The Weekend Starts Here.
Out with the old open thread and in with the new.
Open Thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir Dec 19, 17:50
Midweek 18th December 2024
[img]https://i.postimg.cc/6Q4qNym1/IMG-20241219-173925672.jpg[/img] - Zephir Dec 19, 17:48
Midweek 18th December 2024
This morning I got a letter from Rachel from accounts, yes really. I’ve told her to leave me alone, that… - JohnC Dec 19, 17:33
Midweek 18th December 2024
BBC’s Steve Rosenberg challenges Putin on his 25-year rule of Russia https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cgrwqdrpzjqo So once again a BBC ‘journalist’ asks a… - JohnC Dec 19, 17:23
Midweek 18th December 2024
If that’s meant to be Lammy, it’s a few hundred pies short of the truth. But of course truth means… - atlas_shrugged Dec 19, 17:10
Midweek 18th December 2024
One of the more egregious examples of this is the recent production of a film by West-Indian heritage race baiter,… - MarkyMark Dec 19, 16:35
Midweek 18th December 2024
Maybe old people are burning on the fire? [img]https://i0.wp.com/order-order.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/WhatsApp-Image-2024-12-19-at-15.45.36-e1734625330228.jpeg?resize=1152%2C1707&ssl=1[/img] - MarkyMark Dec 19, 16:32
Midweek 18th December 2024
Estimates based on two US studies and one UK study suggest that negligence in the NHS in England may cause… - MarkyMark Dec 19, 16:26
Midweek 18th December 2024
NHS to diversify into Voodoo to use all medical ideas open minded … “Almost 200 massacred in Haiti as Vodou…
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
BBC’s MICHAEL’ Physician heal thyself’ CRICK has this on his ‘Newsnight’ blog:
Are Mayor’s political advisers paid too much?
But, of course, Crick omits reference to this:
“Bloated BBC pays almost 400 staff more than £100,000 a year”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250945/Bloated-BBC-pays-400-staff-100-000-year.html#ixzz0rtottWI6
Funny how this wasn’t an issue for Crick when Ken Leninspart was Mayor.
Leninspart had at least three advisers on £100K+, all far leftists to a man. Ken’s leftoids didn’t come cheap, or go cheap.
Although I would like to monitor the whole of BBC output for bias, as an individual this is clearly impossible. But still each time I listen to anything with political content I am left with the distict impression of easy on the left and Labour; take the tougher line with anyone with a non lefty attitude. Or any policy that is not left leaning gets a hard time as well. Or supportive quotes taken from the left.
My BBC bias meter is still leaning left.
“Pope Benedict XVI snubs the BBC:
Pope Benedict XVI has turned down BBC offer to appear on ‘Thought for the Day'”
(-despite the efforts of Jesuit-trained BBC boss Thompson.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7855172/Pope-Benedict-XVI-snubs-the-BBC.html
Thompson will stick with his favourites, e.g. Muslim, Mona Siddiqui:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/religion/tftd/queryengine?attrib_1=author&oper_1=eq&val_1_1=Mona+Siddiqui&submit=Search+author
That wasn’t a snub. Making the broadcast on SKY would have been a snub.
Wow, Mona Siddiqui is on a lot. Does she hold the record for ‘Thought for the Day’ appearances?
I’m sure we all remember how the drug taking twats at the BBC ‘delighted’ in giving us every absurd allegation made against Sarah Palin, but can anyone remember the BBC reporting on the sex scandal involving Al Bore?
Try as I might, I cannot find a single BBC mention of this story:
Iran cancels aid ship to Gaza: report
Iran was planning to send a ship just like Turkey did, in order to get more negative publicity for Israel. Unfortunately for the mad mullahs, Israel told them that trying anything like that would be considered an act of war. Iran backed down.
Other news organizations found time to mention it. Silence from the BBC about the whole thing, from start to finish.
The thing is, this isn’t the first time Iran has tried to make a scene by sending a ship to Gaza. Why didn’t the BBC report that? Oh, that’s right: Egypt stopped it. This was before the BBC started admitting that Egypt was part of the blockade and controlled its own border with Gaza.
Concerning the BBC’s coverage of the Boris mayorality of London: AFAIAA the BBC has not made one – literally one – report on Boris which shows Boris in a good light. Even when Boris recently sought to limit London’s expenditure on the absurd Livingstone/Blair/Coe ego-trip of London 2012, Adrian Warner (the BBC London news reporter) spun it as dangerously offensive to the International Olympic Committee in Geneva who, apparently, are not affected and take not a blind bit of notice that economic circumstances have changed since 2004.
Contrast this with the BBC coverage of the Labour contest for candidate for the next mayoral election. Oona King gets an encomium from the BBC – natch, being black and female – although being half-Jewish is a problem. After all that’s why she lost her parliamentary seat to Galloway and remains anathema to all those Londonistanis living within striking distance of Brick Lane: this could be an editorial puzzle for the BBC as it decides what not to tell its audience. And, of course, “dear old” Ken is given a pat on the back for being, well, dear old Ken. Mind you any non-BNP lefty or greenie shyster who also isn’t a Conservative (or, now, a representative of the great traitors – the LibDems) receives the BBC’s plaudits and, more to the point, favourable comparison with Boris.
