The weekend beckons and I offer you a FIFA endorsed Open Thread…are you on the ball with the BBC?
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Doublethinker Nov 15, 08:02
Midweek 13th November 2024
I agree that he will have his supporters in all key posts and that the Globalists won’t be able to… - Fedup2 Nov 15, 08:01
Midweek 13th November 2024
I saw that Elon musk had a 1 hour meeting with the Iranian ambo to the UN … bet that… - vlad Nov 15, 07:48
Midweek 13th November 2024
The simple fact is Trump was stitched up and hobbled last time by the Swamp, the Deep State, the Blob,… - vlad Nov 15, 07:44
Midweek 13th November 2024
Clearly he’s barking mad. Tulsi a Russian spy? One of very few honest, straight down the line, patriotic politicians in… - JohnC Nov 15, 07:40
Midweek 13th November 2024
I’ve noticed the BBC are researching all his appointments for any they can throw mud at – then showing these… - vlad Nov 15, 07:39
Midweek 13th November 2024
Whatever the Stasi are calling it, it sounds like woke thought-police abusing their power to intimidate and harass a conservative… - Fedup2 Nov 15, 07:34
Midweek 13th November 2024
BBC news The narrative is that president trump is selecting ‘bad people ‘ to cabinet posts . They try ‘surprise… - pugnazious Nov 15, 07:21
Midweek 13th November 2024
‘Today’s’ words of advice this morning… ‘The answer to growth lies across the Channel’ …but rest assured Labour has no… - tomo Nov 15, 07:02
Midweek 13th November 2024
Indeed it does… I’ve wondered how much shit for brains got paid off? He was clearly sanctioned and promoted by… - Fedup2 Nov 15, 06:11
Midweek 13th November 2024
Have left the UK for warmer climes for a while … BBC ‘ news propaganda ‘ They seem surprised that…
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
Jesus just how many beeboids have gone to South Africa? They’ve even sent yet ANOTHER celt called Colin Patterson. Now some may not know who this mong boy is, so here is a link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/images/episode/b00lqblc_640_360.jpg
Basically he’s 7 foot tall skinnier than Peter Crouch and has a head shaped like a light bulb.
He’s a nasty piece of work one of those sneering arts types, so WHY have the BBC sent him to South Africa?
I’m trying to work out if the BBC have sent anyone English out there? Reminds me of the Rugby world cup in Australia where it seemed to be dominated by celts again, even having the ‘celts’ telling us all about England’s win.
On Today at around 8:30 this morning Chris Patten was given 5 minutes to lecture Israel about how it’s in Israel’s best interests to unblockade Gaza. I expect undiluted propaganda from the BBC but a journalist – rather than a terrorist enabler – would have asked Patten what might result if Hamas (in the light of the known and public Hamas policies to destroy Israel and all those pesky Jews) could get its hands on all those lovely Iranian rockets and miscellaneous arms. But no, Webb sat there at the feet of the Sage of Bath listening to Patten recommend that Israel should risk destruction to make it easier for Lauren Booth live with the internal demons resulting from her dysfunctional childhood. There was not even a pretence of even-handedness. Patten, I’m sure, would have had a response and is, I’m sure, always prepared to defend Israel’s right to a 21st century Masada – but he wasn’t asked. Forget the bias: it’s the crap journalism which is really unforgiveable.
On Today at around 8:30 this morning Chris Patten was given 5 minutes to lecture Israel about how it’s in Israel’s best interests to unblockade Gaza.
I was listening and thought the same.
Just a thought here about Patten, he seemed to be on the verge of saying that the EU should use the carror and stick/threat of sanctions against Israel to force it to give in and allow hamas to rearm/give yet more land for peace. He did not quite get there and I believe he must have realised that he was championing the very ‘collective punishment” that his kind claim they so abhor for the Palestinians. Could it be that in Pattens head there lurks a secret Jew hatred.
Maybe that is what attracts these political parasites to the conflict, they can employ their race hatred of the Jews without being seen for the Jew hating bigots they are? Ooooh look at me I am a real humanitarian’N’stuff, look how wonderful and humanitarian I am and as is mostly the case those sell themselves as one thing often have an ulterior motive lurking beneath.
I’m now convinced that the BBC editorial policy – and a belief widely held by Beeboids – is that Hamas is only kidding when they say in their Charter and on TV and radio and in print that they want all of Israel destroyed and all Jews removed from the region. The Beeboids think that it’s all just bluster that plays well with the crowd.
Every single report or interview done on this topic should include a mention of the facts of Hamas. The BBC doesn’t do this, and I say it’s because – just like a couple of defenders of the indefensible we’ve had here in the past have stated – they don’t think Hamas is really serious about it.
There’s probably also an element of belief that big, bad, US-backed Israel is far too powerful, and a Hamas-controlled Palestinian State wouldn’t really pose a danger. If a few Israelis die from rockets every year or so, what’s the big deal? Israel is in no real danger from Hamas, so the BBC editorial policy is that there’s no reason to mention Hamas’s desire to kill all Jews and eliminate Israel.
So they deliberately hide certain facts about Hamas because of personal beliefs at the BBC. I challenge any actual BBC employee to prove me wrong.
I think they do believe Hamas want to wipe out the Jews and are either indifferent or get a thrill out of helping it to happen.
If the BBC never fail to mention 1400 Palestinians died in Israel’s Gaza offensive as if they were all civilians not the majority terrorists, it is no accident that they *never choose to mention Hamas’ genocidal intentions towards Israel and the Jews.
The Beeboids really don’t think Hamas is all that serious about it. They think it’s justifiable, perfectly understandable anger for all the horrible things Israel has done to the Palestinians. Israel’s very existence is a slight to the Arabs, and even the BBC knows that. The problem is that they view the situation in the most simplistic, emotion-based terms. Big bad Israel versus the unarmed refugees. US-funded bullies versus a victimized people, trapped in a world they never made.
