As requested, have a nice weekend!
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- MarkyMark Nov 15, 10:12
Midweek 13th November 2024
WE WILL HAVE ONE GIANT POT OF MONEY – WITH NO IDEA WHERE IT ALL GOES “Rachel Reeves will announce… - MarkyMark Nov 15, 10:10
Midweek 13th November 2024
LESSONS WILL BE LEARNT/REPEATED … Not only was PFI extremely costly — and extremely profitable for the private sector —… - MarkyMark Nov 15, 10:09
Midweek 13th November 2024
If only this guy had been in Iraq – he would have been at home. “Iraq to lower the ‘age… - Zephir Nov 15, 09:56
Midweek 13th November 2024
FFS like all those nursery and primary school teachers telling parents what they are allowed to feed their children, and… - Flotsam Nov 15, 09:50
Midweek 13th November 2024
Government to create Pension Megafunds. I’m not sure whether it’s going to be public sector funds only that will be… - MarkyMark Nov 15, 09:49
Midweek 13th November 2024
The BBC TV license fee is £169.50 per year, which is a 6.6% increase from the previous fee of £159.… - vlad Nov 15, 09:46
Midweek 13th November 2024
If I was well-disposed towards the BBC, I’d advise: wake up and smell the coffee. Acknowledge that a revolution is… - MarkyMark Nov 15, 09:38
Midweek 13th November 2024
650 MPs to implement assisted killing (dying) by being trail blazers - Fedup2 Nov 15, 09:24
Midweek 13th November 2024
If I recall the ‘debate ‘ on state assisted killing is in the commons on the 29th of November with…
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
ANC’s Julius Malema lashes out at ‘misbehaving’ BBC journalist
Furious youth leader ejects reporter from Johannesburg press conference calling him a ‘bloody agent’ with ‘that white tendency’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/08/anc-julius-malema-bbc-journalist
Demonstrating the concern of black leaders for the promotion of love, peace and racial harmony in the Rainbow Nation, the ANC Youth League President politely informed Jonah Fisher:
“Don’t come here with that white tendency. Not here. You can do it somewhere else. Not here. If you’ve got a tendency of undermining blacks, even where you work, you are in the wrong place. Here you are in the wrong place.”
Fisher responded: “That’s rubbish. That’s absolute rubbish.”
Malema continued: “You can go out. Rubbish is what you have covered in that trouser. That is rubbish. You are a small boy, you can’t do anything.”
As Fisher left, Malema continued to educate him about black racial tolerance in the New South Africa:
Collecting his dictaphone and walking out, Fisher said: “I didn’t come here to be insulted.”
Malema bellowed after him: “Go out. Go out. Bastard! Go out. You bloody agent!”
Coupla things:
I can’t find this story anywhere on the BBC website and it was not on the World Service. The BBC does not regard it as newsworthy? Perhaps it is ashamed of Jonah Fisher. After all you don’t challenge black South African leaders in that fashion – it is simply not done.
Did Fisher file a report on his treatment at the hands of Malema, and if so why was it not published? And if he didn’t report it why did his editors not ask him to once the story broke elsewhere?
There’s a strong likelihood of the BBC being ejected from South Africa, as it was from Zimbabwe. You cannot talk back to black dictators and expect to carry on with business as usual. Perhaps this is the real reason for the BBC’s silence.
It is probably also the reason why none of the other journalists at the conference showed solidarity with Fisher by also walking out – although I guess that would be against journalistic instincts.
I think I posted elsewhere, but imagine if it had been an Israeli politician, instead of a black South African ! It would be the BBC’s top news story for weeks.
BBC journalist thrown out of Israeli press conftence for having a Palestenain mentality. It would be all over every news report for a week, every R4 comedian would be spewing anti-Israeli antisemitic bile, the human rights industry would be in full shrill….
but when a black skinned communist makes a racist attack on free speech …well that’s aright then.
What would the “white tendency” be. Perhaps objecting to the slaughter of 3000 white farmers. The same number of deaths as the NI “troubles”.
From Our Own Correspondent today had a Beeb woman wandering around a Boer district, very smarmy of course, nil recognition that the descendants of the original Dutch farmers feel they have a culture to try to defend.
One of her throway lines – ” spates of killings of white farmers, stemming from large inequalities”.
That sounds very close to defending large numbers of murder on grounds of “I know we are a rainbow nation, but I’m poor, Guv”.
Why doesn’t the BBC save money by cutting out its own people and letting the ANC send in all the reports from South Africa ?
Of course it will be kept quiet. The World Cup is on the horizon and the media is desperate to attend and enjoy it. Also does anybody really think negative publicity is going to do anything to encourage visitors from the rest of the world?
The media will let it go by.
There was a 15 min profile of Malema on R4, Sunday in which they played him actually ordering Fisher to leave as an example of youyh section leader’s tendency to intemperate language. While we were told that this was a reaction to Fisher’s ‘You live in Sanditon’ remark, I don’t think it was mentioned whether he actually left or not. It was skated over very qickly, as though a trivial incident was being alluded to, rather than giving full details.
BBC1 Breakfast news headlines at 8:30. Newsreader headlines the Tory plans for marriage tax break. Beeboid reads out the Lib Dems attack. Then we get 30 seconds of Ed Balls knocking it. No Tory to be seen or heard defending it.
Now I appreciate that they *might* have had a Tory on earlier to explain it (but if they did I know they would have also had the other 2 on to rubbish it at the same time), but if someone had just tuned in like I did, all they would have got from that headline section was Labour’s view.
That’s bias. Any sneaky chance the BBC get, they will promote Labour’s voice above anyone else.
They followed Ed Balls interview with “the tory chap xxxxxxx (i can’t remember his name)” will be on in half an hour to discuss it. Ed Balls came accross as a bit of an idiot (as usual) and the Tory person spoke half an hour later – whats the problem in your biased little world?!
Probably just as well Nick Robinson doesn’t bother to read his blog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/04/back_to_the_fut_2.html#P94713738
Or, for that matter, those who pay (well approve the salary) him.
Good catch. Robinson is so compromised. You’d think he’d have learned from last year’s double-cross from No. 10.
I quite like Nick Robinson, quite often his former role as head of the Young Conservative party and seemingly genuine dislike of Labour comes through quite well. Surely a somewhat silver lining to the BBC cloud, if only a small one?!
First of all, your quip about Robinson being a former head of the Young Conservatives is out of order. It’s very cute the way you say you “quite often” liked him back then. Yet I’m sure I could point to any number of Beeboids who are former Communists or Socialists and you wouldn’t allow me to point to their youthful activities as proof that they’re biased to the Left now.
