Thought I would share this email I received from someone who seems to take issue with us. I leave you with Tony’s elegant words…
“Message*: Youfolks sound like you’re suffering from penis envy regarding BBC. They arebigger and better than you. BBC provides news that we don’t get here in thestates because of the bias of Associated Press (AP). Then there is the UnitedPress International (UPI)a news agency headquartered in the United States withroots dating back to 1907. UPI was purchased in 2000 by News WorldCommunications which is owned by Sun Moon founder of the Unification Church.Talk and write about bias. You guys need to lighten up a little. In the statesAP is not reporting about the genocide of the sexual minority community inIraq. There have been close to 800 suspected gay innocent men, women, andchildren kidnapped and brutally murdered by Iraqi police and religious fundamentalistsand were not getting that news by mo! st of the news media in the states. WHY?BECAUSE of AP. National Public Radio(NPR)is getting some of that story out.Certainly BBC does a better job than AP. Europe is better informed than thestates. So you folks need to stop the bitching and know that in some places onthis planet people are walking around like a bunch of god damn zombies, notthinking and not knowing what the hell is going on.”
At least he’s noticed that there are a lot of dicks at the BBC.
Thanks tony i now know my opinion is right ! as the hate i have for the BBC was formed in a free thinking vat of truth the beeb rains down on us ! ta !
Oooh dear, a loony alert?
The AP news wire agency is one of the biggest suppliers of news to the BBC along with many alarmist AGW propaganda articles. The relationship between AP/Reuters and the BBC is close, very close and which itself is closely linked with the SEJ and the NUJ.
The attempt to take control of the MSM and news wire services has been going on for a very long time, most people would be utterly surprised if they knew just how few lines of communication exists serving news content to the big MSM outlets.
Its the old old story, if you control the flow and dissemination of news ‘product’ you can control the future.
Of course this long term ‘coup’ began before the new media was even dreamed of and it has been a thorn in the side of the would be news masters. They didnt plan on a new media springing up that they could not control and buy off and this flaw could well mean the failure of the plan to centralise and therefore control news output worldwide.
Imagine if there had been no new media revolution, what would our received news content looked like? No climategate,no expenses fraud scandal,no uncomfortable facts leaking out past the guardians of the MSM.
The BBC TV World Service which I have seen on my occasional trips abroad seems to provide totally different and perhaps more impartial news. But you can’ view it here in spite of the fact that we pay for it
Since when did the BBC report anything about what the Mohammedans to do homosexuals? This blog covers that issue occasionally whereas the BBC hides it.
Tony if you read this – your arguement is confused and it does seem to be a bit of a loony rave. What are you trying to say? Is your arguement that the BBC is ‘good’ because it reports ‘stuff’ that others don’t?
Unfortunately the BBC is in the habit of only reporting that which supports its narrative of the moment. It is intrinsically leftist, and makes sure that its reporting always follows that basic agenda.
Imagine the BBC reporting stance if it had discovered in 1982 that PW Botha had ordered the SADF to murder 25,000 peasants and ‘political activists’. I am fairly certain that it would have been reported, hell they would still be going on about it daily, today. Unfortunately Comrade Mugabe did have his 5th brigade murder tens of thousands of Matabeles (potential political rivals) in what is called the Gukurahundi 1982. It was generally known at the time but the fearless BBC didn’t bother its’ arse, and still doesn’t as, unfortunately, it doesn’t fit with the message it wants to transmit
The BBC is a Gramscite organisation that makes sure that it only selects and reports items that match its’ agenda.
To be honest, your example is a weak one as Iraq is now well and truely off the BBc news agenda.
The reason people hate the BBC is that it is an active participant and cheerleader for the deconstruction of our national identity and for this favour I get a fine and a criminal record if I do not pay them. How would you feel if you were offered the choice of a large fine or paying for something that you find utterly objectionable?
So we pay for the BBC (the British!!) just to please this person in the US OK mate you can pay for our street cleaning.
He’s right about one thing: the BBC is bigger. Than you, me, and almost everything else. And therein lies the problem.
Well when someone mentions penis and the BBC in the same sentence you just know Hampstead Heath urinals are next.
Perhaps he’d like to pay for the BBC?
Jesus H! How bad is the US media for this poor guy to become deluded enough to praise the BBC?
WOW are we in trouble if the worlds most dangerous country thinks the BBC are broadcasting the truth!