Umbongo one of the reasons I stopped subscribing to Private Eye many years ago was that organs endless digs at Oona King which were presumably from Paul Foot helping out his SWP’er mate Galloway. In the run up to the election she lost to Galloway she also came in for a great deal of abuse from the SWP’ers on the News Quiz on Radio 4. Not only is she half Jewish but half American as well so plenty for them to hate.
She came across as a fairly useless nu-Lab MP which I suppose is better than most of them but doesn’t seem to have any desire or ability to fight back against the prejuidce she comes across.
Oona King does at least have good taste in Chinese food for Sunday lunch.
1327
Interesting point about Private Eye: I’ve read it for longer than I care to remember. It’s now curiously old-fashioned and bland compared to the many blogs which replicate what PE used to do so well (puncture the egos of our rulers and reveal scandals which were hidden from the little people). However, as you write, it has one or two less charming traits: its knee-jerk anti-Jewish (always) and anti-Israel (mostly) lines, its refusal to pillory the AGW brigade and – seeing as this is a thread on BBBC – apparent blindness to the bias of the state broadcaster.
Umbongo
I used to read every edition from my teenage years in the mid 1980’s probably for the next 15 or 20 years. I could see it going downhill but kept reading it even with the Paul Foot influence growing but the Oona King attacks and even worse endless articles on the danger of the MMR injection pushed me over the edge. These days I pick up the odd copy in the supermarket but it seems to be a shadow of its former self. I read elsewhere that they didn’t even mention the Climategate emails and presumably Hislop does so much work for BBC he won’t bite the hand that feeds him.
Jeremy Hunt just revealed to Andrew Neil that the Tories love the BBC and will not move to affect its “editorial independence”. He was concerned about the Trust’s ability to govern, but that’s about it.
This came out while they were discussing a possible review of BBC operations and budget, and that the BBC should be open and transparent about its expenses and costs. Hunt was concerned that the BBC was wasting money, and Neil wasn’t exactly challenging him.
Neil asked him if the Government was going to look into ending the license fee. Hunt said that it was out-moded, but they would never think of ending publicly funded public broadcasting. Instead, they’d look at some other way to fund “public broadcasting” out of your taxes, just as I’ve always said they would do.
It’s hard to tell if he meant the BBC, or was just playing games, or was hinting at funding something else instead. But other than that, Hunt was very clear about not trying to influence the BBC’s “editorial independence”, and that he felt that the BBC was great, high quality public broadcasting, etc.
I too saw Mr Hunt,I have been emailing him everyday with news about the BBc bias and as yet not one single reply….After seeing him I think I am wasting my time what a drip…thought that he would have some balls whilst in opposition but no just a wimp..
why not pay a £10 flat fee the rest on subscription that would please many but not the Beeb…
This ‘Conservative’/Libdem government wont lift a finger against BBC bias. Far too hard. Power’s to be enjoyed, not exercised for the common good.
In the words of Enoch Powell, the Conservatives are “literally mad”. If they don’t understand that the BBC is one of the great engines of lefty authoritariansm and is institutionally anti-Conservative then they – the Conservatives – are even more stupid than I had assumed. No matter how successful the current administration might be, it will be demonised by the BBC as having declared war on the public sector and the benefiterati as Thatcher is still demonised by the BBC for, among other things, rescuing this country from bankruptcy 30 years ago. Any improvements will be portrayed as arriving in spite of rather than because of the coalition. As, in the BBC’s eyes, Obama and Assad or anyone shouting “tax and spend” can do no wrong, so no-one not left of centre can do right.
We’re sunk, literally. it’s as if the world has packaged up common sense in handy little parcels, and jettisoned them overboard, never to be seen again.
You can believe nothing you hear, and only half you see these days. The BBC seem to go to inordinate lengths to pull the wool over our eyes, as do the press.
Clearly, they don’t make a very good job of it, because everyone knows. The problem is, apart from the few who post here and on similar sites, nobody seems to give a damn. What’s all that about?
What’s it all about? Apathy, fatalism, and a huge loss of moral fibre.
The BBC is pushing the opinion that capping immigration will split the coalition.
Apparently this will limit the number of chefs in Indian take a ways.
Luckily for the male BBC population it won’t effect the importing of Romanian rent boys.
Notice how when Liebour were in power the BBC didn’t call it immigration, they called it ‘migration’
Now the evil Tory bastards are in power it’s ‘immigration’ makes the Tories look like the nasty party/racists.
One for Martin, via pounce:
http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/2010/06/video-end-of-civilization.html
😀
Adam was a beeboid!
A disgusting truth the BBC will not tell you about the oil spill disaster:
Avertible catastrophe
In sharp contrast to Dutch preparedness before the fact and the Dutch instinct to dive into action once an emergency becomes apparent, witness the American reaction to the Dutch offer of help. The U.S. government responded with “Thanks but no thanks,” remarked Visser, despite BP’s desire to bring in the Dutch equipment and despite the no-lose nature of the Dutch offer –the Dutch government offered the use of its equipment at no charge. Even after the U.S. refused, the Dutch kept their vessels on standby, hoping the Americans would come round. By May 5, the U.S. had not come round. To the contrary, the U.S. had also turned down offers of help from 12 other governments, most of them with superior expertise and equipment –unlike the U.S., Europe has robust fleets of Oil Spill Response Vessels that sail circles around their make-shift U.S. counterparts.