He’s not as bad as many make him out to be, I agree, and I’m on record here many times as saying so. I assume you’re unaware of this or you wouldn’t have made that Young Conservatives remark. However, as I’ve also said many times before (which you’ve also missed), Nick Robinson is compromised to the point of not being an honest broker of political news and analysis. His first instinct is to sympathize with the politicians he covers, and not with the public whom he’s paid to inform. Further, he holds back and shades his coverage occasionally to maintain that insider status he needs to get key info from No. 10.
That’s why he got double-crossed by No. 10 about last year’s Pre-Budget Report. They fed him a line the day before the announcement that they’d raise VAT. Peston predicted the same thing. But on the day, Labour dropped it, and Robinson wasn’t happy. He admitted on his blog that No. 10 told him and Peston they were going to do it. They used him, knowing full well that he wouldn’t punish them because he had to maintain that insider status. He was a little grumpy for a few days, but that’s about it.
A classic example of what I think makes him compromised is the expenses scandal. While most of the country was angry at the troughers, Robinson started nearly every on air appearance by telling everyone not to be too angry because many MPs felt really bad, and were hurt that the public hated them so. He could not stop reminding everyone about MPs’ feelings. This approach is exactly backwards, and he does it rather a lot.
Much of the time, Robinson sounds as if he’s a politician or political advisor, taking the side of the pols when he explains things. It’s not necessarily partisan, but is obviously going to make him appear at times to support Labour and the Government when he does it. He’s too sympathetic towards politicians and does not come across as a straightforward reporter or analyst working on behalf of the public. He’s too compromised.
Radio 5 were slagging off the Tory marriage proposal plan as well. The BBC find the idea of heterosexual relationships vile and disgusting, anyone who doesn’t take pleasure in ripping the arse out of a 12 year old Romanian rent boy is abnormal in their eyes.
Lesbian beeboid Jane Hill following the one eyed idiot around. “He’s looking very relaxed this morning, and I really hope so”
Really Jane, why do YOU hope he looks relaxed?
Funny that News 24 appears to be a Tory free zone this morning, I haven’t seen any Tory yet, just the BBC and fatty Balls spoutingt crap.
As Fatty Balls seems so repulsive – isn’t it good for the Tories to have him paraded around ?
……………
Simon Schama has been doing some politicised bits in the Radio 4 programme Point of View. But this week he was only on about New Zealand politics. Maybe he has been warned off the UK scene for the duration?
Now News 24 have Lib Dems slagging off the Tories. Still a Tory free zone, now we have the one eyed jock spouting on again.
News 24 just had that vile fat wife cheating shit Prescott on. Why this vile piece of excrement was allowed to rant for several minutes as he just did when the BBC is supposed to be balanced during the election is beyond me.
Kenya.
BBC report gives political preference, as usual, to ‘greenies’, not to needs of poor people:
“Kenya protests block GM maize shipments to Mombasa”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8609316.stm
Jonathan Ross now says that Sachsgate was just a bit of fun, all blown up by right-wing newspapers – and is also unrepoentant about asking Cameron if he had sexual fantasies about Thatcher.
Presumably this was Ross’s view at the time. Top BBC management must have realised it was his abiding view, and that he despised any attempts to rein him in.
They should have sacked him instantly.
sorry – here is the link :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7572792/Jonathan-Ross-Sachsgate-was-hilarious-and-I-cant-wait-to-leave-BBC.html
Er, its was whipped up by right wing paper – one right wing paper. Its was blown out of proportion. As was the Jan Moir article about that dead boyband member. Sachsgate was orchestrated by the Daily Mail, “Moirgate” (seems as the Mail have to nickname everything to make it easier for their readers) was more natural outrage but over the top. They both should have been treated in the same way – sackings or accepting both were blown out of proportion. Either way shows why hypocrasy is so often thrown at the Mail and why its constantly attacked from all corners
The beeboids must have been absolutely delighted with the decision to limit this site to registered posters, thus limiting the posting to a (commited) handful of posters.
For the site to achieve an end result, the reform of the bbc, it has to be publicised on other blogs and in the press and it has to become a mainstream forum for those unhappy with the various left wing causes dear to the heart of the beeboid.
You only have to look at the Taxpayers Alliance to see what can be achieved. Any thoughts ?
What is the value of a comment if someone is unwillinging to invest the three minutes it takes to register?
Given the number of other sites you can be registered with to post (ie. Google, Twitter etc) I don’t think there can be that many internet savvy people out there who can’t just use something they already have.
Notice how the BBC have totally killed Twittergate? Still many unanswered questions like, did Sarah Brown read his tweets? did senior Liebour Ministers who were on his Twitter feed read any of them? So many questions but no answers from the rent boy abusing BBC.
Any day now immigration will break as an election issue.
Today’s Mail front page headlines the failure of the 3 party leaders to reply to a letter from 2 senior councillors in Peterborough saying their city is in total chaos owing to excessive immigration. (One of them, Charles Swift, is “Old Labour” and had been Mayor – he always seemed a good sensible guy when on the old East Anglia Regional Planning Council back in the 1960s).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1264966/Migrant-citys-help-Anguished-letter-Brown-Cameron-reveals-devastating-toll-immigration.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1264930/Peterborough-struggling-immigration-toll.html
I reckon their detailed account of the dire impact on Peterborough is reflected in many other parts of Britain.
And the Mail poll today (10% Tory lead, obviously ignored by the BBC) suggests that the BBC line of “immigration is good for us” is roundly rejected by the people of Britain :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1264857/General-Election-2010-Ten-point-lead-Mail-poll-puts-Tories-course-majority-election.html
Be careful when you choose to believe in daily mail “facts”:
http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/news/NICERespondsToDailyMailStory.jsp
If you want unashamed bias then the mail is there for you – why should the bbc care what the mail says or what its readers say when its often so factually inept, spun or lacking in almost everything except sensationalism, made up stories, use of one sided rent-your-opinion-back groups (eg. migrationwatch, mediawatch) and lies?! Gathering sources from the Telegraph would make arguments much more worthy than the mail. I’ll believe a story sourced from the Star or Guardian more frequently than the Mail
The story (which was also the stereotypical shock creating front page headline on the paper edition) was this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1264680/Cancer-row-mother-37-forced-sell-home-buy-drugs-Labour-pledged-fund.html
Er sorry but the BBC is equally guilty of spinning stories, telling blatant lies and distorting the truth. The difference is I’m not forced to buy the Daily Mail, but I am forced to fund the BBC.