So Israel isn’t in any real danger from Hamas or Hezbollah, ever. All that “kill the Jews” rhetoric is just stuff Hamas leaders say to gain political support. BBC Groupthink is that nothing will ever come of it.
It really is a simple as that, no visceral anti-Semitism or secret desire for the extermination of all Jews required.
What informs my opinion above is that while the Palestinians were suicide bombing and machine gunning children’s parties in Pizza Parlours and Bar Mitzvah’s many BBC journalists gave thin-veiled (even open) support for this type of proto-genocidal violence.
I’m not saying that BBC journalists have shrines to Hitler in their basements, but they are the new age fascists who have a personal or collective animus against the Jews.
OK so I’ll break (or is it follow?) Godwin’s Law here. Appeasers in pre- WW2 Britain always said that “Hitler didn’t mean it”. He didn’t want to re-occupy the Ruhr, he didn’t intend to invade Czechoslovakia, he wasn’t interested in the Anschluss, he didn’t want to kill the Jews – until, of course, he did. And each time the appeasers said well, just this far and no further and anyway he is right you know: the Ruhr is German, Austria is “really” German, CZ have done horrible things to the Sudeten Germans and the Jews? Well they are rather too clever aren’t they? Too cultured, too rich, too cliquey – we don’t like them either so I’m sure the Germans are only taking them down a peg or two – no more than they deserve. Then when the reality of the Holocaust was revealed all this was swept undergound for a generation. But, believe me, it’s back.
Moreover, I only agree with David Preiser up to a point. The BBC might not take Hamas’s threats seriously but, in reality, the BBC and its fellow travellers, don’t care. If they were convinced that Hamas was serious it would make no difference. The cigarette-paper distinction between being instinctively anti-Israeli (and its concomitant being pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah) and being an anti-semite is, I am now convinced, not worth even discussing. Both positions require and support an existential threat to Israelis and Jews which, for these purposes, are identical.
IMHO Israel has been clumsy and unwise in many of its Palestinian policies since 1967. Many friends of Israel would say the same so such criticism is far from saying that Israel must be destroyed. However, every time Israel is in the news, up pops a BBC commentator effectively repeating (or, like Webb this morning, remaining silently approving) about Israel, Cato’s demand concerning Carthage. The BBC has given up any pretence at impartial coverage on Israel and its attitude reflects and encourages the deeply held beliefs of our political class.
IMHO
The media has played a very effective role in the sustained attacks on Israel, she is damned if she does and damned if she doesnt and each time the chess pieces move Israel is forced to make responding moves that expose her to more engineered critisism.
We must take our eyes off what the media report because that is half the problem I believe, the forces that wish to destroy Israel know full well they cannot defeat her formidable forces in battle so they engineer a long term campaign of poisoning Israel by isolating her from allies and painting her reactions in a negative light.
Its hard for most people to realise just what a knife edge Israel lives on with enemies surrounding her like hungry wolves waiting for the right time to strike. There will be no peace because peace is not what the islamic world requires, well the peace of the mass grave perhaps.
Note that every media report finds any action by Israel negative, they seek the negative angle and portray it, they have the means to do it and they have pulled out the stops to make it happen. When did you last hear a positive report in the MSM about Israel? and thats the point because Israel is damned if she does and damned if she doesnt.
Israel can give and give and all it will buy her is a little time and less power to react when the hammer blows fall, in effect the anti Israel alliance is trying to set her up for the butchers block hog tied and helpless.
Syria and Iran and Turkey will be the next axis to try and wipe Israel from the map and all they need is time to isolate her from any allies and remove any residual sympathy she might still have in the hearts of the west, Gaza is being used as the agent of the next war.
Cassie,
So sad, but true.
Gaza/West Bank = Sudetenland
Israel = Czechoslovakia
Arab countries = Germany
Appeasers = Left wingers
Genocide = Goebbels propaganda
“I am in no way willing that here in the heart of Germany a second Palestine should be permitted to arise. The poor Arabs are defenceless and deserted” – Adolf Hitler
Umbongo must have read my mind. How does one distinguish between shoddy journalism and bias? Lately I’m thinking the beeb may suffer more from the former than the latter…
Either way, we shouldn’t be obliged to fund it.
The BBC’s journalism isn’t crap because the journalists are crap, its crap because they’re not there to inform, they’re there to propagandise. Oftentimes, all one learns from programmes like TODAY is how biased they are. It’s like Serpico’s observation of his detective colleagues in the NYPD, they were great detectives, if they spent their time fighting crime instead of grafting crime would be cleared up in a week.
On this FIFA endorsed thread I’ve got to commend these excellent BBC footballing waste graphics from blogger GrumpyOldTwat (2nd one rude).
Glorious !
Excellent ! Am I right that England are playing USA tomorrow ? Will England be wearing BP sponsored shirts ?
Surely BP is Scottish – there is no oil in England.
Surely BP is Scottish – there is no oil in England.
John,
Nice one !!!
So down there in sunny Oxford the border agencies raided a wedding and arrested the now unhappy couple. Instead of reporting the news as it should. Indian groom charged with 2 counts of perjury The bBC leads with how 19 year Polish citizen is missing her 30 year fiancée. How she said this I don’t know as the bBC reports that Kamila Snarska who speaks little English, said she intended to start a family and set up home with Mr Singh. She also said they had been living together in Oxford for a year and owned two cats.
I suppose Mr Snarska has more chance of communicating with her cats than she does her future husband. For some strange reason the bBC doesn’t mention the trade in getting European nationals to marry people from out of the EU so they can love in the UK.
A cloud of insanity has descended on our political classes it seems.
The madness blinds then to even the simplest solutions and the willing and eager reinforcement of failure has become the norm.
If there is a wrong way they will take it, if there is a pratfall nearby they will go out of their way to blunder into it, if there is a lesson to be learned they will gleefully make the same error again and again.
They will not listen to reason and they are blind to the consequences of their actions even when presented with the facts.
They are determined to follow a path of destruction and stupidity leading to our misery and their own downfall and those who can see it coming are ignored, its like a mad hatters tea party in a mental asylum where the madness is applauded.