“What the hell?” you may well ask. How could this happen? It’s not just the Jones Act (which Bush found a way around after Katrina).
Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn’t good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million — if water isn’t at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico.
So it’s yet another proof of the law of unintended consequences, specifically of rules laid down by environmentals. The BBC isn’t going to like that. But it gets worse.
When ships in U.S. waters take in oil-contaminated water, they are forced to store it. As U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, the official in charge of the clean-up operation, explained in a press briefing on June 11, “We have skimmed, to date, about 18 million gallons of oily water–the oil has to be decanted from that [and] our yield is usually somewhere around 10% or 15% on that.” In other words, U.S. ships have mostly been removing water from the Gulf, requiring them to make up to 10 times as many trips to storage facilities where they off-load their oil-water mixture, an approach Koops calls “crazy.”
Worst of all:
The Americans, overwhelmed by the catastrophic consequences of the BP spill, finally relented and took the Dutch up on their offer — but only partly. Because the U.S. didn’t want Dutch ships working the Gulf, the U.S. airlifted the Dutch equipment to the Gulf and then retrofitted it to U.S. vessels. And rather than have experienced Dutch crews immediately operate the oil-skimming equipment, to appease labour unions the U.S. postponed the clean-up operation to allow U.S. crews to be trained.
Unions. To whom the President is deeply committed. Yet more disastrous leadership which the BBC won’t tell you about. Blame BP for the spill all you want. But blame the clean-up failure on the President, whose leadership and personality failure is making this disaster exponentially worse than it would otherwise have been.
Why aren’t BP exposing this? I guess Obama has mastered the psychology of fear too well.
Oil companies in general are scared to death about their reputation as it is, and the BP bosses know all too well that even the slightest suggestion that the Administration might also be at fault would spell disaster. Hayward tried to pass the buck a little in front of those moronic Congressmen, and he was gone within 48 hours, as was a good percentage of BP’s share value.
In the current climate of the media still in thrall to Warmism, it’s blame oil companies (and nasty old corporations in general) first, ask questions later. Well, actually, don’t ask questions at all.
There’s also the matter of an apparent coordinated effort between BP and the US Government (yes, the Coast Guard counts as the US Government, especially since Thad Allen was personally picked by The Obamessiah to take care of business) to block press access from seeing what’s really going on with the cleanup effort. Most of the emotionally immature media are satisfied by getting fly-over footage of the spill itself, and then some great footage of a few oily pelicans. That tells the story they want, pushes the emotional buttons they want. No more reporting necessary.
I’m sure the BBC will be looking to investigate this story further in the public interest:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289702/Public-sector-inertia-council-office-employees-month-sickies.html
One never sees this inertia at the BBC. They tirelessly work towards the return of a Labour Government.
Toenails just made a total knob of himself on the BBC news. Talking about Cameron meeting Barry, old four eyes stated “If Gordon Brown had been here he’d be aligning himself with President Obama”
But he’s not Nick because we VOTED the one eyed halfwitted twat out of power because he has bankrupted and destroyed our economy.
You know I’m sure the BBC think that Liebour is still in power.
“If Gordon Brown had been here he’d be aligning himself with President Obama”
Chasing him through the kitchens wasn’t it IIRC?
How typical. The rent boy using twats have a picture on their news website of Obama with… Sarkozy
Could you imagine them NOT having Barry with the one eyed mong?
i follow several blogs in the USA (one by Jerry Pournelle – Chaos Mannor in Perspective) and they have been saying the same about the Jones Act being used to stop European clean up ships being used in the Gulf.
Consensus on these blogs seems to be that Obama wants to keep the crisis going to obtain the maxium amount of political influence out of it.
I think they’re giving The Obamessiah too much credit. It’s down to incompetence in the Administration, from the top down. George Bush managed to waive the Jones Act. Even the extreme-Leftoid rag Mother Jones (no relation) is willing to admit that. And they get bonus points for saying that Bush did it for evil and not to help, because letting oil companies use foreign ships to move things around is, you know, exactly what is needed right now. But then again, Bush had quite a few actually competent people on staff (whether one agrees with their ideology or not, there were competent people).
The Beeboids know all about this, because the New York Times and WaPo have mentioned this. But they can’t tell you about it because it might make their beloved Obamessiah look less than totally large and in charge. Can’t have that.
So where the f@#k is the BBC coverage of the violent protests in Toronto about the G8/20? Leftoids always engage in destructive violence when they do these “protests”, and the BBC is always silent unless it happens in Britain and they can’t avoid it.
Look at what the BBC’s fellow travellers get up to:
Protests turn violent: storefronts smashed, police cars set ablaze
No surprise to anyone here, of course. But where the f@#k is the BBC? The scumbag Paul Mason is perfectly happy to blog about one single incident of right-wing violence in the US, and of course slandering the entire Tea Party movement – including people like myself – in the process. That’s legitimate news for the BBC.