Mind you, just watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart – now there’s some left-wing propaganda. And it’s supposed to be a F&$KIN comedy show!!
As is proven more and more every day by the latest JournoList revelations, the US media is well and truly screwed, yes. But, while we may have industry leaders that used to set the tone for national news coverage, we do not have an official national broadcaster, with a special relationship with the public that goes back for generations that goes far beyond reporting the news. And we are not forced by law to pay for any of it.
David,
As a UK “subject” the only “special relationship” I see the BBC having, and I’m sure this has been said many times before on this site, is with the Labour Party – and as you say I’m forced to pay for it!
Jerry, why do you think Call Me Dave and the rest of the Tories (including Gove) think that the BBC is still great despite the obvious Leftoid bias? The most they’re willing to discuss is a reduction of the license fee. They don’t separate the News division from the rest of it. The BBC has a legacy that goes far beyond the news, and that’s what has given the BBC a special place in the hearts of the public – for generations.
Whenever you see one of those “They hate the BBC and here’s why they’re wrong” rants, the defender of the indefensible always ignores the news and highlights the orchestras, the documentaries, the famous sitcoms, the fact that there are so many light entertainment channels across radio and television for merely one fee and you don’t get that from nasty old Uncle Rupert’s company, all the special holiday programmes, David Attenborough, all the childrens’ programming, etc., is that value for money or what?
The insidious bias of the news division doesn’t enter into the conversation for most people when asked whether or not the license fee should be scrapped. That is a huge obstacle to overcome, and probably the number one reason why the first line of defense for so many defenders of the indefensible is to start bitching about the US media. Most people simply do not get it.
What a shock, 5 bellies smiff trying to get herself a BBC job, no doubt they will love here at the BBC.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299288/Jacqui-Smith-applies-BBC-job–half-days-week-77k-expenses-naturally.html
I reckon that Jacqui Smith would make a highly compatible “Eastern Europe” correspondent, for that of the self righteous views omitted by the BBC.
As it’s been rumored many times before, that when Smith studied politics at Hertford College, she majored with the issues of both Eric Honecker, and the former Communist Utopia of Eastern Germany.
Surely a match made in heaven there then.
When you click on the link ‘Tony’ the guys e mail comes up. E mails are usually private and his e mail should not have been broadcast in this way.
I note David’s correction of this, but I’m unclear why you think his email was intended as “private” when it was mailed to a generic “Contact B-BBC” mailbox, begins “You folks” and refers throughout to “you folks” and “you guys”.
This email obviously is intended to be public.
Eye David didn’t make that clear, he wrote that it was an e mail HE received, hence I thought he received it privately, but whether or not it was sent to the site or to David personally it was an e mail and e mails are private by their very nature, if this guy had wanted to say something the site is open for him to do so. He could have registered with j-s and said what ever he’d wanted to.
Most e mail facilities to sites are to highlight something not to have ones personal stuff floated about – even if full of language like ‘you folks’ its best to err on the side of caution and treat e mails privately.
I understand you see the situation as arguable but really e mails are an e versiion of mail, and mail is private by its very nature. It’s no big deal, its corrected now.
So if I write an open letter to “you guys” and nail it to a door, it’s still private? By the “very nature” of it being a letter?
Maybe the whole Luther and Castle Church in Wittenberg thing was a big misunderstanding.
He didn’t nail it on to the door he put it in the mail and thats a fundamental difference. He may have intended it for admin alone and not the wider public. ‘You guys’ could be admin.
But that is not the issue. The issue is privacy, if you want people to contact the site with things they say or come across and publish e mail addresses it is off putting. the public who would or could send stuff to the site need to trust that their personal information is kept private even if the contents are not…..
If you e mail something significant to a newspaper and they told who the source was that would put off others, same in this instance imv
“something significant”…”source” So now we’re WikiLeaks and he’s in danger of black helicopters landing on his lawn and inviting him away for an interview without coffee. Fantastic.
This isn’t “significant”, it’s a badly typed rant directed at the site, its writers and its commenters (including at me personally). As such he has every right to a response, especially in the medium that he has indicated a preference for – direct email. If his preference for direct engagement had been via the comments here then he would have posted here.
Maybe we should have a disclaimer on the email form…”Do not leave your email address. It makes no difference anyway. Our worldwide spy cameras can see your genitals whenever we wish”
No, even if he’d put it on a brick and thrown it through the window he’s still got to accept that anyone in the room can pick the brick up and hurl it back.