They exist in a self referencing bubble of mutual ego masturbation immune from and isolated from the real world where we live and the dire consequences are felt most bitterly.
Only a violent removal of these nutters will save us and give us a chance to rebuild and reverse the massive damage they are intent on doing, it really has come down to ‘its either us or them’. Reason and reality,facts and evidence mean nothing to the mad.
Cassie,
“bubble of mutual masturbation ” sums it up perfectly ! Wish I had coined that !
Well it appears the bBC is learning by informing the great unwashed that Roadside bomb kills Afghan civilians
But hang on, can anybody inform me who carries out such evil practices as leaving bombs by the roadside. If this has been a NATO incident the bBCc carefully informs the reader how many people have been killed by NATO, how they are earning the wrath of the afghans and how many soldiers have been killed by their friendly smiling freedom fighters.
For the open thread; has anyone else noticed just how much coverage ex-ministers are still getting? Take the Daily Politics today – Bob Ainsworth (of ‘elicopter fame) was on for ages. I know that the current minister won’t always be available, but someone from the government or Tories should be. It’s like they are pretending the election never happened. Not just that, but Ainsworth was given a very soft time.
Also, Ben Bradshaw is EVERYWHERE! The man never sleeps for fear of missing a spot on the beeb! Now his political career is over he might as well go and work there.
Considering 2 out of the 3 main parties are now in office the BBC seems to be giving even more time to the ex mongs who got us in the mess we are now.
Why should the public want to hear from twats like Bradshaw, Blakey and Darling? At least the one eyed twat is hiding away.
He did work there! And he was working for Labour when he did as much as when he sat on the Labour benches in Parliament. BBC is Labour propaganda central – where else would Labour politicians be?
Umbongo must have read my mind. How does one distinguish between shoddy journalism and bias?
Quite easily in this case. Patten was on message for the Beeb – the blockade must end. No further questions required.
Now if Patten had to say the blockade is justified and must continue, you can bet questions would have flowed thick and fast. Questions aimed at undermining Patten’s position.
I expect many of them could be good journalists, if their bias didn’t keep getting in the way..
Too true.
The obvious and simple solution is to use the massive aid as a stick and carrot, the term “collective punishment” is a sneaky device to ensure that the only possible arm twister is not used. Now that is very clever because it tugs on the heart strings of the appeaser/bleeding heart fool and ensures the struggle can continue supplied by the west with food there is no need to negotiate.
Common sense is missing from the debate, simple logic tells us that the festering wound could be cleared up by the use of a very firm and tough approach to hamas and untill that tough hard headed approach is taken then fools like Patten and Guness will ensure more misery for all.
Good old Patten…fearless and indulged by the BBC. Craven and tearful in the face of the Chinese regarding Hong Kong. A typical product of the political elite. Cliches,platiudes and gravitas as his daughters thrive in PR or the media no doubt!
If I have to hear the epithet Rainbow Nation too many more times, I swear I’m going to shit out all my organs.
Peter Horrocks is apparently giving a keyynote somewhere on ‘journalism’, and though his twitter handle @PeterHorrocks1 is being referenced by the starstuck reproterette, I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the pearls of wisdom being shared as they are not on his own (limited) feed.
But they sound typical, if from another plane of existence. Samples:
‘People want to hear all sides of a story and you can’t often find that on internet‘
In my experience you can get everything on the internet, if indeed some rampant extremes. Shame the BBC is at the end of one and you need to be wary and dedicated to try and get anything like accuracy to balance much of its output. I think he is confusing what they are fed in PR as ‘news’ gathering, and how they choose to edit what they come across as objectivity.
The value of the BBC? 80% of worldwide audience says it makes them feel more positively about the UK.
That wouldn’t be 80% of BBC poll respondents from places that happen to share their quaint world view would it?
What is amazing me is how this tripe is evidently being dutifully noted down and passed on without question by other MSM journos.
Unless it is a set up. Anyone know where this speech is taking place and/or have access to a valid transcript? Off now, but I’ll check ‘The News Editors’ blog later as sometimes such navel gazing is covered there.
The BBC and MSM generally hate the internet. They can’t control it, therefore they can’t control what people think. The idea that the BBC think they give “all sides of the story ” is a joke . Does he really mean it ? If so, he is mad. Or is he just taking the mickey.
Even when reporting on scientific studies, the BBC is determined to hide any reference to Jews’ claim on Israel.
Genetic study sheds light on Jewish diaspora
Yet another study has shown that Jews around the world are more closely related to each other than to the non-Jews amongst whom most have lived for centuries. What’s more, it reveals genetic ties between Jews and other denizens of the Middle East. Here’s how the BBC sums up the logical conclusion of the study:
This fits with the idea that most contemporary Jews descended from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents in the Middle Eastern region known as the Levant.
The Levant? How about mentioning Israel, BBC? Or at the very least, how about “the Levant, including modern Israel”, or something similar? What an absolute, biased joke these Beeboids are. (Splitting hairs between “Hebrew” and “Israelite” is also ridiculous, but never mind that for now.)
Here’s an example of a non-biased report from an organization which does not have an editorial policy designed to suppress Jewish claims on Israel at all costs:
Scattered Seeds: Two New Studies Trace Jewish Genetic History
Instead of merely “the Levant”, the BBC could have said something similar to how this other report put it:
The team’s whole-genome comparisons of 14 Jewish and 69 non-Jewish groups found that despite being separated for more than 2500 years, most Jews show a strong genetic link to specific non-Jewish populations in the Levant (the Eastern Mediterranean region that includes modern-day Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Jordan, the Palestinian territories, Cyprus and parts of Iraq).
How difficult would that have been, BBC? Do the Beeboids (normally so contemptuous of the great unwashed) expect that the average BBC viewer knows all about the Levant already, no explanation necessary? No, it’s the BBC being deliberately obtuse in order to suppress information which could be interpreted as supporting Israel’s right to exist.