But real destruction and mayhem from the Left is approved by the BBC, so they don’t bother reporting it. It’s not even newsworthy to them. Do we ever see a Beeboid fretting over the potential of violence from Left-wing protests? Never. Yet we all saw them scaremongering about violence from Tea Partiers.
Incidentally, the scumbag Paul Mason is actually telling a blatant lie in his little screed. There were no racial insults or deliberate spitting on black Democrats. That was all made up and recanted and disavowed by the very black Democrats Mason is supposedly defending. There are no “placards” carrying “implicit threats of violence”, either. And even a child could tell that the gunsights in Sarah Palin’s posts are no more commands for the faithful to commit murder than when f@#king Guido does it. Yet, when an opponent of The Obamessiah does it, the BBC will lie and slander.
As always, never, ever trust the BBC on US issues, or on who actually engages in violent protest.
Here’s pretty much the extent of their coverage on the BBC website:
Thousands of demonstrators marched on the G20 summit on Saturday in what is being reported to have been a largely peacefully (sic) rally that saw outbreaks of violence on its edges. These saw groups of young men scuffle with riot police and set fire to at least two patrol cars.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10426747.stm
That same article – the BBC’s main article on the G20 Summit – highlights the differences between major countries over whether to cut now or to keep on spending.
The BBC, being on the ‘keep on spending’ side of the argument, quotes the views of just two governments – the US and Brazil, both of which want us to keep on spending. Did Mr Harper of Canada, or Mrs Merkel, have nothing of interest to say on the subject? Or just nothing the BBC wanted to report?
Posted at 5:06 (UK) today, it says.
The BBC has done even better than that now. They’ve created a slideshow celebrating the protesters. Check this is out, but have a sick bag at hand:
G20 summit protests in Toronto; Your pictures
Aren’t violent Leftoids just lovely people? Harmless lambs, they are. Come see the peaceful agni innocenti juxtaposed against The Man’s jackbooted stormtroopers. This is the BBC agreeing with them.
I especially like the image of the burning cop car which some hippy fruitcake has scrawled an equation: peace symbol plus anarchy symbol equals love heart. On a burning cop car. Fucking morons.
I see Starbucks got its windows smashed too. Wonder why.
It’s probably the most-shared photo on the BBC’s Facebook group.
I suppose the very last thing Obama wants is a quick clear up of the oil by great big foreign oil clearing ships.
He wants the oil on the beaches because its a giant billboard for his green anti carbon dioxide scam and power grab?
Something just dont smell right in all this!
He points to a foreign company and then shakes it down like the Chicago bred scammer he is and he points to the oil and says let me show you a wonderful low carbon green ecofuture till be great and millions of jobs will be created like magic.
He is hypnotising the USA and setting it up perfectly for second world status.
I think we should discount all the conspiracy theories. The very last thing Obama needs for his agenda is the appearance of inexperience/incompetence/poor advice. His handling of this his first real executive crisis makes Yes We Can look awfully optimistic.
I suppose had the captain of the Titanic survived he would have blamed the iceberg and greedy company executives but he never would have commanded another substantial ship, again.
Agreed, it’s the same reason why the Muslims don’t want thePalestine issue solved, whilst it exists they can use it to blame the west and divert attention from their own corruption.
Barry is just using the oil spill as a way to deflect attention from his own failures and to promote his silly green ideas.
‘Telegraph’:
“BBC boss Mark Thompson tells head of religion Aaqil Ahmed not to discuss his faith”
[Extract]:
“After Ahmed’s appointment, members of the General Synod, the parliament of the Church of England, said it was a ‘worrying’ development that could further undermine the BBC’s coverage of Christianity. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7856370/BBC-boss-Mark-Thompson-tells-head-of-religion-Aaqil-Ahmed-not-to-discuss-his-faith.html
Did BBC appoint a Muslim as head of religion to appease Islamic interests?
Does BBC not want a Muslin head of religion to speak on Islam because this may be perceived as threatening to non-Muslim British people?
Or is it all about some attempted ‘low-key’ Islamisation of Britain, of which the BBC is a participant?
Perhaps he might start ranting on about ‘Infidels’ or calling for “death to Jews” by accident.
Isn’t that like telling Peter Thatchell to stop talking about being queer.
That’s his religion.
I expect to see this headline on the BBC website any minute soon:
MASKED RIGHT-WING AMERICAN TEA PARTY THUGS INVADE CANADA AND ATTACK TORONTO
Politics show had Billy Brag the BBCs favourite pop singer said he did not no anything about socialism until the miners strike. Given that he still supporst them he still doesn’t.
the BBC does love its multi millionare pop singer socalists.
Someone took on BBC bias this morning, and on one of the programme’s most guilty of it – Radio 4’s Broadcasting House (formerly known as Gordcasting House).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00st435 (about 12 minutes in).
James Bartholomew, author of The Welfare State We’re In, had a sly dig at left-wing presenter Paddy O’Connell. Taking about William Beveridge, he said “And if he was here today espousing his system, you would be criticising him as a right-wing fanatic”.
