Here we go, such is the stunning demand, a NEW Open Thread!
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir Dec 19, 08:43
Midweek 18th December 2024
“The 20-year-old, from Croydon, was “inspired” by infamous high-profile stabbings and had made “provocative statements” to female students on his… - atlas_shrugged Dec 19, 08:42
Midweek 18th December 2024
> “Bournemouth: Asylum seeker killer could be deported after life sentence” Could? Could? Could? There must be three certainties: Death… - MarkyMark Dec 19, 08:40
Midweek 18th December 2024
650 MP’s expense to go up? 650 MP’s pay to go up? 805 Lords pay to increase? [img]https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/03/14/12/55334663-0-image-a-7_1647262311709.jpg[/img] - Fedup2 Dec 19, 08:38
Midweek 18th December 2024
Excellent news – water prices to go up from April at the same time as council taxes … pound down… - Zephir Dec 19, 08:34
Midweek 18th December 2024
[img]https://i.postimg.cc/RFvZwdSr/Capturezxc.jpg[/img] - Zephir Dec 19, 08:33
Midweek 18th December 2024
RE AsI above, some alternative suggestions for bbc tattoos or cubical signage: [img]https://i.postimg.cc/4N0yjp5t/karlkraus1.jpg[/img] - MarkyMark Dec 19, 08:33
Midweek 18th December 2024
“Mao did more good than Harm” comment will end Diane Abbotts career….. 2024 … Mother of the House is now… - MarkyMark Dec 19, 08:32
Midweek 18th December 2024
“No information as to Nasen Saadi’s immigration status is given in the Sky report”….. …. OLD CASE …. “Bournemouth: Asylum… - MarkyMark Dec 19, 08:30
Midweek 18th December 2024
“Your daily reminder that foreign funding to U.K. political parties is illegal.” “Labour donor Lord Alli breached Lords rules” “Developing…
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
Difficult one for any Beeboid – is he a freedom fighter or another evil Catholic priest?
Really like the thread logo!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11063939
Are there no limits to the BBC’s hatred of competition?
The idea that species which adapt in order to survive are the successful ones is nothing new. Why is this news? I learned this when I was about five years old reading children’s books on dinosaurs.
Ah but the BBC is a Dinosaur that has never had to feed itself.
What dope at the BBC decided it was a good idea to ask if people shouldn’t be saving money instead of paying off their mortgages? Why is that even a question? Do they seriously not get it?
Correct David — the know-nothings at the BBC seriously do NOT get real-world economics or finance
Most of the mongs at the BBC are communists, say no more.
another year another camp moonbat, but not much from Al Beebs non science educated moonbat eco activists with english degees this year on climate camp
only story ive seen is where 8 eco terrorists were arrested terrorising the royal bank of scotland and this one, all hidden away in Al Beebs regional pages
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-11067718
in the war against Al Beebs bias, i think we have won a significant battle
What the report doesn’t tell you is that the police, unbelievably, HELPED the protestors to set up camp and carried some of their gear for them, in the naive hope they wouldn’t terrorise staff. You couldn’t make it up.
Roland,
The British police tend to support terrorists and criminals. I don’t trust them.
With friends like these…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mediamonkeyblog/2010/aug/24/bbc-edinburgh-tim-vine
Not sure if our Emily was ‘lost for words’, or simply trying to reach out to the Macaw audience base.
Of course the greatest joke was missed, by not asking if he had one of the Cape Town skyline, which might have saved the licence fee payer a few bob recently.
Boom, boom 🙂
“Online course”? Is that all they have to do when they caught lying or cheating or stealing? No wonder they keep doing it.
I was shocked to note that the BBC’s front page editors have decided that our Prime Ministers new baby is only worthy of third billing on their front page.
So I thought to myself, maybe I’m the only one who thinks this is a really newsworthy event. So I checked all the major news sites, The Telegraph, Sky News, The Guardian, Daily mail, etc etc etc etc, and guess what, they ALL had this news story listed prominently in their prime position. Well, all, excluding the independent, who like the BBC, really don’t want to share good PR about Prime Minister with their readers. In fact, they don’t mention it at all!!