Did i deny that the BBC doesn’t spin things etc? No. What i’m saying is basically the Mail is a rag and people would be better sourcing facts and true opinions from the Telegraph.
Difference is, DG, I happen to have known and dealt with one of those Peterborough councillors. He was an intelligent and thoroughly decent man, leader of the Labour group on Peterborough City Council. The Mail story on Peterborough is obviously not “made up”. You may not like it – but it reflects a lot of reality about social problems in Britain that NuLabour deliberately set out to create.
The sort of story based in fact about the effects on excessive immigration that the BBC studiously avoids.
DG as a BBC apologist studiously avoids it too, trying to deflect attention with an entirely irrelevant piece that may or may not reflect inaccuracy in the Daily Mail.
The Daily Mail makes no pretence about it’s Tory slant, just as other newspapers, on the whole, make no pretence about the slants that they have. The BBC lies through its back teeth about being impartial to try and maximise the propaganda effect of its bent journalism.
The wicked ‘Mail’ (and the evil ‘Spectator’) got it right the other day when it claimed:
‘Figures suggested an extraordinary 98.5 per cent of 1.67million new posts were taken by immigrants.’
We have Tim Harford, the FT journalist co-opted by the BBC to be its fact-checker, to thank for proof that the wicked ‘Mail’ was right, Gordon Brown was wrong & Phil Woolas (who bamboozled Andrew Neil on the subject on ‘The Daily Politics’) is an out-and-out liar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rrbtv (from 33,30)
The BBC hasn’t made anything of this scoop though (surprise, surprise).
“Wicked” mail? I think the word “shit” is more apt. Why do people choose to read the factually inept Mail over reading the Telegraph – it too is politically biased but is much better at printing factual news and logical thought provoking opinion. Anyone could be one of Dacres hacks at the mail writing predictable rehashed and often hypocritical stories written in a style thats seemingly targetted for an audience of 10 years olds – thats of course when they’re not leering over 5 year old Suri Cruise et al
You really are ranting like a clown.
Not once have you addressed the actual story in the Mail – the appalling mess in Peterborough caused by Labour policies on immigration, spelled out by 2 experienced non-Tory councillors. A mess that exists in many other parts of Britain.
Try dealing with the issue. The BBC denies such problems exist – and so do you, it seems. Vituperation against the Mail is no substitute for proper argument – the Mail is no worse than the BBC for bias, and I bet its journalists work a damn sight harder than the 1000 news staff at the Beeb.
DG — If you want unashamed bias then the mail is there for you….”
NICE — that’s the British Death Panel, right?
Omigod, STOP THE FRACKIN’ PRESS — a government QUANGO denies that it hands out death sentences to patients.
But, old boy, that is NICE’S actual function: To assess and pronounce on people using a cost benefit equation.
That is: is the value of PATIENT X, worth the cost of TREATMENT Y.
I’m more inclined to believe the Mail. And I don’t even like the Mail as it’s not a conservative paper.
But why exactly do you belive the paid flack who wrote this letter that the tosser at the head of the QUANGO signed?
I don’t like the Mail much either. But its front page story today gets to the heart of the huge problems in Britain caused by excessive immigration. Charles Swift (elderly now) is from the same mould as Frank Field.
The BBC time after time picks up the lead stories from the Guardian or Indy. But the idea that it would pick up on this Mail story, related in depth and detail, is impossible.
Never mind that the Peterborough councillors wrote to all the party leaders – and are pressing for answers on a major public issue, right now, during the election. The story reports that all the parties are now scrambling around to answer.
The BBC walks straight past all that. All immigration is good – end of story at the Beeb.
Crap journalism at the BBC.
Agreed, I’m wary of anything I read that quotes from or links to the Mail as a source, they are masters at twisting facts to suit their own agenda, a bit like the BBC in fact.
Try actually reading the story
I didn’t mean this particular point, just that I find the Mail a bad source in general. I’m very much a call a spade a spade kind of reader.
Which was kind of my point – sourcing from a decent paper would make peoples points much better. To me sourcing when people source a news story from the Mail, they may as well be referencing “my mate said xxxxxxx” – about as much credibility
Somalia.
Will Gordon Brown send in the troops to retake the BBC transmitters there taken over by Islamic jihadists?
“Somalia Islamists al-Shabab ban BBC transmissions”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8612654.stm
The BBC/BBC World Service seems surprised by the Islamic jihad attack on British property, and the consequent censorship.
The BBC pleads to the jihadists that the BBC was only being ‘impartial’
“The BBC said it was strictly impartial and spoke to all sides in the conflict. ”
The reality will be that Islamic Somalis (Islamic jihad supporters included) will continue to join Labour’s trail of mass immigration to Britain:
[Extract from a recent ‘Times’ report]:
“Government officials say that dozens have already returned to Somalia to join al-Shabaab, the brutal militia with links to al-Qaeda that is fighting the Western-backed Government. They fear that these battle-hardened jihadists will bring their newly acquired skills back to the UK. One senior official told The Times that Somalia had risen sharply up the list of threats to Britain’s security and was probably now second after Pakistan. ‘It’s something we worry about a lot,’ he said.
“Lord Malloch-Brown, the former Foreign Office Minister, warned before leaving office in July that ‘the main terrorist threat comes from Pakistan and Somalia, not Afghanistan’. Radicalised Somali immigrants have already launched botched terrorist attacks in Britain and Australia.
“The Government has no reliable statistics on how many Somalis now live in Britain. One official reckoned that there were 150,000 legal immigrants and three times as many illegal ones.
The usual estimate is about 250,000, mostly in London but with sizeable numbers in Liverpool, Sheffield, Bristol, Cardiff and other cities.
“It is almost certainly the biggest Somali community in the worldwide diaspora and suffers from shockingly high levels of unemployment, low levels of education and wretched living conditions. ”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6965717.ece
George R …Will Gordon Brown send in the troops to retake the BBC transmitters there taken over by Islamic jihadists?
He’s sending a fleet oF armoured LICENCE DETECTOR VANS.
DG you just do not get it do you. I will type this slowly so that you can follow:
1. No one is obliged to buy the Mail. They do not have to buy a newspaper licence on pain of prosecution.
2. The Mail makes no cliam to impartiality
3. The BBC seems to run an agenda almost identical to The Guardian
4. If BBC was voluntary subscription then I would be happy for it to run all the left wing propaganda that it wants and use left wing lobby groups as sources.
DG’s contribution today – avoiding the issue as usual – was so shallow I now intend to ignore him. He is just trolling, not serious.
Yes we disagree on something, please ignore me.
