn’t be more clear.
The BBC hardtalk charade interviewed conservative front bench spokesperson for culture Jeremy Hunt, who? yeah me too!
It was Ashcroft ad nauseum with a Hunt out of his depth and looking llike Bambi faced by a rottweiler in a bad mood. Mr Hunt is a big fan of the BBC it seems, its a national institution and he seems to labour under the BBC peddled myth that we all love and cherish the BBC, a Tory fawning and waxing lyrical about a BBC that hates and despises the entire right wing and the Tories in particular certainly rings alarm bells with me.
To see a so called Tory doe eyed and defensive and unsure of his own position was sad to see but indicative of Camerons Tory party, frightened rabbits with lots to hide, bumbling fools who appear to be nothing more than lightweight puppets with all the substance of a morning mist!
You just know that if the Tory leadership are intent on creeping to the BBC there is something very very wrong about the Tory leadership.
It is to the immense discredit of the Conservative individuals and the party support system that competent interviewees either do not exist or the lure of ‘exposure’ seduces wholly inappropriate representatives on to further compromise party messages, such as they are.
And yet, other than the blip that was Andrew Marr going off message for a moment, the point that Labour is just as mired is being lost daily.
I know that is a ‘two wrongs’ strategy, but the BBC has to be confronted with the fact that, until it does tackle abuse evenly, and that includes any from its idealogical partners, by being complicit in one sided efforts of this nature they are totally responsible for ensuring it will all continue.
Hardtalk – Nazir-Ali absolutely slaughtered Sackur last night, Sackur seemed flabbergasted by some of the answers to his downright rude and preposterous questions, his researchers clearly let him down and he didnt do enough or indeed any research of his own.
I lost count of the times Nazir-Ali had to say “not at all” in response to one of Sackur’s ‘questions’. ‘Questions’ being a leading assertion with a query attached at the end of a statement in full expectation that it is something the interviewee cannot entirely disagree with and because of acknowledging it a little the crack in the door is open to further allegation, he never even got that far.
And Sackur’s attempts to say he was overly prescriptive (he was a bishop!) were a shambolic failure. I assume by Sackur’s protestations that he personally has a less than clear moral history and he was flailing about in the hope of getting some succour, but he was asking the wrong questions, it was really very poor.
Nazir-Ali stands up more for Britain and the British, our culture, tradition and values (whether you agree with his religious perspective or not) than the so called indigenous British, sad but true. That seemed well beyond Sackur and the BBC.
You would have thought that the Conservatives would have briefed Hunt about how to counter this kind of thing (per Nazir-Ali). Although I didn’t see either interview on Hard Talk it comes as little surprise that yet another Conservative front bencher was caught in the BBC headlights. This is consistent with the Conservative decision (since 2005) not to play “party politics” but to act as a “constructive” opposition. This sounds reasonable but, in reality, it has meant that the Conservatives have stopped opposing altogether. Their policies are little different from Labour or the LibDems or, where they are, the Conservatives fail consistently to explain exactly where the difference lies. The only clear difference I can see is that, unlike Labour and the LibDems, and despite the woeful state of the national finances, the Conservatives have pledged to increase real expenditure on the money-pit that is the NHS . Even the most idiotic of the electorate has recognised that throwing more money down the NHS drain just gets you more bureaucracy, not better health provision.
This morning the Times reports that the Conservatives are even failing to make an impact in the target marginals. In other words, the grief they are taking re Ashcroft (in return for using his money in those marginals) is producing no countervailing benefit. If it weren’t so tragic, it would be funny. Because Cameron adopted Blair’s persona at just the time the electorate saw through that conman’s act, Cameron’s Conservatives are now reaping the “reward” for trying to be more Blairite than Blair.
Coming back to the BBC: the irony is that the BBC could be genuinely impartial and still make the Conservatives look like the idiots they have become. There’s no need to stack QT, Marr etc with Labour/LibDem dildos – the Conservative dildos condemn themselves utterly each time they try (and fail) to explain why they deserve a chance in power.
True. That’s the problem with being on the losing side of the class war. The Tories have to prove that they’re wetter than Labour in order to overcome the toff factor. Yet one more reason why it was a mistake to put Cameron as leader.