I have all the websites in tabs in my browser, and is most striking to flick through them and to see the stark difference between the way they portray this story and the way BBC chose to underplay this (good PR) story about our Conservative PM.
A bit late but when reviewing the papers yesterday on Today they managed to find the comment “…Milliband hates what Cameron is doing to the country” in a SUPPLEMENT to The Guardian.
No context or anything else just that bald statement was broadcast.
Their researchers must have looked hard to find that one in the early hours of the morning, unless they had their card marked for them.
Anyone else notice the prominence given to the BBCs favourite newspaper in this slot. Shouldn’t they be telling us what the non-intelligentsia are reading in their papers to help keep the heavyweight paper readers (and Today listener?) abreast of the current concerns of the majority?
A great many people hated and still hate what Millibrain and his cohorts have done to the UK!
As you say, no context and no greater narrative than to take the smear soundbites so beloved of the spiteful BBC.
Remember letter box gob and Browns beard? All the soft focus airtime in the world, it was hold the front page then wasnt it? The worst UK PM in history who couldnt even manage to win ONE election and he gets the BBC VIP treatment when his rugrats poped out.
Gerald
As we have noted many times before here, the default FIRST newspaper the BBC quotes in any “summary” of the papers is the miniscule-circulation Guardian – which is a failure. Second default is the Independent. As you say – papers with far larger circulations – The Times and Telegraph as well as the redtops – are relegated. And often if they are quoted, it is not their lead story but some lefty theme not on the front page.
I think the current job instruction for whoever “summarises” the papers is :
“STEP 1 Scour the Press for bad news about the Coalition, leading off with the Guardian and the Independent. If you ever quote the Sun – don’t use their lead story, find some fun piece inside. Avoid stories that criticise out core belief in Obama, multiculturalism, uncontrolled immigration, man-made climate change etc, and try to include stories that are anti-Israel, anti-Bush or the Republicans, anti-business, anti-Christian, anti-the indigenous British people.
STEP 2 Then pass your selection to the editor so he can ensure that you have closely followed these guidelines.”
I seem to remember Beeb Bias Craig documenting the number of papers referenced by various BBC news shows. You would not be surprised by the results.
Craig’s figures showed a wholly disproportionate favouring of the Guardian – one of say 8 or 9 UK newspapers, it got like one-third of the first references.
And the disproportionality is even worse if rated according to the circulations of the various papers. The Guardian would rate as 1/30th or 1/40th – or worse. So, should only get the first reference once a month.
Yes, Newsnight‘s closing run-down of the following day’s front pages over the 6 weeks from 8 Feb – 19 Mar 2010 produced the following results:
The tally that answers the question ‘Which is the newspaper Newsnight chooses most often to begin its front pages review with?’ recorded:
1. The Guardian – 11 first mentions
2. The Independent – 5 first mentions
3. The Times – 4 first mentions
4. The Daily Telegraph & The Financial Times – 3 first mentions each
And after 6 weeks the running total for all mentions produced this list:
1. The Guardian – 26 mentions
2. The Independent & The Daily Telegraph – 19 mentions each
3. The Financial Times – 17 mentions
4. The Daily Mail – 12 mentions
5. The Times – 9 mentions
6. The Sun – 3 mentions
7. The Daily Express – 2 mentions
The Guardian was the only paper mentioned in every Newsnight paper review!
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/labour-sinn-feinira-guardianbbc.html
Thank you for the statistics Craig. I have complained about the gratuitous Cameron comment and excessive use of The Guardian. Your info will form part of carrying the complaint further when I get the initial fob off reply.
And after 6 weeks the running total for all mentions produced this list:
1. The Guardian – 26 mentions
2. The Independent & The Daily Telegraph – 19mentions each
3. The Financial Times – 17 mentions
4. The Daily Mail – 12 mentions
5. The Times – 9 mentions
6. The Sun – 3 mentions
7. The Daily Express – 2 mentions
_____
So in (admittedly) general terms:
Leftwing papers (Guardian, Independent) – 45.
Rightwing papers (Telegraph, Financial, Mail, Times, Sun, Express) – 62.
An obvious example of left wing bias… <sigh>
Rubbish. Neither the Times nor the FT can be regarded as “right-wing”.