NRG – YOU clearly do no get it. You’ve saw that i posted and decided my point. By the way, just so that you know, if you type slowly – it doesn’t actually make any difference to me – think about that slowly now
Believe me I get it. I think it would be a safe bet that you are a public sector parasite who lives off other people’s taxes.
And why would you come to such a conclusion? Is it because, as most mailites assume because of the mail, those who have a different opinion to the mail have to be unemployed lefties?!
On the biggest day of the horse racing calender, how do the BBC set out their horse racing page?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/horse_racing/8612304.stm
WE need good news lies for Nu Liebour. The BBC look to find ways around the so called ‘political balance’
Journalism at the BBC is sick. The President of Poland is killed, along with his wife – and immediately they stick their usual label on him – “controversial”, in the news report and also in the obituary.
New definition of “controversial” – anyone who does not conform to BBC groupthink.
That is sick. Controversial = Right Wing
A brief word of praise for a BBC broadcast (but not produced?) programme. That being last weeks feedback which gave a Beeboid representing the news department a good grilling on their highly selective leaking of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s words on the troubles of the Catholic Church in Ireland. Seems what he actually said in its context was not allowed to get in the way of a BBC generated “story”.
Also covered was the joyful comments by an ethnic (judging by his name) on the hacking to death of Eugene Terreblanche. The stink if Nick Griffin had similarly expressed joy at the similar death of an unloved leader of the religion of peace doesn’t bear thinking about. Racists can only be white seemingly.
To those at the head of this strand who comment on the principle of (radio) news headlines of rubbishing Tory policies without ever hearing the Tory put their point forward are spot on. All I do is when the news is over (we listen at work) is to note how strange the BBC’s approach is. The penny seems to be dropping nicely.
I agree re. the ArchDruid. Feedback put an entirely different light on the story. The BBC had treated him very badly, using his words out of context as a trailer for the pre-recorded Marr programme, getting the headlines they were looking for.
But hey – knocking Christian leaders at Eastertime is par for the course at the Beeb.
Gerald
You are correct – the Feedback prog. is NOT produced by the BBC, it is an independent production. Often far more lively than the limp-wristed Ray Snoddy.
On news 24 a report from the Kings fund telling us that the NHS is better under labour. No mention that the Kings fund always backs labour didn’t Brown make a speech there recently? And no mention that the report did mention the health problems of Labours dring and drugs policies.
deegee
It took me considerably longer than three minutes to work out hoe to log in. I had to open an open account thingy then work out how to use it to log in. Closer to half an hour
And even then I did not manage to get my name on the post even though I thought I had done everything right. I came up as guest like I was somebody who had so little faith in what he was saying that he dare not use his own name.
Hi, I have to confess that inspite of being sympathetic to the comment deegee made, yeah, took me ages to work things out too. I didn’t post here for 2 months in fact due to not being able too. It would help if there were some instructions. I think I should scroll back and remove my ‘like’ for his comment, which isn’t to say I dont think there is a raison d’etre to having a log-in – controlling abusive posts I imagine.
*** ADVICE *** To put your name, click on ‘guest’ and you can type yourname over it and it will automoatically come up unless you log out.
The “instructions” you ask for are in the Frequestly Asked Questions bit in the left column of the page and have been for ages 🙂
It is not exactly news that Nick Robinson is not an objective ‘reporter’ and his blog renders nearly every cherished principle (interaction, sensible moderation, NOT closing after 25 comments on whim, etc) of social media farcical.
However, as part of the BBC it is in theory an objective news entity based on accuracy, and having been blanked by their censorship system to try and arrive at this, maybe some better informed here can assist?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/04/back_to_the_fut_2.html#comments
Referring to the above, and a supportive early post, another has contributed:
164. At 10:51pm on 09 Apr 2010, TheBlameGame wrote:
2. DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:
“when it’s emerged that Saatchis [sic] admen are working on all three main parties’ campaigns”
‘Is there no such thing as a concept of “conflict of interest” in the advertising world?’
No conflict, different agencies. The Saatchi brothers (M&C) broke away from Saatchi & Saatchi after a boardroom takeover. Nick’s probably confused. Too much spoonfeeding and not enough research.
OK, as it’s still up there, who is correct? I didn’t exactly ask I guess, but it is hard to understand what aspect of my follow up has rendered it still ‘referred’ other than a fit of pique in some quarters. They can’t even hide behind the usual ‘off topic’ blanket dismissal:
LoL. And the joys of PRasNews ‘reporters’ underfunded by £3.5B broadcasting empires.
Actually, in my day there were very clear conflict of interest issues in the ad world, if for highly pragmatic, commercial reasons. It’s a competitive business, so having folk in the same entity, if not office, possibly knowing what you were up to was a matter of some paranoia in client circles.
But yes, another quango to oversee this and meddle may be necessary.
As it has all worked out so well, maybe headed up by this ‘finger on the pulse’ GOAT:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/08/minister-for-digital.html
How British taxpayers pay £25 million a year to BBC Arabic Service which propagandises for Muslims who intend to become illegal immigrants to Britain.
In 2008, the BBC set up BBC Arabic Service with a new HQ at Broadcasting House, London:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-525310/BBC-splash-25m-Arabic-channel-compete-Al-Jazeera.html
Apart from providing additional propaganda against Israel, the BBC Arabic service does not compete with Al Jazeera, the two cooperate; their pro-Islamic, anti-Israel ideological stance is similar, and many ex-Beeboids now work for Al Jazeera English from its London base.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumstances-of-our-oppression.html
Female guest reviewer on Broadcasting House. “Sam Cam has had the best campaign as a wife only because she is so thin that the photographers love her” and the reviewer also liked the wonderful photo of Gordon which shows him laughing. No guessing her political persuasion then? It was only the other female guest pointing out that as Gordon laughed everybody else in the photo looked from a polite smile to stony faced that put some perspective on it.
I saw the picture of Brown laughing and the first thing I thought was – own-goal by the beeb – he looks like a flipping lunatic. Can’t find the pic’ now!
Not a report for pro-Islamic BBC to pursue:
“Muslim staff escape NHS hygiene rule”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7576357/Muslim-staff-escape-NHS-hygiene-rule.html
What a scandal. I’m sure loved ones will understand when a patient dies to accommodate Muslim exemption from hygiene rules. If a patient objected being treated by a Muslim for not complying with hygiene rules they’d be dumped out on the street.
A pretty important time at the moment. One where objective reflection is key.
Also one where, though I hold no brief for DavCam, it seems fairly clear that every political party other than Conservatives need have no views especially to be held to account on by the BBC, than trashing those of the Tories. Oddly, a party last week criticised for not stating their views, and now taken to task for having too many.