The vacuous empty space called Hunt was invited onto BBC hardtalk for one reason only, he is billed as a rising star by the beeboid Sackur and that is the first clue right there isnt it?
Hunt comes over as a weak uncertain fool, shifty and nervous almost as if the BBC could not have chosen a better representative of its most hated ideological enemy.
That has been the BBC/labour plan from the getgo, divide and weaken,misrepresent and demean, leading the weakest links in an already weak front bench out to be slaughtered and the BBC played it perfectly.
The narrative is simple, if this is a rising star then what a bunch of wet blankets they are.
Watch the haldtalk guest list, they know exactly how to run a pro labour anti right wing propaganda opperation and time after time the vacuous weakling Tory fools walk into the trap scratching their collective heads like a caricature of Stan Laurel.
The BBC are to blame for their partisan plotting and scheming but the foolish and weak Tory front bench are to blame for willingly falling for the scam again and again, its like watching a 30s knockabout comedy in real life.
I ask the simple question, if these morons fall for the traps of the BBC time after time, how the heck are they going to hold their s**t together in government when the real big bad wolves in the world start circling?
We are now being given a choice between a mad,devious, and nasty bunch of emotional cripples/crooks and a bunch of limp wristed empty vessels with all the vigour and grit of a stoned vegan peacenik.
If the Conservatives are on the losing side of the class war then they’ve got little to gain by pretending that they aren’t toffs. Mrs T wasn’t much liked by the majority opf those who voted for her: manifestly though, they respected her. She was frank and straightforward and unashamed about what she believed in, said so and – insofar anyone in power is capable of so doing – was consistent in applying those principles.
OTOH it’s obvious to the electorate that Cameron and his team are marked by a complete lack of principle. If you’re a “toff”, why pretend otherwise? Boris doesn’t and doesn’t appear to suffer for it (although BBC London news tries its hardest). The electorate is aware that Brown (and his team) and Clegg (and his team) are also unprincipled and will do and say anything for a favourable sound-bite on Today (not difficult). The difference is that Brown plays to his clientele – the benefiterati and the public sector “workers” and Cleggie to his (the wet middle class who, for instance, can’t bring themselves to actually be vegetarian but would like anyone in authority to force them and everybody else to have a meatless diet). Accordingly Brown receives a consistent 30-33% in the polls while Cameron who has effectively dumped his clientele (the responsible, law-abiding, private sector working, tax-paying, sceptical – of both EU and AGW) for the mythical “middle ground”, struggles to maintain a slim lead. Actually, you only have to read the comments from the Cameroons on ConservativeHome
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/
to understand why the Conservatives are imploding.
No disagreement from me on that. If anything, it’s a top-down problem.
The Cameroons made a deliberate choice to ditch its grassroots and natural supporters in an effort to grab this ephemeral middle ground progressive voter when in fact they do not exist.
In fact the Cameroons are a product of of a newlabour invented mirage, these new Tory products constructed soley to appeal to a fake construct. There is in reality no middle ground in real politics, there is the left and there is the right, the right seemed to be losing ground so the Tories decided to move toward the left in an effort to garner support from this supposed new class of voter when in fact they never actually existed, they were an invention of newlabour and its very clever marketing and advertising department and the Tories fell for it, they constructed a reply to this fake construct and tried to align itself near to it.
The result of this ludicrous stupidity is plain to see, they have ditched their natural support for a false construct, the pendulum has swung to the right as it always does and the new Tories having moved to try and meet that swinging pendulum now see it passing them by!
The moral of the story is never betray your grassroots principles for the sake of power because even if you gain power that way it leads nowhere.
Now that the pendulum has swung to the right, the right has nobody to look to other than UKIP/BNP, thereby splitting the vote and possibly allowing the liblab pact a shot at power,its a tragedy isnt it?
The latest edition of the Radio Times features a ‘You Ask the Questions’ section.
This is what Alan Munro, Birmingham asks David Dimbleby:
Could BBC 1’s Question Time do with more varied panels? The standard line-up of three politicians from the main centre-right parties, a journo from a centre-right newspaper, plus one other, turns me off.