Psddy replied, “Well, I don’t know if I’d do that but can I..I do know what I want to do, which is to ask you ‘Could you live on £64.30 a week, which is the job seeker’s allowance for a single person aged over 25?”
James replied, “Well, I don’t know. I think it would be extraordinarily tough, but I think whenever you mention that statistic – and on the BBC it’s mentioned frequently – it’s very rarely mentioned that a lot of those people who receive those benefits receive other benefits as well, such as housing benefit, such as council tax benefit, etc etc, free milk, free education, free health care. A lot of stuff comes free. This is on top of a lot of things that are already free.”
The other guest was a Labour MP, Kate Green. Paddy O’Connell went on to ask her about Iain Duncan Smith’s idea about offering incentives for people living on council estates, where there is high unemployment, to move to areas where there are jobs:
“Here’s a barrier – geography. There’s a job two hundred miles away. Top of our news this morning, it’s loosely called the ‘on yer bike’ system, is it right to ask claimants to move to seek jobs Kate?”
This it typical of Paddy O’Connell.
Firstly, “it’s loosely called the ‘on yer bike’ system” by its critics, chiefly Ed Balls http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10426714.stm (The BBC’s sub-headline change in the course of the morning from ‘On yer bike’ to ‘On your bike’) – though in fairness the Sunday Telegraph has also dredged up that 30-year old misquotation from Norman Tebbitt too.
Secondly, Iain Duncan Smith’s idea is for ‘incentives’ not compulsion (as Paddy implies), and even the BBC article reports that he is not saying what Paddy O’Connell reports him as saying:
“Mr Duncan Smith said he did not expect people to relocate to different parts of the country, nor did he want everyone to move to the south east of England” (BBC News)
“There’s a job two hundred miles away. Top of our news this morning.” (Paddy O’Connell).
James Bartholomew has a review of his appearance on ‘BH’ on his own website, which links (intriguingly) to B-BBC.
http://thewelfarestatewerein.com
Oh dear I have a funny feeling Mr Bartholomew isn’t going to be making any more BBC appearances for quite a while. The Beeb doesn’t like it when right wingers fight back.
Funny how these people can’t see the hypocrisy in their position that some people should never have to move to find jobs, while at the same time saying that it’s correct and normal for people from Pakistan and Poland to move to the UK in order to find jobs.
I suppose Paddy O’Connell would have cried out against all those people migrating south every year to pick hops back in the day?
How interesting that the News Channle is doing a segment on this exact same story, with the exact same narrative. Cue vox pops with Northern accents mewling how it’s not fair that they should be “forced to move”.
Now Ed Miliband is saying that the “get on yer bike” philosophy is “disgraceful”.
Agenda at the BBC? Or Groupthink?
Could you live on £64.30 a week?
Could two people live on £128.60? How about four people on £257.20? It’s not comfortable but it is clearly possible otherwise there would be far more starving job seekers.
If I could live rent free and never have any health care costs to worry about, I could easily live on £64.30 a week. If, that is, I didn’t buy 40″ TVs or Xboxes or cigarettes or £80 Nikes or a case of Tennant’s every week or spend £15 a day on take-aways.
Stephanie Flanders said that the bank levy being imposed in Britain and the US is a way “to recoup the costs of the bailout”. That’s funny, because last time I checked, banks had been paying the government back with interest, or in Citigroup’s case, selling the stock at a nice profit.
That’s called recouping your losses. What Flanders actually meant was “punitive redistribution for the purposes of revenge”.
How I loathe Countryfile. Once upon a time, I remember, it used to be Farming, on Sundays, and it was sensible and interesting.
Now, it’s a patronising plebfest and seems to be staffed by right-on boys and girls of Blue Peter mentality who rush around saying “wow” and “fantastic” a lot, whilst referring to creatures as diverse as bees and shellfish as “guys”. Just leave the poor bloody creatures alone, we just don’t need to stick cameras up their arses and record and monitor every sodding thing they do, leave them alone. I hate it. I hate it with a vengeance. Then there’s the ageing juvenile John Craven, who thinks everything is the result of climate change, forgetting, perhaps, that after 4.5 billion years of variable climate, it’s not suddenly started to change out of the blue in the last thirty years, and it’s nothing to do with us, anyway.
And to top it all, there’s a prat in a teddybear suit, complete with bandage poncing around for the photographic competition (which, we all remember, was a bit of a fiddle last year). Real farmers must be heartily sick of this nonense. But it seems to be symptomatic of the BBC in general, from newsreaders, through weather “forecasters” to just about everyone else employed in that useless, expensive left-wing organisation. Auntie has become Nanny.
Why is the world becoming so dumb and stupid? Where has intelligence, integrity and common sense gone?
As much as I enjoy seeing a Beeboid give Vince Cable a hard time about flip-flopping on issues, Andrew Marr is completely wrong about it today. The BBC spent the whole election campaign telling everyone that there should be a hung parliament, that the public clearly wanted it, and it was considered sensible and grown-up for the parties to work together. Marr was making the same noises himself.