It’s a ganging up technique that those so obsessed with ‘yoof’ would do well to reflect upon, as this group (and, speaking personally, their parents), don’t respond well to.
So it was quaint that in the Ruby Wax Sh.. (a fine invitee at this period; no dumbing down there. Though how her brain got around the Obamas’ (good to god like) spin doctor now advising Mr. Cameron (boo-hiss) was a joy to behold)… Andrew Marrshmallow Show the host sweetly thinks there should be less of people ‘at the top’ talking down to the public. Except Aunty and her employees, one presumes, who are ‘unique’.
So it was nice that when he did drift from the triumverate message on ‘getting’ the Tories, Mr. Ashdown slapped the smug media elitist right between his biased ears.
For all the good it will do.
Did you also notice how our hero, far away from the security of the better parts of town (where most of those being talked down to by him and his mates have to exist), and out of his noddy car, did some ‘reporting’?
interesting that the community organiser putting the world to rights was working with the Churches and… Mosques. As no other religions are seemingly as well represented, or dominant, I wonder if this is an indication of things to come.
Guest – To change your screen name you need to click Reply> Then where it says “Guest” at the top of that box just click this and change as required.
See?????
Interesting. Ta for the heads up.
As one name seems as good as another and, it seems, can change at whim, it often seems to be hardly relevant, so long as the content is pertinent.
And who knows, maybe ex-Big Bro star David Guest is chipping in.
And since some can instruct so… well, in keeping with the tonality that some, such as the BBC, can adopt, this may not be the best way to achieve what it is thought others should do.
But, rest assured, if the blog owners decree a ‘handle’ and disable the option, the advice may well yet prove useful.
The King’s Fund are leftists for sure, their attack on the Tories last week over funding Cancer drugs was pure Labour propaganda.
Apart from their release criticising this, what other things that they’ve done makes you think they’re left?
Firstly as a charity they should be aware that sticking their nose into politics during an election is NOT their business.
They also made a claim that the Tories plan to spend more on Cancer drugs was not realistic, rather odd for a charity that wants MORE spent on health don’t you think? They then had to withdraw that statement.
The statement was by Christopher Ham – now head of the Kings Fund, who was criticising the Tories earlier in the week.
He was in the Department of Health under Labour for several years.
On the radio he sounded unusually shrill for a supposedly neutral charity. He is no fool – a former Professor and author – he knows damn well his pro-Labour views would be picked up, the Kings Fund has never to my memory been involved in naked politics before.
Regarding BBC news coverage of tory policies. On thursday’s World At One on R4 one of the top stories covered was on a tory plan to limit high wages in the public sector. A talking head (didn’t catch his name) explained that it would only affect a small number of managers and not be effective. Presumably this was the pro-tory postion covered, because the other ‘expert’ consulted on this was none other than Polly Toynbee.
She explained that what the tories really needed to do was to limit PRIVATE sector wages! In BBC-land does this pass for balance?!
As in the previous coverage of the NI debate, the tories got no chance to put their position.
The way the BBC are reporting this election it’s as if the tories were the incumbents who have to defend their postions. I don’t recall the BBC putting new labour under such hostile scrutiny before the 97 election.
Why aren’t the fearless, committed objective journalists at the BBC reporting this?
Supplementary:
“Dirtier tactics”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5904338/dirtier-tactics.thtml
How obscene. But Labour know they can get away with this sort of outrage in the safe knowledge it’s propaganda machine the BBC will stay mum on it.
Like this you mean – before you posted?!:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8614075.stm
Oh, my bad. I did look, but not in the election section.Thanks.
The way you inadvertantly point out BBC bias DG is indispensible.
No mention of Diane Dwelly in the BBC report, whom the Times quotes as saying this:
“This weekend Dwelly, 48, from Rugby, admitted she had “probably been used by Labour”. She believed her photograph had been taken for use in a magazine for the National Health Service, not as part of Labour’s election campaign.”
When I read Asuka’s entry I did a search on the BBC site and Google under ‘Diane Dwelly BBC’ and nothing came up. It’s a key element of the story, one that is very damaging to Labour, but as the BBC is Labour’s propaganda arm they just sought to play down the story instead.
DG, any sign yet on the BBC of this story?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7087769.ece
The BBC doesn’t cover every story, i’m not here to deny that. I don’t even come here to deny that they have some level of bias. I’d say 40% of the “bbc hasn’t got xxxxx on its website” are false, thus watering down what could be a meaningful agenda.
And i’m sure we would both agree that if the BBC covered every story where someone was upset with Gordon Brown, we’d be here for a very long time. Especially if using the Sun as a base source, though not discrediting all arguments from there
did anyone notice the leader of UKIP pointing out to beeboid Marr this morning that the bias of the BBC was being closely monitored?
old FA cup head didn’t really know how to respond
George R
There is a report in todays Sunday times about a far more worrying concession given to Muslims.
No mention on The BBC of course.
Yes; I take it you are referring to the non-BBC report:
“Met allows Islamic protesters to throw shoes”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094311.ece
Also:
Pro-Jihad protesters hop home after London Jew-hatred demo
It’s not as though the BBC (and Labour) don’t know the significance of shoe-throwing as an Islamic insult:
“Bush shoe-ing worst Arab insult”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7783325.stm
1. Radio 4 Sunday am in a debate between someone in the private sector and aomeone in the public sector discussing cuts.
Beeboid: It seems to many people that it was capitalism and greed…that got us into this trouble.
I really don’t like this construct of the bbc – saying referring to ‘many people; when they really mean ‘we at the BBC’. The public sectoroid of course thought that the public sector should not be cut. His position in the public sector? A teacher of Geography and … wait for it… Enterprise. Gawd help us.
2. A BBC cub reporter – name him and shame him – Norman Smith said something along the lines of, ‘of course now parties are talking cuts when a few months ago they were all talking about investment’.
Norman, let me help, all parties weren’t talking about investment a few months ago – it was The New Labour Party. Got it.
3. Last Sunday Radio 4 had gathered a few like-minded in to talk about the newspapers. One said to the others, ‘If you read, and I’m sure you have, Dreams of My Father’. A sentence I guarantee I shall never say in my life.
4. It was nice to see Humphreys skewering Captain Inesnsible in the week. Compare and contrast the Dementor Naughtie interviewing Michael Heseltine. When MH tried to hold The Captain responsible for the economic wreck Naughtie barked, ‘so he’s responsible for Lehman Brothers is he’?