BBC’s Hard Talk journalism
By C. A. Chandraprema
Political Correspondent
It was the other day that the BBC aired the full version of the Hard Talk interview with Gotabhaya Rajapakse, and there are certain issues that need to be raised, not about what Gota said in that interview, but about the BBC programme itself. I have watched only two other BBC Hard Talk programmes, one was an interview with Ms Chandrika Kumaratunga when she was the president and the other was an interview with Ajith Cabraal the Central Bank Governor. I was never a fan of CBK and for seven long years from 1994 to 2001, I wrote against her government. Given the fact that I was an opponent of her regime who at the latter stages of that nightmare of a government also had to face character assassination and imprisonment for my pains, I should have been happy that she was hauled over the coals by the interviewer on BBC’s Hard Talk. But even at that time, I was repelled by the manner in which the BBC presenter conducted that programme.
Being opposed to a politician is one thing, but the manner in which a media establishment practices journalism is quite another. When CBK was re-elected to power in 1999, in a Sinhala column I contributed to the Irida Peramuna, the sister paper of the Sunday Leader and precursor of the Irudina, I called the people who voted for CBK “punnakku kana gonnu” (poonac eating bovines) and I still stand by such statements. Despite all my antipathy towards CBK, that BBC Hard Talk interview with her grated on my journalistic sensibilities. I have always held that no journalist should do hostile interviews.
My idea of the ideal TV interviewer in the international media is Larry King, respectable, non-confrontational, and he allows the interviewee to say what he has to say. A newspaper article would be for the journalist to make his assertions. An interview is for the interviewee to say whatever he has to say, and it should never seem as if the interviewer is trying to make assertions for public consumption through his questions. Larry King never does that and what he practises is journalism whereas I would characterise the BBC’s Hard Talk style as gutter journalism, not worthy of an international news organisation. I have never noticed such a gutter journalistic programme on CNN. I have not had the opportunity to watch Fox News regularly, but the impression that I get is that even though the Fox presenters are combatively pro-Republican and conservative, they don’t have any gutter programmes on their channel. (I am subject to correction.)
(Part 1)
(Part 2)
The BBC’s Hard Talk however, resembles a political Jerry Springer show. Most Sri Lankans are not familiar with Jerry Springer’s work, but let it be said that Springer represents the absolute nadir of western civilisation and broadcasting culture. You have estranged husbands and wives screaming at one another and homosexuals and transvestites exchanging insults with the studio audience. This is the ultimate low-brow TV show for the unlettered western masses, and in my estimation, the BBC’s Hard Talk is the current affairs cousin of the Jerry Springer Show. The interviewee is really a victim brought there for the entertainment of the audience. You ask him about all kinds of unsubstantiated stories and the purpose of this exercise if not really to elicit answers to those questions but to make the allegations or accusations widely known so that when the interview is over what will remain etched in the minds of the public will be the questions and not the answers.
My objection to hostile interviews is that the interviewer deliberately asks questions not with the intention of eliciting anything for the information of the public but of targeting the interviewee. This does not seem to be the correct way of going about things. If you have something on a person in authority, then that should be laid on the table instead of provoking a public shouting match about unsubstantiated issues. When you bring someone in authority before a camera and ask him “Is it true that you have links with the organised underworld?” regardless of what the answer is, the impression created in the minds of the audience is negative. A journalist can ruin a man by simply asking such questions, without making any assertions and this power has to be used with the utmost responsibility.
Nobody in this country has criticised UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe the way I have. Yet when I went to interview him a couple of weeks ago, I asked him the inevitable questions and recorded his answers and that was the interview. I did not try to make myself look important to the public by trying to be too smart with the Opposition Leader and former prime minister of this country. But that is exactly what these Hard Talk presenters are doing. The interviewer is trying to look more important than the interviewee!
If a real journalist wants to take someone down for whatever reason, then he should get some facts together and launch a blistering, scathing, frontal assault. This is the more difficult option because this requires some homework and sufficient evidence. There is always a risk associated with this kind of approach. Asking questions on the other hand is a safe option. You can’t be taken to courts for simply asking a question however unfounded or slanderous it may be.
This is not the first time that Gota was interviewed by the BBC, He was interviewed in February as well. If you take the past interviews that he has given to the same channel in the recent past, he must be among the most frequently interviewed persons on the BBC.
What I found objectionable about the whole interview was not Gota’s answers or the fact that he lost his cool at one point, but the manner in which the interviewer conducted the interview. Any journalist can get a person in authority to sit in front of a camera and then ask him all kinds of unsubstantiated questions, especially with a view to causing embarrassment and discomfort. In fact, the same thing can be done to these BBC presenters themselves, if they consent to be interviewed live by other journalists who may not approve of their style of doing things.
(Part 3)
From the beginning to the end of that BBC interview, the questions were all loaded and it is a good example of how an interview can serve as propaganda. The interviewer started with the military presence in the north, and went on to the question whether ordinary Tamils were deemed to be separatists, whether the whole Tamil population was being monitored, why there was no full investigation into alleged war crimes, such as 30 reported attacks on hospitals, about the emergency regulations, about a supposed authoritarian tendency in Sri Lanka, about journalists getting killed for writing against the government, whether it was healthy for one family to wield so much power, whether the ruling family controls 75% of the budget, whether one brother in the family is called Mr 10%, whether he (Gota) was worried about war crimes investigations, – literally the whole gamut of accusations levelled at the government by its detractors.
There is nothing wrong in asking hard questions, but if the purpose of these questions is to elicit an answer which will tell the audience where the interviewee stands with regard to these questions, then there is an etiquette to be followed. If the questions are asked but the etiquette is not followed, then the interview amounts to nothing more than an attempt by the interviewer to make various assertions through innuendo and thereby serve a propaganda purpose. Admittedly, there is a very thin dividing line between a bona fide interview and propaganda. In the media, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. There is no doubt that any reasonable person would have considered the BBC interview with Gota propagandistic rather than journalistic.
http://www.island.lk/2010/06/12/features2.html
Every time I hear anything about Sri Lanka on BBC World Service, the Tamils are always presented as poor innocents who were murdered in cold blood by the army. Including very aggressive interviewing of any spokesmen for the army or the Government.