Now that the two parties actually are working together, the BBC is slamming the LibDems for hypocrisy and saying that the voters are now deserting them because they’re working together. I guess it’s not sensible and grown-up to work with the Tories.
Yes David the Beeb wanted a coalition but not this one. There they were working towards a lovely Lib-Lab pact and look what they got instead 🙂
Is there any other BBC presenter who would have asked this question of Diane Abbott?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289868/Diane-Abbott-fumes-branded-racist-TV-This-Week-host-Andrew-Neill.html
When posturing lefties do get asked searching questions they can’t handle them. What a very, very different country Britain would be if the BBC truly was impartial. Neil is very much the exception not the rule.
The BBC will never engage in the ‘personalisation’ and ’emotionalisation’ of government policy changes and cost savings would they?
Er yes they would and yes they do on a regular basis as long as the government is a political enemy and it serves the BBC narrative of course.
The BBC would never report on individual cases of criminal actions by asylum seekers and immigrants and they have a list of legal excuses all ready to defend that stance, yet when they choose to report on a supposed individual suffering the consequences of cuts then the legal excuses are hidden and the justifications come out.
We know that immigrants are consuming vast amounts of social benefits and many hundreds of thousands will be a net consumer of social benefits for the rest of their lives, one immigrant might find work but his family will consume free housing/medicla care/financial support far in excess of their tax contributions.
The families of immigrants are allowed into the UK with no regard to whether they will be a net contributer to the national finances or a net drain. How many enter the UK and then live off the state and become a burden to the taxpayer for the rest of their lives and how many start taking social benefits from day never having contributed to the pot?
The government knows how many foreign nationals WE are supporting, they know exactly how many enjoy social housing and how much it costs every year and they know how many families are arriving to take full advantage of the social benefits every year yet the BBC will never share any of this information with the public.
Can we as a nation afford to finance a massively increasing number of foreigners who rely and indeed come to the UK for the social benefits they can extract from the UK?
Simple questions about immigration that the BBC will never allow to be revealed.
All that matters to the BBC is that they pimp the prejudice of their political allies and allow attack platforms never given to its political enemies.
Next BBC junket after Glastonbury: ‘T in the Park’, Scotland:-
“Anger as BBC sends 268 staff to T in the Park”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/anger-as-bbc-sends-268-staff-to-t-in-the-park-1.1037643
I saw this in yesterday’s Telegraph. It’s one for Robin really. Christopher Booker. “Amazongate”
“no one crowed more hysterically over this story last week (or got it more wrong) than The Guardian’s George Monbiot. Inter alia, he accused me and Dr North of having been “responsible for more misinformation than any other living journalists. You could write a book on all the stories they have concocted, almost all of which fall apart on the briefest examination.”
I would remind him that, on the only occasion he tried to do this, boasting that it had taken him just “26 seconds” to catch me out, he was soon forced to apologise to his readers that he had got his point hopelessly wrong, and that I was right. Silly old Moonbat should learn when it is wiser to hold his peace. “
Peter Hitchens on the Budget, ‘cuts’, and the BBC:
[Extract]:
“The trumpeted cuts are politically impossible.
“The screeching lobbies that stand behind the public sector and the welfare state have automatic access to the BBC, where their advocates are treated with reverence.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1289866/These-cuts–ll-soon-just-like-Greece-lovely-beaches.html#ixzz0s87VMZiL
It’s like a bad (well, worse) sequel to a Harry Potter…
‘Aunty and the latest sinister failure in appreciating irony’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/06/whats_up_with_the_weather.html
Tonight, trumpted across all uniquely-funded outlets they can muster, Panorama is giving the plebs the latest ‘truth’ on (A)GW and, in complement how it gets shared. Tom Heap reporting.
The producer has posted this blog in complement.
One just has to wonder if even with the last vestiges of professional pride in the journalist’s craft, even he might find it… unfortunate.. that most dissenting views are being nuked by using the facile catch-all of House Rules, probably the most risible in its multiply-standarded interpretation and application as being ‘off topic’.
I know this as I have read most of the ‘offending responses’ as they initially did make it past the mods to get seen. And with good reason; they were fine. Critical of group-think, editorial inclusion or exclusion, story-shaping, etc, to be sure, but… fine.
Now some senior bod has appeared from a uniquely-expense accounted weekend at Glasto and is going through lobbing out anything with their pram toys that does not fit the ideal narrative, by truly abusing the system. This is not ‘moderation’. It is propaganda supported by censorship.
And, in so doing merely proving everything is worse than they are so desperate to smooth over.
Market rate talents to make the English football team seem competent in comparison.
I have wasted time on a complaint but, like the latest £6m reward for failure this country has to endure, I am sure in due course I will get a reply to say ‘they did well’.
Yup, my post objecting to the deletion of an earlier post has been removed for…. breaking the house rules. Despite the fact both were initially allowed through. Apparently it’s against the house rules to point out that a post wasn’t against the house rules.
Yet a post which quotes my first, now deleted, post in full is allowed to stand, despite the fact that I pointed this out in my objection. I’d complain but frankly I have better things to do.