Firstly – yes he is for LB’s UK acticvities particularly the business LB were channelling through UK’s more lax accounting regime and…
Secondly – James would you like to tell me in which country RBS, Lloyds-TSB, HBOS, Bradford & Bingley, Northern Rock were/ are domiciled in.
Here we go again – linking BBC drama characters to political parties (I thought the BBC was impartial?!):
From news.bbc.co.uk:
“… Labour have revealed that the party’s first election broadcast of the 2010 campaign will feature former Doctor Who David Tennant and movie star Sean Pertwee. In the film – shot in Yorkshire – Mr Tennant urges voters to stay “on the right road” to recovery”
Why do they have to mention Dr Who? They ran a whole news item on this a few months ago.
Sean Pertwee is the son of Jon Pertwee, the third Doctor. No escaping Dr. Who.
The only unfounded rumour that the BBC wants to push on the death of Lech Kaczynski is that spread by Lech Walesa, being that Kac\ynski himself brought it about by ordering the landing in fog. Meanwhile the BBC reports that Putin is becoming a Polish hero, whilst Kaczynski held views that alienated him from most young Poles.
I enjoy Wake Up to Money as it’s normally not too bad, they have a couple of talking heads on from the markets and let them have their say without too much political comment. Someone at the top must have noticed as the new presenter today constantly interspersed his questions with political messages – all favouring Labour and their policies.
First of all he said we were nothing like Greece (he blamed Greece’s problems on Germany paying lower wages so able to make things cheaper, so there you have it folks the problem with Greece’s economy is that Germany pay slave labour wages) when the talking head was complaining about our debt and then the presenter stated that we were at the top of the G7 heap in terms of recovery.
Another corker came later in an article when the guest said that businesses viewed tackling the deficit as the most pressing problem and the new presenter leapt on to this pursuing the line ‘Well, it just shows you then that the NI thing isn’t really important to business and real businesses don’t care one way or another about taxes’. He was put down in short order by the expert.
Can’t believe that the BBC have done this, hopefully this presenter has just been parachuted in for the election and the regulars will be back in a months time.
I can. If the Conservative Party were a party fit to govern they’d be demanding explanations and demanding that the person who has appointed a partisan presenter for the election is fired along with the presenter. If the Conservative Party was a party fit to govern …
How comes on the BBC website, we see nothing other than a grinning picture of the gurning one, along with Socialist propaganda to aid his cause. Yet Cameron’s always scowling, backed up by yet another negative story from the ever neutral, ever democratic institution, known otherwise as the Socialist republic of the BBC.
Norry, I’m didn’t hear Wake up to money today so don’t know about a new presenter, but I would not consider it a new thing for the programme to feature a lefty/profit-phobic presenter (Andy Verity?). For example thoughout last week every interview I heard sought to get views on the NI non-increase seeking to determine that the (certain?? Tory) VAT rise would be much worse for the relevent business & nation. More generally this, like other BBC “business” programmes, tends towards a consumer watchdog approach.
I find WUTM not that bad actually. Admittedly they do press the Labour line from time to time but some of the guests they invite (I particularly like the guy from BCG partners) positively rave about the free market and are allowed to do so – a rare occurence on the BBC. I don’t want a program where there is no socialist view put forward, it’s just nice from time to time to get the other view put across too!
I also like the guy Micky (can’t remember last name), seems a decent guy too.
The presenter today, maybe he’s not new but I don’t think he’s a regular, really went over the top though, much more so than I’m used to hearing on the program, and it’s the only thing I listen to / watch on the BBC so I hope he isn’t going to become a regular.
As I said, I don’t mind alternative views put forward, jsut that today it seemed a case of ‘attack the Tories / praise Labour’ far more than I’m used to.
‘Impartial’ BBC omits word ‘LABOUR’ from headline:
[LABOUR] “expense MPs to receive legal aid”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8616261.stm
Ah, this has happened before. Easily explained.
It’s a space issue. Mind you, if it was the CONSERVATIVES they might make an exception.
Just to prove ‘the rule’.
Of course, there is now enough space on re-vamped BBC newsite for such headlines to be politically uncensored.
‘Sky News’ (via ‘ATW’) is more explicit than BBC:
http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/httpatangledwebsquarespace/had-enough-yet-tax-slaves.html
A Reuters cameraman was killed in Bangkok. Reuters cameraman Hiro Muramoto’s last footage before he was killed The video telling the story is a little ambiguous.
Soldiers opened fire with rubber bullets and tear gas. The also fired live rounds into the air and presumably Hiro Muramoto’s chest.
I don’t want to be too harsh here. There aren’t too many Israel stories that are close to neutral but there is an error.
Israel stops for Holocaust Memorial Day tribute
People across Israel have observed a two minute silence as part of their Holocaust Memorial Day tribute.That should be observed again, this year. The two minutes silence for the sirens is an anual tradition.
Holocaust?
What Holocaust?
The link to that article from the news site’s front page:
Israel silent for WWII tribute
The “Jews who died in WWII”? Pathetic. They didn’t die in the war. They were being killed before the war started, and it was all done outside of the battlefield. They would have died even if there never was a WWII as we know it. That’s a really disgraceful display of insensitivity – never mind total ignorance – from a BBC News Online sub-editor.
Will BBC, the biggest news media outfit in Britain (and publicly paid for) catch up with ‘Sky News’ on this story, which is critical of Labour’s manifesto launch?:
“Tories: ‘Labour launch broke Election rules'”
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Conservatives-Accuse-Labour-Of-Breaching-Electoral-Guidelines-By-Launching-Manifesto-At-NHS-Hospital/Article/201004215600029?lpos=Politics_Top_Stories_Header_2&lid=ARTICLE_15600029_Conservatives_Accuse_Labour_Of_Breaching_Electoral_Guidelines_By_Launching_Manifesto_At_NHS_Hospital
The main parties have ensured that this election campaign is the most empty vacuous and meaningless campaign so far.
The MSM coverage has been trivial and partial and superficial, a series of bland vague intentions with all the substance of morning mist by a political class living in a bubble, do they really think their meaningless waffle and vague trivial promises mean anything to the ordinary person?
The elephants in the room are ignored, the debt mountain and the EU and mass immigration are studiously ignored and the contest has become who can goss over the dire problems we face.
The BBC is not alone in its dire partisan coverage, the MSM is equally as bad.
The big three are coasting, they know that if they told the actual truth, if they revealed their true intentions then the electorate would destroy them so they make up a fantasy world of false promises and hope that the electorate will return the liblabcon dictatorship so they can continue their dispicable work.
All three hope for a hung parliament so they can enact their joint plans of federal EU integration and changing the electoral system to conform to the continental system as demanded by the new EU masters.