Very good post, well done and thanks for the information.
The BBC has supported and given what aid they could to the LTTE terrorists, valuable airtime and a whitewashing of their terrible crimes against humanity, years of banditry and cruelty were not only ignored by the BBC they were presented as a freedom struggle.
Again and again the BBC led the way in portraying Sri Lankas fight against terror as a war of aggression, time after time it tried to mobilize world opinion against the forces of law and order. Now Sri Lanka is at peace and the BBC are doing what they do best, they are picking at sores and raking up resentment and fanning the flames of hatred and revenge in the hearts of any surviving terrorists.
Whether a BBC interview is hostile depends on the position of the interviewee. The BBC support the Tamil Tigers so this interview was bound to he hostile.
If a Tamil Tiger appeared on the programme, it would have to be re-named “Soft Talk”.
This is why so many of us hate the BBC so much and long for its destruction.
@Grant & others
You should see the way Sackur interviewed Sampathan. Sampathan is a member of the Tamil National Alliance – a racist Tamil party who’s sole election platform is the subjugation of the Sinhalese and Tamil domination of Sri Lanka, they make no bones about this fact and openly support the LTTE and violence against Sinhalese. Furthermore they: A) use their parliamentary privileges and permits etc to transport and store/house LTTE suicide kits, suicide bombers and claymore mines + other LTTE agents B) Go around the world calling for economic sanctions on Sri Lanka while spitting venom against Sinhalese C) Cry for “human rights” of their bombers and the violence they unleash, this is to stop the Police/Military Intelligence from catching bombers to thus help facilitate more attacks and the destabilisation of the country as well as creating “space” to stop Military operations (2006-09) as the LTTE despite all their loudmouth boasting and propaganda (which the BBC used to copy and paste) had to tuck their tails between their legs and run. Throughout the war all the LTTE did was retreat (or as they called it “tactical withdrawal” ) which is something the BBC no doubt hated, they used to love to brag and romanticise with the LTTE how they ran “a defacto administration” (good joke that) and how “they brought the State to its knees”. Of course when that “invincibility” of the LTTE proved to be a lie the BBC never stopped crying.
Returning to the TNA and its activities, the best bit of all is regardless of the essential treason they carried out (and still do) they are to this day fully funded and supported by the State, i.e. they use tax payers money to do all 3 objectives mentioned above while living in luxury housing in Colombo with state of the art ACed vehicles used to transport them (and other things -refer to point A) around. All provided for FREE as per MPs “allowances” and “privileges” paid for by the tax payer. That being the Sinhala tax payer as Tamils pay less tax, those from the North and East pay zero but receive all services –health, education, water, electricity, food- while contributing nothing in return, nothing to the nations GDP. While that is understandable (due to the war situation), it was a burden on the country as these services had to be supplemented by the rest of the country. The Tamil population who were under LTTE control were thus for the past two decades kept alive by the services and supplies provided for them by the rest of the country, kept alive by “the enemy” (i.e. Sinhalese) for free, something media hit men like the BBC never mentions for it does not fit the demonic image of Sri Lanka and Tamils the likes of Sampathan show no appreciation for and liberally take for granted (additionally Tamils who no longer live in the North and East but were born there and migrated south, also pay zero tax). That is the state of democracy in Sri Lanka which flies past the head of ugly mentally dysfunctional individuals like Sackur. Should also add the TNA is latest incarnation of chauvinistic Tamil race based parties with the type of agenda they have been exposing since the late 1920s and throughout the 1930s –long before any Sinhalese had any real power in the country or influence over its affairs.
Now coming back to the interview between Sampathan and Sakur, it was like Sackur was holding hands with a child. Carefully placed easy questions allowing Sampathan to “explain himself” (would not surprise me if these were pre-planned questions and answers) there was no interrupting and everything was friendly friendly with Sampathan given all the space (through Sackur and the BBC) to portray himself as the “nice guy” bullied and tormented by the Sinhala boogieman who he and his violent gang had “no choice” but to fight of course.
I have no problem with the BBC being tough and rude and behaving like some mad dog (as described in the Island article piece above) if that was the universal treatment to all, but its not and such an editorial policy is unacceptable. Comically the BBC cries loudest and the most for “media freedom”, no doubt they need such for their disgusting gutter “journalism”.
What is the purpose of hostile interviews? Is this what the BBC sees as its duty?
I thought one of the worst editions of HardTalk, among many other terrible examples of prejudiced and inept interviewing, was the one with Mosab Hussan Yousef and Zeinab Badawi.
OTOH the one with Ayaan Hirsi Ali was much better, but mainly because she knocked spots off Jonathan Charles, the interviewer, deflecting his attempts to insinuate and undermine her testimony as easily as brushing away a gnat.
Even if they were interviewing someone as despicable as, say, David Irving or Robert Mugabe wouldn’t it be more effective to just let them speak, and allow them, perhaps with the occasional subtle encouragement, to condemn themselves out of their own mouths?
BBC still being dishonest about illegal immigration, this time regarding children born in the US to illegal immigrant parents.
Hispanics in the US: A new generation
Yes, we’ve heard it all before. Pity the poor children, victims of racist laws enforced by jackbooted thugs. Pity the poor children who are treated as criminals, traumatized, etc. Pity the poor children who came to the US at age three, and this is the only home they’ve ever known. Pity the poor children who are cruelly separated from their parents, or ruthlessly deported to an unfamiliar, foreign country. What have they ever done to deserve this? They feel that the US is their home, and racists…er…tough immigration laws in the US are at fault for making their lives miserable.
Hey, BBC, how about blaming the illegal immigrant parents for having children in an illegal situation? How about frowning not at US immigration laws, but at illegal immigrants who knowingly bring children into a bad situation, willfully placing them at risk? If I take my child along on a bank robbery, you can’t say that unfair laws regarding bank robbery forced my child to get separated from his family after I get arrested.