I have certain reservations about some he comes out with, and certainly many in the mob he ‘inspires’ (that a CiF or Richard Black tribe are as bad if not worse simply being two more wrongs), but this has been noticed in an influential, if partisan corner:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100045118/id-rather-stick-my-bag-of-amphetamine-injected-rattlesnakes-than-put-my-trust-in-tonights-bbc-panorama-documentary-on-global-warming/
Must confess I gave the show a miss. Like you I have better things to do. But when the ‘system’ is as egregious in its abuse as this, I do advocate persisting. At the very least it gets logged, and one day a pol with some cojones might actually turn up who sees that the national broadcaster taking out comments it doesn’t like, simply because it can, is the start of a very slippery slope.
Looking back at the blog I am fascinated what has been left in. Maybe they realised that taking out all the negative comments might seem a bit obvious. But most that highlight BBC control freakery seem to have got the chop. Maybe it’s a sensitive area. Which makes it worth prodding.
Reviewing To Kill A Mocking Bird on R4, ciggie-voiced hyena, Mariella Frostrup, invited on Shami Chakrabarti (sp?) for a liberal-left cryathon about Harper Lee’s language and her depiction of mi brethren.
Girls, let it go. ‘The Foreigner’ was always the villain in Enid Blyton books.
It was of its time, alright.
Now dry your eyes ffs.
Soft Interview on HardTalk:
Gaza blockade easing ‘worth’ flotilla lives
Al Jazeera would have given Kenneth O’Keefe a tougher interview.
Wait for a stealth edit of this line: Kenneth O’Keefe was on that boat and he was involved in the violence. Sarah Montague asks him whether it was worth it. Look for the words in bold to mysteriously disappear.
Wow, it was totally obvious that Montague agreed with the goals of the “activists” and was trying to convince O’Keefe that his violence wasn’t helping side. Hilarious. But at least she was telling the truth that the “activists” started it. No problem letting the guy spout Hamas propaganda, though.
I like O’Keefe’s prison tattoos as well. Very hip, very peaceful.
These political ‘artists’ (and their politically sympathetic BBC report here, which presents their propaganda only) want to stop BP’s sponsorship of art:-
BBC report –
“Artists criticise BP’s Tate Britain sponsorship.”
Will these same political lobbyists turn to boycotting another multinational company, Unilever, for its actions in opposing the freedom of speech of Geert Wilders?:
‘Brussels Journal’ (2007):-
“Dutch Unilever Director Wants Wilders Stopped”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2751
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10431694.stm
‘
BBC News Channel just had on some NHS mouthpiece to spout doom and gloom about nasty Tory cuts decimating hospitals and harming patients.
“What kind of affects are you seeing on patients now?” asks the Beeboid.
NHS guy: “It’s still early days…” He then admits that nothing has actually happened yet, but that doesn’t stop him from going on and on about how some undefined “early signs” should put the fear of God into all supporters of the NHS. Basically, this guy just wanted to have a moan about a policy he doesn’t like, and the BBC was all to eager to give him unchallenged air time to do it.
This was a policy advocacy broadcast, not a news segment.
The BBC is all about ‘policy advocacy’ now, everything they do and everything they report is carefully considered and only gets through the news filter if it serves the narrative. Airtime is reserved for allied political and social groups and close contacts ensures that when a favoured group wishes to get airtime they contact their friends at the BBC and a news item is made up specially to fit the groups requirements.
The BBC has become a multi billion pound political advocacy/lobbyist abusing its position of trust to spread its political and social narrative.
I think the England chairman actually did tell Capello his decision just now, but the manager simply didn’t understand him. I know next to nothing about this kind of football, but I can tell when somebody is babbling and does not speak English. All week he hasn’t been able to understand reporters’ questions to him, and I certainly haven’t been able to understand most of his answers. How does he run a team? Do they all speak Italian or is there some code of grunting and hand gestures common to all footballers?
Even Emily Maitlis just nearly admitted that this guy is incoherent, but she and the other Beeboid in the studio had to bite their tongues and go back to speculation as if Capello hadn’t even made a statement. Quality news.
I enjoyed the latest BBC attack…sorry…report on the Tories proposed cap on immigration from outside the EU. Today’s example of a business which will allegedly be harmed by this is a Chinese travel agency in Birmingham.
Apparently this cap would be bad because there are too many Chinese immigrants in the area who don’t speak English, and they might need to recruit more people from China who don’t speak English to cater to that clientele. Presumably all those Chinese people already living in the Birmingham area (God forbid anyone from somewhere else in the UK ‘get on their bike’ and move there for a job, right?) are pensioners or disabled and unable to work? While still being able to afford trips to China, of course.
The rest of the “report” was more negative comments from various sources, with nothing from the opposite point of view. After it was over, we were just told that they’d be talking to Theresa May about it at some point. Another political advocacy statement dressed up as a news report. That’s two in the last few minutes.
I see now that the BBC did this report to set up Theresa May’s statement about the immigration policy in the Commons right now. Clever bit of context creation for your Narrative, BBC. Very clever timing.
The tactic is an old chestnut of BBC bias.
Same as the Chinese in Birmingham who, strangely, cannot work, so we will get the emotive argument that there will be no cooks for “Asian” (Indian / south Asian) restaurants. As if there are no “Asians” in England who could cook in restaurants.