And you forget to mention…
The tally that answers the question ‘Which is the newspaper Newsnight chooses most often to begin its front pages review with?’ recorded:
1. The Guardian – 11 first mentions
2. The Independent – 5 first mentions
3. The Times – 4 first mentions
4. The Daily Telegraph & The Financial Times – 3 first mentions each
Left-wing papers = 16
Centrist & right-wing papers = 10
<sigh>
I was going to be fascinated how any Auntyphilic entity might try to excuse this. Especially heft & priority accorded vs. actual ABC representation of the general population.
A bit like those guests at the top of producers’ iPhone speed dials to provide ‘objective’ commentary.
Fortunately, the ‘when in hole, hire a JCB’ mindset seems to have again been lured out.
Craig,
QED !
Quite noticeable difference on the Today programme paper review I heard today. Guardian got an early mention, but only along lines of “The Guardian and Times lead with…” not quite the deep searching in The Guardian for something negative to say about the Prime Minister mentioned above. They also did a fair bit on The Sun, which seemed to amuse/confuse the presenter(s).
Do you think this blog is read by somebody paid out of the television tax?
After INBBC Newsnight’s propaganda for Islam and niqab last night, tonight the topic is: Dutch Elm disease.
These damn Dutch, always creating problems !
Back on the subject of the Islamic centre & mosque near Ground Zero…
…the home page of the BBC website features a Watch/Listen section. The headline beneath reads Blogger on Ground Zero mosque row.
Can you guess whether the blogger they chose to feature so prominently, Daryl Lang, supports or opposes the Islamic centre & mosque? I bet you can!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11070481 mosque row
Any chance of equal time for an opposing view by someone not named Sarah Palin? I won’t hold my breath.
Well they could ask Howard Dean or Harry Reid!!!!
Yeah I see the bloggers political affiliations are not mentioned, thats important becasue it would certainly colour the bloggers comments and opinions.
The BBC seems unable to find a blogger that represents the opposition to the mosque, no othr opinion required? Free primetime airtime for its friends and allies, all the valuable airtime that political enemies of the BBC would never get.
With the BBC you get the BBCs side of the story and the BBCs friends side of the story and they may even allow allies of the BBC airtime.
So thats 20% of the entire populations political aims covered, but what of the other 80%? No no no! They are only required to fund the propaganda NOT be represented by it.
In the BBCs warped corporate mind there is no other valid view other than their own.
Nothing on the BBC about the growing refusal of the ordinary American worker to work on the mosque. How are they going to build it? Import labour? I don’t think so. What about truck and crane hire. Will any firm risk hiring out equipment? This building will never happen on the site proposed. In the US as always the remedy lies in the hands of the people and there is nothing Obama and the mayor of NY can do about it.
This presentation is crap. Sure, the guy claims to still have feelings of grief about 9/11. But no group of strippers hijacked planes to murder as many people as possible in the name of Pole Dancing. No t-shirt vendors committed and act of mass murder in the name of the garment industry. No hot dog vendors flew hijacked planes into the Towers in the name of Hebrew National. It’s not because we’re sensitive to
“the faith”, full stop. His entire argument is based on a false premise, and it’s the same smokescreen being put up by everyone defending this at all costs.
Yes, the Mohammedans have a legal right to build their mosque and Islamic center. But Daryl Lang’s claim that the victims’ families feelings are irrelevant is callous and disingenuous. Oh, wait, he didn’t actually mention the families of the victims. He needs to hide that as much as possible in order to focus on the general angry mob. The BBC was more sympathetic to the families of the IRA protesters killed on Bloody Sunday than they are to the families of the victims of 9/11.
And of course, we get another round of Spot the Missing Word.
Jihadists in SOMALIA and UK.
Note how INBBC, which does not represent the interests of British people, but simply propagandises with their licence fee, does not link today’s massacre in Somalia by Islamic jihaidst(s) with the active support given to Somali jihad by Somali immigrants living in Britain.