Eye you are getting your underpants into a bit of a twist over this. Your analogies are way OTT. Neither Luther nor wiki nor blackhawk downs are appropriate comparisons.
Let us deal with reality shall we. I made a comment re the posting of someones e mail address, and DV must have agreed with me, for as you noted before he took the link out. Now lets look at this:
As such he has every right to a response, especially in the medium that he has indicated a preference for – direct email
Did anyone give him a response via direct e mail, no his rant was elevated to a post status level. Thats taking his rant pretty seriously is it not? If it had been felt it was a badly written rant why not simply bin it?
Elevating rants, inappropriate comparisons….all a bit OTT. Are you on the wine :-[
Now it really is late. nite.
I agree with the Eye’s “you guys” logic. If this was a magazine, no one would suggest that letters to the editor are Eyes Only.
If this was a magazine,
If it weere a magazine with a letter to the editors page then that would be different, and I’d expect to see something on the site refering to editors having the right to shorten it etc but there isn’t – anyway its no big deal and its very late so nite 😀
Well you have to agree if he listens or watches the British media.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7920330/Fury-as-Israel-president-claims-English-are-anti-semitic.html
I await the new BBC series equivalent to “Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic”, “Islamic Driving School”, or the one where they took one of the accomplices to the 7/7 mass murders paintballing, to counteract this intolerance.
O/T, but I didn’t realise till recently that the BBC put out two programs called “Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic”. The first one in ?2005 gave the more interesting and informative glimpse into modern British islamic society (inc the jihadi recruits doing what was blatantly obvious training). A year later, after the balloon went up the BBC released a second program, presented by a muslima, focussing on less contentious (sanitised?) themes. Search on their website (& elsewhere) and only the second is mentioned.
They’ve sent the original down the memory hole because it was revealed that the BBC sat on information linking one of the Muslims they highlighted to the 7/7 bombings and saw no reason to report it to the police.
Agree with Gosh, bad form, I had my email published on a few pro-AGW blog sites (and my home address), when the CRU emails got leaked. Got some fairly ranty emails, and worse, that email address is pretty much unusable now due to a massive increase in spam.
If possible, just change the domain to *****.com (which is the normal way of doing it).
Entirely different if you are saying that your address was in emails sent by you to the CRU. In that case they were private correspondence between you and the CRU and that email address should have been obfuscated by any third party releasing or quoting them.
That’s not the same as writing an open email addressed to all of us. That puts the onus on him to pick a disposable address if he doesn’t wish to enter into correspondence.
Though I doubt anybody could be arsed, really.
Gosh,
Thanks for spotting that. I have amended. I did not publish his full name, but the hyperlink remained.
Furthermore, if others here had to read some of the stuff I receive care of B-BBC I think my tolerance level is very good. :'(
I think we should all be allowed to see emails addressed to the blog itself, if they make a vaild point (or prove one of ours, I suppose). I tend to think of this as a communal effort anyway. No need to mention the name or email of the assailant. Unless it’s funny, of course.
I wouldn’t agree with that. It may become an alternative to posting comments, hardly in the interests of good discourse?
The occasional one would be fun, but I take your point. I just thought debunking the occasional one might help.
David P
The majority are really excellent, well-informed and erudite. There are then the lunatic fringe. I read them all for my sins.
Okay, thanks for that, David V. It was just a thought.
The always excellent Michelle Malkin does an irregular roundup of her hate mail, but it’s not half as good as the mailbag for Maddox which is excellent and usually leaves the email address in.
His email disclaimer (at the bottom of that page) is spot on too.
I’m wondering how publishing hate mail or rants would add to biasedbbc? Wouldn’t it be a tad hypocritical for DV to enter into that sort of stuff and then claim he doesn’t like vulgar public displays like gay pride parades…. He’s usually pretty consistent, I’ve read him lots of times writing about his consistency…. ?
I thought you said that you were going to bed?
Not hypocritical at all – exactly the opposite. Robust views are there to be challenged and defended. A blog writer should be able to defend their opinions…as you have seen when the comment threads on ATW descend into anarchy and doom after a controversial post.
Also if B-BBC attracts kooks (not this email but the others DV hints at) why shouldn’t we see what our Gracious Host endures on our behalf? After all aren’t we here because we believe in transparency and balance?
The guy wished to make a splash by making crude and absurd comments. Well, splash.