Notice how the BBC sneers and distorts the truth about the government plan to control immigration.
The drug addicts claim that this will prevent “engineers’ and “doctors” coming here, yet when the BBC actually interview people it appears that the only effect will be on the local curry house.
Try a little role reversal here and imagine how the BBC would play it.
“I’m the owner of a restaurant serving British cuisine and I can’t get any white chefs to do the cooking. Yes, I know there’s millions of unemployed Asian people but they simply won’t do.”
As unemployment approaches 3 million here, isn’t that effectively what the “curry house” argument is saying?
To be fair, I thought the man from the Indian restaurant (the one I saw yesterday, at least) was saying that it was too costly to train new cooks, claiming that it took years to learn proper curry techniques.
Unless the BBC has used two different Indian restaurants to push the narrative, which is entirely possible.
Of course, I have doubts as to the scarcity of available curry chefs in Britain.
I can’t stop laughing, the BBC tear in Jeremy (I love the BBC Hunt) over an interview he did for SKY NEWS about football hooliganism. It’s obvious from the interview Hunt was fiddling with his ear piece and was talking about the Heysel disaster when he mentioned Hillsborough.
I wonder if Hunt still thinks the BBC is a great organisation?
The BBC made it the SECOND story on the news, is it really that news worthy?
Anybody else witness the stitch up on the Toady programme this morning regarding the suggestion of the workless moving to where there is work?
To debate the matter with Naughtie, were a Liverpool Labour MP and an academic – both of whom thought this to be a bad idea – surprise.
It came down to Naughtie – sounding very uncomfortable – to try and defend the suggestion.
Use your imagination – it was appalling.
Only to be followed by the Home Sec. to be screeched at by an over excited Sarah Montague.
If the BBC is the question, a hatchet is the answer.
The Today programme never changes, does it?
The debate can be heard here, beginning at 0:48:37:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/b006qj9z/console
The Labour MP (Louise Ellman) banged on and on about “the devastation of the ’80s” brought about by Margaret Thatcher and the academic – a ‘Marxist geographer’ at the Open University called Doreen Massey – agreed wholeheartedly with her and denounced the “movement to reactionary political positions within London and the South East”.
It was something of a Gordon Brown memorial edition of Today this morning, with Louise Ellman (Labour), Lord Myners (Labour), and Richard Caborn (Labour). We even got Brown’s pollster, Deborah Mattinson.
Throw in two lefty academics (the Marxist Doreen Massey and the feminist America-hater Mary Beard) and a chap from Greenpeace (Charlie Kronik), and it’s just another day at the biased BBC.
The Beeboids aren’t happy about the US Supreme Court’s decision that a Chicago ban on citizens owning handguns violates the Second Amendment. They give one little sentence explaining that the Court decided that the right to bear arms is protected in the Constitution.
The rest of the article is mostly an expression of disappointment and scaremongering.
First of all, the Court isn’t “extending” gun rights, but rather is returning them to citizens. Already the BBC perspective is wrong.
Correspondents say the ruling will be seen as a blow to efforts to reduce the role of firearms in American life.
Will be seen by gun opponents as such, yes. Forgot that bit of context, didn’t you, Beeboids?
The justices seen as the more liberal – Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor – voted against the latest ruling.
Thus placing the decision within the BBC’s usual spectrum of right and wrong. Then there’s some scaremongering by some bar owner who says he’s afraid that his customers will get drunk and shoot each other.
Here are a couple of facts from the Supreme Court decision which the BBC doesn’t want you to know. First, it seems that the Court is aware of reality:
Chicago PoliceDepartment statistics, we are told, reveal that the City’s handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates of otherviolent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities.
So maybe returning the right of gun ownership to the citizenry will not automatically lead to a Dodge City scenario, as the BBC suggests. Then there’s this very key bit of context for the decision, which the Beeboids definitely don’t want you to know about:
The unavoidable conclusion is that the Civil Rights Act, like the Freedmen’sBureau Act, aimed to protect “the constitutional right to bear arms” and not simply to prohibit discrimination.
You see, gun control laws were mostly set up to keep blacks from defending themselves against deadly violence from the white establishment. The Supreme Court recognized this, and it seems that those nasty Conservative justices cared more for the civil rights and personal safety of blacks than the liberals and the BBC do.
So we have BBC balance in action.
Camp male reports on housing and disability benefit.
We get
1. Fat woman who fell down stairs at work, she says how important disability benefit is. What did she do break her neck or something? People who break a leg are back at work in days.
2. Then we get some Limp Dem interviewed who thinks that it’s not fair that disabled people might not get benefits even though if you’re really disabled you’re not at risk.
3. Then we get the little boy that Ed Balls is married to spouting shit.
Hmm anyone notice something about that lot?
Every day I listen to the BBC convinces me more and more I’m now living in a parallel universe.
I keep hearing Liebour politicians being interviewed as if they are still in power. The latest example is bummer Burnham being interviewed about the World Cup. The twat was talking happily away as if he’s still the secretary of state and fat Vicki Pollard is grunting along with him.