No, INBBC’s Mohammed Olad Hassan does not make the link back to Somali jihad supporters in UK:
“Somali MPs killed in hotel suicide attack”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11068805
Here is a link which does make that connection:
UK jihadists joining jihad in Somalia
“The headline beneath readsBlogger on Ground Zero mosque row.”
Strange that you don’t pick up on the obvious bias of the headline seeing as what has been proposed is neither Mosque nor at Ground Zero?
Dez: the comment is about Islamic jihad in Somalia and how INBBC refuses to make the jihad connection between Somalia and Britain.
On the ground Zero Mosque in New York, INBBC now goes full-time into using British people’s licencepayers’ money for its political propaganda for Ground Zero Mosque, and censors and bans anti-GZM bloggers such as the following:
ATLAS EXCLUSIVE! GROUND ZERO MOSQUE IMAM FEISAL’S EXTREMISM EXPOSED: IN HIS OWN WORDS: “the United States has more blood on its hands than al Qaida,” Elimination of Israel, the N-Word, “Fahrenheit 911”
and:
Moderate Muslim spokesman issues veiled threat over Ground Zero mega-mosque opposition and “Islamophobia”
and, as for the role of your mosques:
“Bring On the Mosque, Bring On the Terror ”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38678
You replied to the wrong guy Dez!
But, in answer to your point, in reply to James Godrich – who made exactly the same point you made, in exactly the same words on Monday – I wrote (in relation to another such BBC headline):
It’s certainly true that it’s far from being just a mosque, but there will be a mosque of course. The project’s official website says it will include “a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community”.
http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm
So there is a mosque and there’s also an Islamic community centre, separate parts of the same project (the project formerly known as the Corboda Initiative).
As to whether its “not at Ground Zero”. Well the heated debate in America on that willl run and run.
What Islam Not BBC (INBBC) and Americophobes omit:
Sharif El-Gamal vs. Daisy Khan and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf on the location of the Ground Zero mega-mosque
Craig,
Excellent, so they are going to ley non-muslims enter the mosque during prayer time ? We should all turn up !
“let”
Keep an eye out for the new BBC sitcom about the Khan family from Bradford, entitled ‘10.4 children’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1304608/BBC-competition-multicultural-writers-sitcoms-branded-middle-class.html
Or a remake of that American sitcom (with Ed O’Neill) Married…with Children, to be called Married to my First Cousin…with Children.
or “Forcibly married to my peasant cousin from Pakistan, with children”
Should read “cousins” , surely.
Ooooh dear me!
The Australian election is not going the BBCs way at all, there are still votes to be counted but it looks like the BBC may have counted its chickens to soon.
The conservative coalition may end up with 74 seats as the postal votes still coming are favouring them, early days yet but with 74 seats they only have to get two indys onside and they are in and the ALP is out.
The ALPs Gillard is hanging onto power like Brown did and now the tide is turning toward a liberal victory the BBC suddenly dont want to know, its onto other news.
A little digging reveals that the ALP suits are not happy bunnies about Gillards treachery and lacklustre campaign, stolen it seems from Gordon Browns campaing fiasco and with the odd Obamaresque soundbite thrown in.
Seats still in contention are swinging to the liberal coalition so all the BBC bullsh*it about the green ecofascist being king maker was premature. But thats the BBC for you isnt it? so childishly eager they suffer from premature ejaculation and end up with the Lewinsky stain in front of everyone.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE LORD LET THE MAD MONK WIN!
The horrific double whammy to the BBCs ego and emotional state would be utterly glorious to witness!
A climate change realist and sceptic as Aussie PM with the next AGW festival of lies coming up and a sceptic representing Australia. To put the cherry on the BBC misery the liberals ousting a first term ALP party.
Lordy Lordy, the next week to ten days is going to be a nail biter!
To all my friends out there, If you have a God then pray for a liberal conservative victory please because the stunning damage to the BBCs narrative will be the delight of 2010.
I noticed that the Aussie election disappeared completely from Ceefax yesterday and hasn’t yet returned.
Of course, this is the usual form when a story refuses to follow the Beeb-ordained script and once you understand the game it’s easy to work out just what the narrative actually is.
(Incidentally, if you make your way over to Tim Blair’s site, there’s a delicious clip of a reporter bitchslapping an ALP wonk who seems to be the equivalent of Ed Balls in terms of economic illiteracy).