The work to seal the EU deal will begin in ernest straight after the election, all the pieces are in place now and all the big three need to finish their work is one more term of five years. I five years the big three will completed their work and the UK will be no more, it will become a minor region governed as a protectorate of the EU, a dustbin of all the trash the contenentals wish to get rid of, in effect the UK will become the EUs trash can.
We have one chance to rid ourselves of the big three traitors, its us or them and make no mistake the political classes hate us, they mean to fix us for good. Our enemies know that they have to destroy us in these islands or lose the war and yes it is a war a real war between us and them.
If you believe in a God then pray the electorate wakes up gives the political classes the kicking they so richly deserve.
Just an added thought FWIW.
Those who say that the right wing might be split therefore letting Brown back in forget that UKIP offered to stand down at the election and urge its voters to support the conservatives at the election if they would simply honour their pledge to offer a referendum on EU membership.
The tories would be now on course for an historic landslide if only they had done the right thing and offered the UK electorate their say on the future of the UK as a sovereign state.
The tories are responsible for the split in the right wing vote, they are soley responsible for the result of their refusal to offer the people of the UK a say in their future.
The real question conservative voters have to ask themselves is why did Cameron effectively spit in the faces of so many of his natural right wing supporters? Does he really think the left will somehow see a reformed centre tory party and vote for it on the basis that Dave has hijacked the tories and moved it to the left?
Ask yourself why Cameron is so silent about his intentions toward the EU, his halfhearted vague promise of a referendum if the EU tries to grab more power is a red herring of epic proportions because the EU constitution already has the mechanisms in place to grab any powers it desires.
The new tories are responsible for their own downfall, they could have so easily won with a spectacular majority but they chose to persue a hung parliament instead, the question is why!
Had to laugh. listening to Radio 5 drive the dozy female beeboid interviewed some Socialist twat of a Union leader who amazingly blamed “the private sector” for the recession. WHAT!!!!
Then the cretin was angry that the Labour party were not socialist enough and wanted to see money saved on using fewer consultants in the NHS. Female beeboid stated that ONE of the parties (she meant the Tories but couldn’t bring herself to say it) did want to cut back on NHS waste. Good job we were not relying on the BBC for facts and balanced reporting.
Appealing to a celebrity obsessed culture David Tennant and Sean Pertwee present a road to ruin on behalf of the Labour party and the BBC. 😉
How brave on them to go out on a limb in support of the socialists.
Of course, this means that they will NEVER work at the BBC again
Here we go!
The BBC toady show is going to be asking Billy Bragg about the working class! Ha ha ha what on earth does bragg know or even care about the working class he despises and lives so far away from?
Asking Billy Bragg about the struggles of the real working class is like asking Zac Goldsmith about what its like to be poor and homeless.
The BBC labours under the illusion that these plastic revolutionary middle class numpties actually know the working class because they wore NUM solidarity badges/half understood some cod Marxist anti Thatcher ranting at uni.
I heard the trailer for Bragg and thought “If you want to know what the white working class is thinking – don’t ask Bragg – go ask THEM.
There is lots of Vox Pop on the BBC – but usually it is the “victims”, the BBC’s chosen PC favourites. Seldom yer average guy/gal on the Clapham omnibus.
…………..
and what a huge fuss the BBC made about the death of Corin Redgrave. Another revolutionary they loved, just like loopy Vanessa. Corin was a middling actor, didn’t actually do much acting as he was too busy being a revolutionary. Certainly not worth all the airtime he got last week.
The views of the Braggs and the Redgraves coincide with about about 1% (if that) of the British public. Totally unrepresentative. But they chime with a lot of the immature views at the BBC, so get amplified by the Beeb.
The trailer for Bragg was juxtaposed with the trailer for the interview with William Hague, the real meat of the morning. In terms of who, relatively, they each represent, Hague warrants the full prime-slot slice, Bragg warrants no build-up and about 10 seconds of airtime.
Bragg is a joke, but not to the BBC. Their bias for these left wing nuts is incessant.
Cass — blowing my own trumpet (and if not me, then who?)
I posted this 10 days ago on a conservative blog after Liebours debacle with the Audi Quattro/Cameron/Life on Mars ad…
“With s bit of luck this will inspire the lumpen Marxetariat at Nu Liebour to go tactically nuclear and deploy the Billy Bragg.
This Castro loving, latte drinking commie is surely the authentic voice of the white working classes; and should be enough to generate a percentage point or two. For the Tories!
ReplyApril 03, 2010 at 06:45 PM”
Jack B,
You do not need to blow your own horn(oooer missus) we all realise you are one of the three top posters on this forum, you should really have a regular spot on here.
Yours Cassie K
That’s kind! Too kind!
On Nicky-I’m-Funny-Me-No-You’re-Not-Campbell’s show this a.m. they were discussing the Tories’ promise to limit immigration through a points system. Cue extremely suspicious text from an Australian who’d been moved to London last year to set up the UK based IT operation for his firm and had hired 20 people bringing jobs to the economy etc etc and was a Tory but was now thinking of voting for another party.
I don’t know where the text came from, and I’d be the last to suggest the BBC just makes texts up to suit its ‘narrative’, but I doubt very much it came from who it purported to come from.
Its the old old ‘I am a lifelong tory loyalist BUT isnt Brown wonderful’ routine. It didnt foll anyone when the labour trolls tried it two years ago and I guess the modification wont work this time either, the labour mongs just dont get it do they?
Cass – you’ve inspired me to try this routine on the Guardian site
“As a lifelong socialist who fought in the Spanish Civil War, I have to say that Gordon Brown is the worst Prime Minister in living memory.
I will reluctantly be casting my vote for that nice young man Dave Cameron, in the hope that it might wake up the Labour party to how it is losing its tradition base of decent working class folks who happen to be white!”
Laura Kuenssberg just now on the News channel basically laughing at the Tory manifesto. She was very sarcastic, then read off a laundry list of Labour talking points. Beeboid female back in the studio then asked her to explain what Gordon Brown meant when he said that there’s a big “hole” in the Tories’ plan. Kuenssberg obliged with another set of Labour talking points. She even went over the negatives of Cameron’s plans to give more power back to the people. “Who will be there” for those in need, she asked three or four times.
Does she have no opinions or words of her own? She was barely even paraphrasing Mr. Brown’s own statements half the time.
Probably explains a lot, such as Jeremy Vine this lunchtime basically giving Ed Balls free rein to be the biggest hypocrite in political history sniping at the Tories. Well, since the last BBC ‘interviewer’ today…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/13/conservative-manifesto-bbc-licence-fee
Anyone would think our ‘objective’ national broadcaster had a vested interest in the result.