There’s either a very delusional man walking the streets of Birmingham or someone (at the BBC? at Labour HQ?) has made this letter up!
Sounds exactly like a planted letter penned by a beeboid, what you see is a typical reaction of the BBC. They respond to critisism with fakey and forgery, they peddle false and fake reports and rig audiences on a daily basis and even rig childrens competitions FHS. A rigged caller here and a planted question there is meat and drink to the BBC monster and no amount of expensive honesty courses involving jello and crying will change that.
My Sky subscription has gone up by £3 per year. Murdoch won’t see a penny though, it’ll all go to the BBC to ensure that trash like Eastenders and Casualty can continue to be made even in the teeth of the recession.
I’m fed up of paying the government for permision to use my TV. It’s not as if they use the money wisely on schools or hospitals, preferring to squander it on utter rubbish TV programmes like Flog Its and celebrity dancing competitons.
Nice to see Newsnight led last night on a dredged up story about an alleged paedophile Irish Catholic priest, on the day when a homegrown pervert gets sent down for murdering a 17 year old girl and serious questions need to be asked. But look elsewhere for that.
At the BBC perversion and seduction of the young automatically means Catholic priests.
Nice to know, via the likes of Mr. Miliband and his PR divisions, that the science is settled.
However, one has to wonder a tad when reading such as this, with several telling links:
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/poor-overall-quality-of-bbc-science-pages-not-just-climate-change/
World Service Beeboid (Paul Henley?) working to defend Baroness Ashcroft against criticism right now. He’s even giving the poor Swedish Foreign Minister a hard time because, even though the guy is trying to be supportive of Ashton, he had previously criticized her on one small point. The Beeboid speaks critically of complaints he’s seen in the newspapers, and asks the Swedish diplomat if he’s “surprised” by how strong and “personal” some of the complaints are, especially the French ones. His position is clearly that criticism of Ashton is wrong.
Funny I don’t remember the BBC every showing concern about how personal attacks on George Bush or Sarah Palin were. In fact certain Beeboids have made some extremely personal remarks. But when it’s about someone they support, out comes the tiny violin.
BBC unable to criticise Gaddafi ( – he’s Labour’s chum).
Here’s Hugh Fitzgerald re- jihadist Gaddafi and dhimmi Obama govt
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/dhimmitude-at-the-state-department-official-apologizes-for-remarks-about-libyas-declaration-of-jihad.html#comment-649014
BBC’s uncritical effort:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8558764.stm
I have just endured the Newsnight debate on education which managed to completely avoid mentioning two all important facts
1. Private education is demonstrably superior to state- discuss why and in what way.
2. Selection by academic ability- is this the obvious answer to social mobility or so much a taboo subject that it must never be mentioned.
Any debate that ignores these realities is not worth a light.
The Cameron tories are scared of real debate so put up a softie like Gove who just wants to be thought a nice caring new conservative.
Even Paxman looked bored.
Oh dear!
The BBC are at it again trying to support yet another failing attempt by the Italian leftists to attack its very popular leader Berlusconi.
This time the BBC are hawking the utterly fake grassroots campaign called ‘IL POPOLO VIOLA’.
This supposed grassroots movement created to look like the tea party movement by the utterly unpopular Italian left is advertised as having no leadership or political agenda and the BBC of course are all over it with prime time coverage(quelle surprise).
The leftists in Italy are divided and unpopular, the majority of Italians having seen the dmage a leftist government wreaked has turned to the right and Berlesconi is still very popular so the left do what the left does best, they tried smears and dirty tricks, baseless accusations and that didnt work so now they are trying the fake grassroots campaign and obviously the BBC are in like Flint to peddle it as though this fake movement was genuine.
The BBC are nothing if not repetative and the starry eyed beeboid reporting this fake tea party movement does so in glowing terms, there is no leadership he pants adoringly apart from a caravan and a laptop! The shiny eyed beeboid says “no one can say how many members this (fake) movement has” hmmmm! beeboid shorthand for not very many?
Oooh dear, how boringly familiar the BBC has become when reporting on Italy, in the pockets of the leftists who are desperately trying to regain support in any way they can the BBC is merely a mouthpiece for the left in general.