Cassie,
“Lewinsky stain “, love that one !
5.30 news on Radio 2 on Tuesday…
And the FTSE100 Index has closed up 40 points at 5,234.
No, luv, that was MONDAY’s close. Just because you can run cracks in the coalition, cuts, and Pakistan flood stories every day, doesn’t mean you can run every story every day.
Jonathan D. Ross was right when he said he was worth 150 BBC journalists. Unfortunately he’s worth the square root of SFA himself.
Bupendra,
I am surprised the BBC report a rise in the Footsie at all.
Islam Not BBC (INBBC) and its propaganda for Islam, ramadan and mosques continues tomorrow with this on INBBC One:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tkr8b
I don’t suppose the BBC will mention the mosque’s various connections with terrorism :
http://hurryupharry.org/2009/12/28/east-london-mosque-linked-to-nigerian-aeroplane-bomber/
Has anyone else caught the new very expensive cartoon trail for…. the BBC weather?!
This latest abuse of license-payers’ money is outrageous. Here we have the profligate BBC spending who knows what (it is a very accomplished and costly graphic) to indoctrinate us into thinking that the BBC weather service is somehow superior. When, as we all know, the info actually comes from the Met Office! So this is all the usual shoddy, crappy, tendentious spin.
BBC arrogance simply knows no bounds. They genuinely don’t get it, do they?
Jesus effing christ. Bum boy Burnham got such a free ride off Rat face on Newsnight, he should have been told to shut up, if you put a stop watch on that interview Nadine probably got 20% of the time.
Kirsty was up to her old tricks of interrupting the Tory and asking questions to both guests from the Left’s perspective (such as the question to Burnham about his government letting the wicked private sector into the NHS).
The bBC and not the 9 O/Clock news.
Two big news stories from the middle East and the bBC hasn’t even mentioned either one yet.
Turkey to investigate Islamists coup claims
ANKARA (AFP) – A Turkish prosecutor opened an inquiry Tuesday into claims that followers of a major Islamic movement in the police fabricated and doctored evidence in probes into alleged coup plots,
Hezbollah, Sunni group clash in Beirut, killing 3
BEIRUT – Lebanese Shiite and Sunni groups fought street battles using machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades for more than four hours Tuesday, killing three people and wounding several others just blocks from a busy downtown packed with summer tourists.
The first story exposes how Islamists are trying to change Turkey from a so called secular country into a Sunni version of Iran. But all such hate filled states require a bogey man,in which to galvinise the people. At a stroke it explains why the AKP wants a peace accord of sorts with Greece. (And explains why Israel has been building ties with them) Why the army has been purged and why the AKP fingerprints are found all over the aid convoy? And yet the bbC hasn’t got round to reporting it yet. But if a Jew was to look funny at a terrorist?
The latter is just another example of how hezb-allah isn’t the peace loving terrorist outfit the bBC tries to make it out to be.
Pounce,
The big story is the destruction of secular Turkey and the extreme danger it poses for the West. The Beeboids are either too thick to know what is happening there or support it so don’t report it.
Either way the BBC is crap.
The BBC could fill ten panorama reports with everything that is going on in Turkey at the moment BUT it just aint part of the narrative to paint a true picture of the real world.
My heart goes out to the secularist Turks who are now in the firing line and their lives are not going to be fun soon.
Apropos of nothing, this is an interesting article about how the whole Climate Change scam started. It was kicked off at a symposium cconvened by Margaret Mead – whose whole claim to fame was later shown to be a fraud. (Incidentally – Global Warming is not being used any more as the temperatures have not been rising since 1999 – Climate Change has slithered in as the euphemism for AGW)
http://inthesenewtimes.com/2009/11/29/1975-endangered-atmosphere-conference-where-the-global-warming-hoax-was-born/
It seems that the Muslim Brotherhood has launched its own, Islamic version of Facebook. The BBC is keen to give you the details.
A senior member of the banned Islamist group says the aim is to spread awareness of moderate Islamic values.