Now some Beeboid covering UKIP (who sound increasingly rational compared to the other party leaders) says their Euroskeptic antics during the election are “dangerous” because they might result in more Tory MPs in parliament. And he didn’t mean dangerous for UKIP.
Oh good gried, now the BBC is defending The Obamessiah’s latest noise about nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. This is not even remotely a new concern, yet the BBC has been covering this as if it’s some revelation. Of course, any fool can see that this is a merely a chance for a bit of grandstanding, as well as a vehicle for His anti-nuclear policies. The best way to keep nukes out of the wrong hands is to eliminate them entirely, and that’s what this is about. Yet, the BBC presents it all as an original idea out of real concern for national security.
Obama’s plan is ‘revolutionary’ in that it specifically and without precedent reduced emphasis on rogue i.e. Iran and North Korea, and enemy states i.e. Russia and China, with nukes. In line with the latest ‘policy’ it names Al Qaeda without mentioning radical Islam or Jihad.
President Barack Obama has said the biggest threat to US security is the possibility of a terrorist organisation obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Essentially Obama said that US nuclear policy for the last 60 years and that of every preceding US President was wrong or at the very least outdated. As the only point in having a nuclear arsenal of any size is to deter or respond to nuclear armed state enemies the next logical step is to allow the stockpile to dwindle to nothing.
While there is a reasonable argument for the complete abandonment of nuclear weapons Obama didn’t make it. Rather he decreed that the facts on the ground had changed. Different game – different rules.
The problem is that the BBC is presenting this as some sort of amazing new idea. It isn’t. Presidents Bush père et fils reduced the US nuclear arsenal by nearly 80%, yet the BBC acts as if The Obamessiah’s idea is something special, as if He’s the only one to finally address the issue of nuclear disarmament. In fact, this is just the latest round in a dance that’s been going on for 20 years. It’s absolutely false to present this as The Obamessiah finally being the one to reduce nuclear arms.
The BBC is also claiming that The Obamessiah’s plan is going to modernize the nukes to make the US stronger. Nothing new here either: Bush did it.
As for securing current nuclear material better so that it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands, Bush did that, too. But the BBC forgot to tell you that, didn’t they?
The BBC isn’t reporting: it’s parrotting Obamessiah Administration policy.
Apparently Pakistan has been killing scores of innocent civilians in that helhole Waziristan. Thjis is how the stinking, lying, extorting BBC reports it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8617843.stm
What? No weeping Barbara Plett? No strident Orla Guerrin? No pompoius Fatty Simpson? No Al Bowen?
Of course! It’s just Muslims killing Muslims, and like true imperialists the world over, the crappy BBC has no moral expectations of darkies. Only Americans and those hated joos.
I keep waiting for an astute BBC analyst to notice the pattern of recent successes for Vladimir Putin. He got the US to back down on missle defense in Europe, got the US to reduce nuclear capability, is still avoiding sanctions on Iran, is just now seeing the back of a US-friendly leader in Kyrgyzstan, and has just seen the elimination of a substantial part of the West-leaning Polish leadership.
Now a Polish MP is suggesting that Russia set the plane up to crash. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised. None of this would occur to the BBC because they don’t do serious analysis outside of their narrow worldview. This doesn’t promote things they like to focus on, so it’s not news.
David Preiser
You’ll wait an awful long time for the BBC to tell us that Putin is running rings round Obama – as are the Chinese. The nuclear deal left Russia essentialy with the stockpile it has already been reduced to – while reducing US stocks and freezing a lot of US research.
Meanwhile the BBC also fails to point out that, in effect, Obama’s new nuclear-retaliation policy suggests that if any nation attacks the US with chemical or biological weapons, the US will not respong with the nuclear deterrent if that nation is signed up to the NonProliferation Treaty.
That is – the nuclear deterrent ain’t a real deterrent any more !
This spineless President who undermines allies and cosies up to dictators is making our world a damn sight more risky. But nil analysis by the BBC, indeed nil reflection of any of the criticisms of him. He has hit new lows in the polls of public support, the Dems generally are even worse, 54% now want ObamaCare repealed forthwith. But nowt of this on the BBC.
Rigged vox pops on the News channel. Beeboid Louisa Baldini (?) has a little “election tent” set up in Bolton, where she’s getting vox pops from various locals. She has them in groups of four people, and I’ve seen two segments now.
I just saw a second segment, and both times she had the same guy on saying he won’t vote for the Tory candidate who supports foxhunting. It was the same guy both times, saying the exact same thing. The first time he was wearing sunglasses and no jacket, but just now he had no sunglasses but was wearing a jacket. He was introduced under a different name as well. But it was the same guy, saying the exact same thing. Both times the female Beeboid made sure to emphasize that he would not be voting Tory and that foxhunting was definitely an issue for him.
What a joke. How stupid do they think you are?
Well spotted
;It was the same guy both times, saying the exact same thing. The first time he was wearing sunglasses and no jacket, but just now he had no sunglasses but was wearing a jacket. He was introduced under a different name as well. ‘
Is there a link to this? It would be harder to imagine a clearer example of complicity in propaganda using the means most favoured by the BBC, namely who they choose to invite, who they choose to feature and what the edit suite can leave in or out.
I saw it live on the News Channel yesterday, when they’d cut from the studio to Bolton. No editing going on. If I can find a clip of either segment I’ll link to it. Although, I would expect that it’s vanished into the ether, since it was live coverage on the News Channel.
Well FOXHUNTING is the major issue in modern Britain!!
Following complaints the BBC assured viewers that it was NOT the same man, but twins.
This would be great to have up on YouTube.
More BBC hammering on Cameron’s “More Power to the People” platform. The line of attack is clear all day, and even Nick Robinson is in on it. A Tory Government will shut down public services and people will be forced to suffer or scramble to do it themselves. Is that really what Cameron meant? I haven’t seen a single Tory on the News Channel all day to talk about it. Only Teresa May has been on so far – once, as opposed to several repeats of Mr. Brown’s “there’s a hole” clip and Clegg’s “Cameron thinks he’s entitled to rule, you can’t trust the Tories” clip – and she was barely useful.
Every vox pops they just had said it was bad, would take things away from those in need and “split communities”.
Ah, now Robinson is explaining it slightly less dishonestly. But only for a second. The Beeboid in the studio is still on message: what chance is there that people will get involved? This re-inforces the idea that Tories will shut down public services, and it’s not likely that private citizens will do anything to help those in need. That’s a clear Labour line, and not an honest representation of the platform.