This fake grassroots campaign run and directed by the Italian left will fail and/or be found out for the fakery it is and the BBC will simply move on with no further investigation, a classic piece of BBC throwaway trash reporting designed to peddle the leftist narrative.
The BBC cannot be arsed to cover up their lies and grubby deceit anymore can they?
Will BBC, in its sycophancy to E.U., mention this disgrace:
“Now Brussels says the loyalty and bravery of the Swiss isn’t European”
(Mary Ellen Synon)
http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2010/03/now-brussels-says-the-loyalty-and-the-bravery-of-the-swiss-isnt-european.html
So Chile now has a right wing president at the helm and as usual the BBC concentrates on the outgoing socialist Bacholet with a tiny spot for new president and as always tagging him with the billionaire label.
The BBC will now do what the BBC does best, Chile will now simply dissapear from the BBC radar unless there are rent a mob protests drummed up by the left of course.
The innauguration of the new Chilean leader(he is a billionaire btw) goes unreported by and large with a loving farewell to the outgoing socialists(ooh how wonderful they were)going by the BBC covereage its a wonder why they were not re elected again(funny that).
So just like New Zealand the BBC will simply forget that these nations exist, just a couple of non nations now, pity those foolish Chileans made the mistake of voting for the right wing conservative leadership Sebastian Pinera who is a billionaire btw.
Mark Mardell continues to be confused about what fool United Statesians call “civil rights”.
Armed and ready to shop
Mardell moves on from promoting ObamaCare to another Leftoid pet peeve: guns. Since his entire purpose is to express the Leftist British point of view on US issues, it’s no surprise that he approaches this one from the perspective that anyone wanting to own and carry a gun must be wrong somehow.
He dutifully records the opinions of people interviews, but he doesn’t even try to hide his bafflement. He stops short of insults or criticizing their beliefs (they’re not at a Tea Party protest, after all), but he does say things which reveal his own opinion.
Like cowboys out of Westerns, the couple carry handguns on holsters on their hips. She has a Smith and Wesson .38 special with a cute pink grip that makes it look almost like a toy. He has a rather more chunky Glock.
Something like this can come out of the mouth only of someone who doesn’t understand the issue, and clearly comes from the other side of it. Mardell remarks that the pink grip makes the gun resemble a toy, but that’s his perspective, and it’s clearly one of disapprova: guns are scary business, so of course it must be wrong to make it look cute. This is actually an insulting attitude towards the real respect and seriousness with which any of these people actually treat guns. But that’s where Mardell is coming from. As he is when he says this about a large man who claims to carry a gun in part for protection:
He’s a beefy guy, with bulging muscles, so I ask: Isn’t he rather intimidating when he’s armed as well?
Intimidating to whom, exactly? Obviously it’s the anti-gun Beeboid who’s intimidated, when the guy was talking about criminals. So the answer is yes, it makes the guy more intimidating, but that’s the point. Mardell gets it exactly backwards.
Continued below. Apologies for yet another two-parter, but Echo’s word count feature hates me.
(Mardell and guns continued)
Of course, he’s wrong about the Obamessiah angle as well. He’s right when he says that a lot of people were worried that the new President was going to severely restrict gun rights. After all, He said He would during the election, and made that infamous remark about people who “cling to their guns or religion”. Mardell tries to play those concerns as being unfounded by showing that some local cases have gone in favor of gun rights. As he has no clue about how the US works, he doesn’t realize that states and courts have more independence on these matters and the President doesn’t have absolute power over everything. He’s also been too busy with other issues to deal with gun control.
But never mind all that, Mardell obviously wants you to think that these gun nuts are just wrong. The Narrative is that there really is no threat of rights restrictions, they give mixed messages about their motivations for carrying guns, and so must be wrong.
He’ll be doing a full report on this tonight. I can’t wait.
Great news: all the old comments from HaloScan before the switch to the new system are now working perfectly with the archived posts. The Echo folks imported them all. The pop-up window function for comments seems to be back as well. I’m glad as I was afraid that all those great discussions with Beeboids had been lost, or at least would have been nearly impossible to find.