Perhaps in the hopes of getting un-banned? Sure, why not? I’m always hoping a strong voice for moderation will prevail, so why not the one pushing for Shariah Law in Egypt and to reinstate the Caliphate in the Middle East? After all, one man’s moderate is another man’s extremist. It’s merely a matter of perspective.
The Brotherhood’s version – Ikhwanbook – looks similar to Facebook, but users say it respects Islamic values better.
Naturally. How does it work in practice?
It has more reserved use of photographs, less intrusion in the personal lives of members, and a different attitude to homosexuality.
Oh, just “different”? Well, that’s alright, then. They’re entitled to be different. It’s merely a matter of perspective. No need to go into detail, obviously. Good old moderate Islam. Thanks for the enlightenment, BBC.
“different attitude”. I love that !
Would that be “Cover-Your-Face-book ?”
Well well well!
It seems that NICE has been caught lying about the benefits of AVASTIN to justify its banning of the drug on the NHS, imagine the BBC digging deep to uncover the story?
Wait and see folks.
This (Weds) mornings 6am news on Radio 4 woke me up with yet another report on how the coalitions budget will hit the poor hardest causing starvation and children to be sent cleaning chimneys etc etc. This one is from a think tank the IFS who presumably are closely linked to the Labour party.
Now I know it makes a change from AGW but don’t you wish they would change the record from time to time.
I’m not sure if the IFS is particularly linked to the Labour Party. But note the headline: “Budget hits the poorest hardest, says IFS“.
Back in the last government, wouldn’t that headline have read: “Ministers refute budget allegations”?
BBC TV News at one just now led with this story and used it as a bit of Osborne and coalition-bashing.
As a former member of IFS, I certainly always viewed it as impartial, but don’t recall the BBC publicising the many IFS reports which contradicted the the Labour governments “statistics”.
This latest report was commissioned by a left-wing child poverty group so “who pays the piper….”.
The news report just now had the revolting Ed Balls spouting his usual bile and the BBC reporter managed to get in a bit about the “nasty” party and she wasn’t talking about Balls.
All in all, BBC bias at its most blatant and sickening.
PS,
The current Director of IFS, Robert Chote is rumoured to be in line to replace Sir Alan Budd at the OBR. So there may be some internal political games going on. We can be sure that when the BBC start describing the IFS as “respected”, we know it has been captured by the left !
Just watched a Breakfast News piece on tagging violent mental patients, so if they stray off then there’s a pretty good chance of eventually finding out and reacting.
Fortunately, these tags are unobtrusive, as the the rights of these massive contributions to society are paramount.
To debate this we had a bloke running the scheme who thought this a spiffy idea and… another bloke, from a charity, who agreed with him.
Counter views by the national broadcaster on behalf of the general public were left to the bouffant and blonde, who were incisive as ever. At least a few email concerns from actual mental health workers were read out… and then dismissed without further probing.
One is sure these two bozos will be hauled back for interrogation should plod be less than responsive and a proven nutter decides to test the system while free and unsupervised.
The BBC’s opinion on every subject under the sun is so boringly predictable.
I emailed Radio Solent, questioning how peaople who can’t read get given jobs as newsreaders:
‘I have had a chance to listen again to the news bulletin broadcast on Radio Solent at 2 p.m. on 17th August, read (and I used the term loosely) by Louise Champ. I wanted to have another listen, because I first heard it in my tractor, so assumed that I must have mis-heard what sounded like terrible mistakes. But I was wrong: she really did read ‘Stanstead’ as ‘Stamford’, ‘negotiators’ as ‘negators’, ‘boycott’ as ‘buycott’, and – most hilariously – ‘Nicolas Anelka’ became ‘Nicolas Annikel’. Am I being old-fashioned in thinking that a news reader (especially one paid for by a compulsory tax on every television-owning household) should be able to read aloud? Yours sincerely…’I has this reply this morning:’Dear Mr ******, thank you for your email, I appreciate you taking the
time to write.
I have listened to the news bulletin in question, and you are indeed
correct there are a couple of small errors in Louise’s pronunciation.
As the news readers are not only researching, writing, sourcing the
audio and recording interviews during their shift plus delivering 20
bulletins per day and are only human, the odd mistake sadly does creep
in.