The BBC makes no mention of this important factor, so the entire report is worthless, and biased in favor of those flaunting laws the Beeboids don’t like, and in support of granting amnesty.
Oooh yes some criminal behaviour is fine even though illegal immigration causes untold misery for both immigrants and natives and legal migrants. Never mind that those on the bottom rungs of society always suffer most with open borders and lax immigration laws, the BBC see the bottom rungs as the new foot soldiers of the socialist revolution. The quest to destroy the racial balance of the US is in full swing, legal migration would be too slow so illegal immigration is being actively pimped by the leftists as they fully realise they would gain the most votes out of it as we have seen in the UK.
All I’m asking is that somebody blame the parents for once for engaging in illegal activity and bringing their children along for the ride, without a care to the consequences the children might face.
Of course, if one thinks that sneaking into a country illegally, and working under the radar and not paying taxes while using the health care and education system payed for by legal taxpayers shouldn’t be illegal, it’s a moot point. It appears that the BBC has been reporting from that biased perspective.
BBC is televising the hustings for the Labour leadership on 15th June. This post on their website today invites questions to be put to the contenders. I’ll be chancing my arm trying to get some decent ones through the BBC moderation.
Ahh, what a nice man Brown is:
“A charity shop in Fife has been overwhelmed by interest from local residents after Gordon Brown donated some family possessions. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10297847.stm
How quaint – but the BBC miss this.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285745/Labours-1-3-TRILLION-spending-spree-How-millions-wasted.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/latin_america/10300428.stm
Hugo Chavez ordered the arrests of a tv-stations owner. The goverment says that it is seeks the arrests over alleged irregularities in two car dealerships of which they are the main shareholders. In the BBC article you will never find out which these irregularities are. If you look tothe others sources you find out that;
” In May 2009, a police raid found 24 Toyota vehicles outside his Caracas office, and authorities claim he and his son were keeping the vehicles off the market while waiting for prices to rise.” FOXNEWS
“The warrant is linked to a 2009 case in which Zuloaga was accused of “illegally storing” 24 new Toyota vehicles to manipulate prices.” REUTERS
“Attorney General Luisa Ortega told reporters that the arrest warrant was related to a May 2009 case in which Mr Zuloaga was accused of illegally storing 24 vehicles.” theaustralian
So waiting for a better price for your cars is crime in Venezuela.
By not mentioning the alledged crime the BBC creates the image of fraud.
The BBC does like to make news, rather than merely report it. In this case, according to the Daily Mail, the BBC is spending our licence fee money following an alcoholic young woman around some holiday resort called Aya Napa as she boozes and cavorts.
The report says that this young woman has an ASBO that bans her from every pub in Britain and she is seriously endangering her health by continuing to drink.
But hey, never mind, it’s all right because the BBC has a reputation for being serious and responsible. Well, so the BBC says. I didn’t know that, myself. Thanks for telling me, Beeboid.
That’s all right then: carry on filming the alcoholic who, it wants us to believe, goes to a place notorious for boozing excess, in order to turn her life around. I suppose they will tell us next that this is a new form of rehab. And it sounds as if they have borrowed Channel 4’s long-discredited hollow lines about welfare and safety of housemates, invoked to deny that it exploits young, vulnerable, and sometimes quite loopy people for entertainment on its Big Brother programme.
“A spokesman for the BBC defended the documentary, saying that Miss Hall’s welfare and safety ‘is of ultimate concern to us’.
Danny Cohen, BBC3 controller, added that Miss Hall and her family had been regularly offered money to tell their story, but chose to go with the BBC ‘for no financial gain’ because of the Beeb’s reputation for being serious and responsible.
He said that the documentary is concentrating on Miss Hall’s attempts to turn her life around, rather than showcasing or encouraging her drinking.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286084/BBC-exploiting-ladette-banned-UK-pubs-filming-Ayia-Napa-holiday.html#ixzz0qgJB5gsF
I see that the BBC are being criticised for cynically exploiting a situation pertaining to some New Labour chav, where-by twenty year old “Laura Hall” is banned from all pubs in Britain because of her alcoholic ways. So she allegedly saves up her giros and holidays abroad, with a caring BBC film crew on tow, faithfully filming her every (no doubt drunken move), perhaps to preach to us all later about the evils of drink.
Maybe the Beeboids will conclude she’d be better off reverting to Islam…..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286084/BBC-exploiting-ladette-banned-UK-pubs-filming-Ayia-Napa-holiday.html
Perhaps you really are Dazed and Confused. 😉
The BBC making the news again…Read the following for an intriguing (not to say hair-raising 😉 ) glimpse into the BBC’s book of staff management (category: discrimination, sexism and ageism. (see black hair dye, Botox and the threat of HD)
It seems to me that this presenter’s main mistake here was not merely to have been a woman but to have been the daughter of an Irish farmer rather than of a Jamaican or African farmer. Drat! She should have thought of that and arranged things better to suit the BBC in the first place. Sheer lack of foresight and planning on her part.
‘I learned about the decision when the executive editor called me and said, “You know that I’ve been trying to get a better slot. Well, I’ve achieved that.” I was so pleased, but then he said, “The show will be moving to primetime but unfortunately you won’t be going with it.”
‘My initial reaction was, well, nothing lasts for ever. Then I asked why. He said that the network wanted a new team – they wanted to refresh the programme. I said, “Does that mean everyone?”
‘And he said, “I don’t know yet, but we will be losing some of our best-known faces.”
‘I didn’t know then that this meant the women. The men still had their jobs but the women had
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1286115/Former-Countryfile-presenter-claims-The-BBC-replaced-younger-model–Im-53.html#ixzz0qgWAjAPS
BELGIUM’s election today.
Although the BBC doesn’t make the political connection to the European Union, there is possible political disintegration impending at the geographical heart of the E.U.