As is your suggestion, I do encourage our newsreaders to read aloud the
words they have written (within the confines of an open-plan office).
Although last minute breaking news does sometimes preclude this.
However I have spoken to Louise and you should hear an improvement.
Regards,…’I love the ‘only human’ line.
Chuffer,
Wonderful !
I love the bit about “you should hear an improvement” !
I think you should write again and complain that the BBC are working their newsreaders too hard and should employ more of them. No, on second thoughts, Beeboids might not see the irony in that.
Blimey, all my careful paragraphing seems to have gone a bit wonky there!
Still aces in my book Chuffer!
Seconded. Good to have the proper farmer’s of view back, Chuffer.
I was in my local supermarket at 1130 today. 8 aisles open, each with a bucket at checkout for the Pakistan earthquake appeal. I walked past all 8 buckets, each one practically empty. I doubt if there was £5 in total. Mind you they may have had to empty them many times today already.
INBBC, and its permanent pro-Islam propaganda, e.g. INBBC One tonight, and its misleading title:
“Middle EastEnders” *
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tkr8b
* The Muslim inhabitants of East London are not, of course mainly from the Middle East (except Turks/Iraqis) but from Islamic areas of Bangladesh, Pakistan, Somalia, India, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Ghana, etc. Nearly half of all the Muslims in England live in London, where they comprise about 10% of the population.
But the Islamic epicentre is in Arabia’s Mecca.
Perhaps many at INBBC are looking forward to a time when ‘East Enders’ really does become ‘Middle EastEnders’ through INBBC’s continual campaigning for the Islamisation of Britain.
10% Muslims in London? I don’t think so, it’s easy double that, easy if not more.
There’s a Radio 2 ‘newsreader’ – Tom Sanders, I think – who puts completely unpredictable pauses in. It finally made sense when I realised he was running his finger along under the words he was reading and the pause meant………he was moving his finger down to the start of the next line, like a diligent six-year-old.
But, Chuffer, can he read without moving his lips ?
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/08/guardian-reports-old-news-shock.html
If only for 1st comment (apropos the thread on how often the Graun gets featured 1st and most often despite only getting bought and/or read by a very small segment of the licence fee-covered-by-expenses ‘public’)
‘Spooky how all this appears as the main story on the BBC news website today, too, and also with no mention, etc., etc. Are the BBC and the Guardian related, by any chance? I think we should be told.’
At least some from the sisterhood have the decency to get a wee bit concerned (I presume) when the ladle is over-used…
DavidACGregory Good Lord. Where on earth did The Guardian find this picture of the Chancellor?http://bit.ly/actyfM
I do presume they don’t share photo archives, but after the Tony Abbott online call-out box trash job, one senses a whole new chapter in the Newsnight ‘undermining instructions for folk ‘we’ don’t like’ is being penned as we speak under ‘lighting effects’.
INBBC learns nothing from this:
“Three Spaniards killed by Afghan police recruit”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11083073
Here is a lesson on this for INBBC, which it will not heed:
[Extract, from ‘Jihadwatch’]:
“What do Afghan police recruiters do to guard against increasing Taliban infiltration? Why, nothing, of course. Since there is no clear difference between the Afghan police and the Taliban in terms of their understanding of Islam, despite the near-universal assumption in the West that the Islam of the Taliban is a ‘hijacked’ version held only by a Tiny Minority of Extremists, and since the Taliban infiltrators can deceive their enemies anyway, in accord with the principle of ‘war is deceit,’ this kind of thing is going to keep happening.”
Afghan police recruit kills two Spanish soldiers during “mentoring session”
For some reasons, on a variety of levels, from irony to the evident innocence, this tweet inspired in me an overwhelming sense of ‘Oh.. bless’.
BBC_WHYS Ben S – We’re struggling to find any of the 20% of Americans who believe #Obama is a Muslim. Is that your view? Why?
There can only be about 60M out there, apparently, so maybe they are hiding… or just keeping quiet except when certain pollsters swing by and not their eager beaver BBC ‘research we like’ camp followers.
I have half a mind to write in saying, “I’m a Muslim, and I know Obama was born and raised a Muslim. But now he’s an apostate who must be punished.”