“Belgians vote in poll dominated by separatism”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/10303179.stm
@bbcpolitics Sarah Brown has agreed to write a memoir of her three years living in Downing Streethttp://bit.ly/b7br9K
Rea££y BBC… ‘agreed’?
Not just another remora from the £1Trillion Labour gouge machine trying to score yet more grubby cash with yet another (doubtless to disappoint by being totally sanitised) inside scoop on what was behind Gordon’s black dog decisions and bizarre actions?
However, one is sure the PR machine will be primed and ready to squirt it round and about, no matter how fictional, when the time comes, as anything Brown or Labour seems to get a free pass. With our money.
Speaking of money, in the ‘never have so few got to enjoy so much thanks to so many having to fund ’em’ sense…
Bloated BBC to send 400 staff to cover Glastonbury despite promise to make cutshttp://bit.ly/bMQSfM /via @MailOnline
Altogether now: ‘For they are (on another massive) jolly good fellows,…’
One hopes various market rate senior managers, political editors, etc, enjoy themselves, and get to claim mileage and O/T.
Mark Mardell’s latest utterings are so unbelievably messed up, I can’t really find the words to describe it.
He’s basically revealing his political leanings by wondering why the Left doesn’t proudly claim as one of their own a fascist Socialist US politician who broke the law to achieve his political goals. Which were, essentially, the destruction of wealth and the spending of public funds under the guise of helping the masses, with a healthy dose of self-aggrandizement.
It’s too pathetic for words, really. Apparently in Mardell’s twisted mind, because the guy had the right intentions – extremely Socialist – he wasn’t so bad after all. He even fondly(!) invokes the name of Lenin. I kid you not.
(Since there’s no BNP in sight, the BBC can mention that fascism generally comes from the Left, not the Right.)
Huey Long was the kind of Socialist extremist that Beeboids like Mardell absolutely love. They yearn for that truly egalitarian society where there is no gap between rich and poor. Of course, it’s not because they want to raise the poor up, but rather to drag everyone else down. This leaves the bien pensant elite like Huey Long to run things. Of course, Mardell and all the rest of his Beeboid colleagues see themselves as the nomenklatura, who will remain protected and above the masses, still able to lead their comfortable, elite lives.
The same old, bloated BBC, despite its phoney promises:
“Bloated BBC to send 400 staff to cover Glastonbury despite promise to make cuts”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286271/Bloated-BBC-send-400-staff-cover-Glastonbury-despite-promise-make-cuts.html#ixzz0qpnqE5du
‘Promises to make cuts’.
‘Cuts’ for the BBC is a pretend word.
I mean, what exactly are they going to do with the money saved by these ‘cuts’?
Rebate it to the license-payer
Or just spend it somewhere else.
No question marks because of course these are rhetorical questions.
Just heard the femal Beeboids on the News Channel resigned to the notion that the US President can dictate buisness practices to a British corporation (if the BBC can spend time talking about the President’s antii-British statements, BP qualifies as a British company for the purposes of this discussion).
So, where are the various talking heads or astute BBC analysts or even Government figures speaking out against the idea that a US President can dictate terms like that? From what I’ve seen, all reports and brief mentions simply accept it as a fait accompli, no sovereignty issues at all. Yes, there has been limited discussion of how this all affects pensions and whatnot relying on BP shares prices, but no open frowning at this international meddling. If it was Bush, etc.
Even Robert Peston has willingly accepted doing whatever He says.
There’s no point making an implacable enemy of the most powerful man on earth.
Obvious to most of us, I suppose.
But it has taken a while for BP’s board to reach the decision that if President Obama wants them to stop paying dividends, then for a while at least they’d better do so.
Not even a metaphorical raised eyebrow. The BBC seems to see nothing wrong with the leader of a foreign country basically extorting a British company into doing what He wants. At the very least, they sure can’t find anyone to come on air and complain about it.
The BBC also forgets – as does Obama – that the US lives under (more or less) the rule of law. Just because Obama’s thuggish and intemperate pronouncements (his political education in Chicago is evident here) are admired by Mardell doesn’t mean Obama’s every word is law (yet!) no matter how much Mardell and the BBC desire it. BP has already undertaken that all (legitimate!) claims will be met: BP isn’t running away from this one.
OTOH, although I can understand BP being a mite careful in their response to Obama, a bit more backbone wouldn’t come amiss. A (diplomatic) statement to the effect that if Obama personally or someone he knows has more expertise in repairing the damage then BP would welcome the help – until then a period of silence would be welcome. BP might also keep reminding the American public that both BP’s subcontractors, whose apparent incompetence caused the blow-out, are US companies (although Transocean migrated abroad 2 years ago). Also – and more pointedly – BP should ask why it should be expected to tip the compensation $billions into a fund to be distributed by politicians (of all people).
Yes, I’m sure Americans are angry and frustrated but Americans admire – or they did when I lived there 30 or so years ago – a spirit of resistance. BP lying down to be kicked (by Obama and the BBC) is unedifying and is just asking for more kicks.
I’m just trying to imagine what it would be like if George Bush had tried to give orders to BP. The BBC has definitely stood up for the UK (for once) against The Obamessiah’s rhetorical use of “British Petroleum”, but there has been nothing more than complete deference to His command that BP do His bidding regarding their internal business operations.
Surely the BBC can find one politician who might object to the leader of a foreign country meddling in domestic business affairs?
Speaking of Robert Peston, he sure isn’t pleased that George Osborne is about to break up the FSA and put part of it under the aegis of the Bank of England. Of course, as the FSA was supposed to be one of the crown jewels of Gordon Brown’s achievements as Chancellor, Peston is obligated to find fault.
He’s made two posts on it – so far. I expect at least another before Osborne’s announcemnt on Wednesday. Peston even admits that the FSA was to blame for RBS making a deal that made the bank ultimately unsustainable, yet nowhere is there a mention that his biography subject – Mr. Brown – was directly responsible for the “light touch” which allowed this and other deals to go through.
In other words, the FSA was not the great regulator everyone made it out to be, and so now Peston has to find ways to undermine Osbornes’ plans for it. Never mind that Peston himself wasn’t pleased with the way the FSA ran things back when it was all starting to go pear-shaped. And never mind that now he can’t seem to find much positive in Osborne trying to clean it up the way it should have been done at the time. Anything that appears to undermine one of Gordon Brown’s achievements must be attacked by his biographer.
Mark Easton is a hypocrite. Check out this hand-wringing over how wrong it is for people to be offended by the Cross of St. George. He makes a muddled attempt at separating the kind of nationalism he likes (sports) and the kind he doesn’t (all the rest). While he tries to make the case that some forms of nationalism can be bad with quotes from Orwell and Bagehot, Easton seems unable to discuss just how the flag has become viewed in some quarters as a nationalist (read: racist) symbol.
Easton is an absolute hypocrite for proudly proclaiming that he will fly the flag throughout the World Cup, for he is at least partially responsible for encouraging the association between racism and the Cross of St. George. See the video accompanying this blog post, beginning at 2:05 in.
No self-awareness at the BBC.
“We expect more from the BBC than tears and tits”
(George Tyndale)
http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/columnists/george-tyndale/2010/06/14/tyndale-we-expect-more-from-the-bbc-than-tears-and-tits-66331-26650322/
“I fear, though, that given England’s recent history in the World Cup, a proud nation will end up saluting its sporting heroes as they “go down with all flags flying”. Or is that an unpatriotic thought?”
No because you are a Scot – and that is the problem with the BBC. Everytime there is some occasion to support the English nation we are reminded how racist we are. Only in England does this happen.
This isn’t racist
http://worldnews.about.com/od/southafrica/ig/World-Cup-Fans/Switzerland-Fans.htm
Or this
http://football.thestar.com.my/starspecial/story.asp?file=/2010/1/28/footballeveryday/5558326&sec=FootballEveryDay
Only this
http://www.england-supporters.com/index2.php?view_cont=the_gallery
Anybody else amused by the culturally insensitive Beeboids whining about the how the natives’ vuvuzelas are ruining their footy enjoyment? Awww…
Heres something to send to Barry.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/6/newsid_3017000/3017294.stm
BBC’s John Humphys, writing in the ‘Daily Mail’ (he apparently need to boost the funds for his imminent retirement) lets slip a significant admission about the BBC ‘Today’ programme and the EUROPEAN UNION:
“So perhaps it was true that we on ‘Today’ had too easily accepted the orthodoxy of the times that Europe would always head in one direction – summed up in the words of the Treaty of Rome as ‘an ever closer union’. ”
Perhaps we can expect further revelations from Humphrys on the lines:-
‘So perhaps it was true that we on Today had too easily accepted the orthodoxy of the times that’:
1.) Israel was more or less always wrong , and Islamic jihad Hamas right;
2.) man-made global warming was destroying the planet;
3.) Islam was the religion of peace.
Breath not held.
“John Humphrys: Have the sceptics been proved right about Europe? ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1286615/John-Humphreys-Have-sceptics-proved-right-Europe.html#ixzz0qs6vTb9O
Is anyone else tired of hearing every single BBC report on their beloved Obamessiah visiting the oil spill region point out that this is His 4th visit? Last time, every single report made sure to mention that it was His 3rd. Don’t worry, BBC, we can all count for ourselves. Why the need to emphasize how hard He’s working?
If it was just one or two Beeboids doing it, I’d shrug it off. But it’s every single one, every single time. This is an editorial policy. Or Groupthink. Take your pick.
Also, I for one am pretty disgusted by The Obamessiah’s invoking 9/11. Unsurprisingly, Matty and Katty on BBC World Propaganda America very helpfully explained away this egregious exploitation of mass murder for political expediency. Apparently He was only trying to point out that this oil spill will transform US environmental policy just like that act of mass murder transformed US security policy. Katty was in New York on 9/11 , and totally, totally understand that this is what the President actually meant. Nods of approval from Frie Boy. Thank goodness we have brilliant Beeboids to interpret these kind of things for us. Whatever He says is Gospel at the BBC.
Actually, at this point it’s more like Star Trek fans attempting to bend time and space in order to rationalize techinical or continuity errors which pop up from time to time in episodes or films, in order to maintain some semblence of coherence in the canon. I should know, because I’m one of them. But at least I realize it’s fiction in the end.
At least now they’re mentioning – very quickly, almost under the breath – that the President is worrying about His reputation here. But these brief moments are dwarfed by the amount of White House talking points endlessly spouted by BBC correspondents.
For a final laugh-out-loud moment, Matt Frei just wrapped up this segment with a quick discussion with former Shell Oil boss, John Hoffmeister. Frei Boy led the answer by asking if the rationalization of the President’s 9/11 rhetoric might “send a chill down the spine” of oil companies. And what a shock, the oil maven allows that yes, it most certainly would.
According to the Shell Oil guy, making it more difficult for US oil companies to operate in general (as Frei Boy set it up), they’d move their drilling and exploration to South America. This would be bad, he explains, because the US needs the energy.
WTF? Since when does the oil extracted outside the US by US oil companies stay outside, never to be consumed by the US? Frei Boy just nods his head, oh yeah, gosh, because he has no clue about the real world. What kind of stupid fools does this guy – and by extension, Matt Frei – think we are? The actual answer is that the oil companies won’t be able to do much drillng or exploration in US territory, which will cost jobs and tax and royalty revenues. The way these two are talking is utterly insulting to one’s intelligence. It’s like a news program directed by high school students. But that’s the BBC for you.
In the end, it’s an entirely incoherent segment, none of it useful as news. But it’s not because this is a complex issue. It’s because the Beeboids putting it together are biased and ignorant, trying to create a Narrative based on emotional reactions without fully grasping the technicalities.
But it was NOT orthodoxy of the time that there would be an ever-greater union. There has always been strong resistance to this but the BBC has never reflected this properly.
“Orthodoxy within the BBC” would be more accurate.