Pretty sure he’s married to his ‘punishment’.
http://www.edinburgh-festivals.com/viewpreview.aspx?id=2183
David Shukman is at the Edinburgh International Book Festival flogging his book, Reporting Live From the End of the World, based on what seems to be a lot of travelling on the licence fee payers’ dollar, priced GBP12.99
As with so many things… unique.
Haha, I love hearing the BBC at last mentioning that Mexico is being devastated by criminal gangs. Sopel is astonished as he clearly had no idea it was this bad. It’s great.
I thought the crime was exaggerated by racist United Statesians trying to come up with an excuse to block migrants with brown skin from Mexico? Please explain, BBC.
David, the entire male BBC population has had their faces up Barry’s arse for 2 years, all they see is…….
It’s not just the males….
Most people here will remember just how much promotion the BBC gave to ObamaCare for months and months as the President and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made backroom deals, twisted arms, and forced through legislation that the majority of the people didn’t want. The BBC told you time and time again how wonderful it would be, and even told you that those of us who were against were stupid people who voted against our own best interests, or just haters of the President. The Beeboids were so caught up in their enthusiasm for His Health Care Plan For Us, that they thought it necessary to reprint the entire text of His speech on it. Has the BBC ever printed the full text of other foreign leaders speaking exclusively about one domestic policy?
When it was finally passed, some defender of the indefensible posted a celebratory comment here about how wonderful it was that the US was finally providing health care for the poor people who don’t have it. The BBC even got Drama Schama to write a victory article explaining the miracle of ObamaCare.
The BBC’s main point of propaganda was that ObamaCare was magically going to provide health care for the 30 million who don’t have it. They described it as “universal health care”.
I want to ask everyone here the following question: How many of you – judging only from BBC reports – got the impression that ObamaCare was going to provide free health care to the poorest who don’t have it or can’t afford it?
Well, ObamaCare just hit New York. The state is now offering subsidized health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions who can’t afford normal health insurance. For example, someone with a serious pre-existing condition who would normally have to pay $1000 per month can now get something subsidized by my taxes for $421 per month. Sounds great, no? Who could be so cruel and lacking in compassion as to oppose such a wonderful Plan?
Well, this could have been achieved via other, less draconian legislation that would not bankrupt the country. If that’s all they wanted to do, The Obamessiah, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of them could have forced through a bill dealing with just that. And I guarantee you they would have had a much easier time passing it.
But that’s not even what’s really going on here. What if I can’t afford even $400 per month? What has ObamaCare done for me then, BBC? What happened to that coverage for those who need it most?
It was there all along: Medicare and Medicaid. Free health insurance for those who can’t afford it, regardless of any pre-existing condition, paid for by the taxpayer. I say again, this already existed before Mark Mardell was even assigned to the US.
But the BBC never, ever told you that. Their entire coverage of the US health care issue was based on a lie. The BBC fed you White House propaganda for months and months, misleading you, misrepresenting facts to you, and sometimes just flat out lying to you.
Think of it: all that time and effort and license fee spent on promoting the domestic policy of a foreing governement. And it was all based on a lie.
In just over an hour of listening to BBC News in the background, I think I’ve heard three separate mentions of how the nasty Tories’ boodget coots will “hit the poorest hardest”. This latest bit told me that lowest income workers would see their salaries reduced by 4 percent or something.
So I ask myself: how do government boodget coots reduce salaries of only low income workers? They don’t, of course. Everyone takes a hit when times are tough and businesses have to cut costs. What the BBC means is that nasty rich people (you know, like the ones who are paid £92,000 pa to read the news) should take a bigger hit in order to protect people on lower incomes.
Well, that’s a choice for private businesses to make on their own. However, if the BBC is worried about low-income public sector workers (and they probably should, considering the public sector is the largest employer in much of the UK), then maybe they should be bashing the quangocrats and highly paid bureacucrats who are trousering cash at the expense of the lowest paid public sector workers.
Yeah, like that would ever occur to them. No, instead they want to bash the Tories and play a quick game of class warfare.
Now Miliband is on to talk about it? Of course he’s bashing Osbourne and lying about how Labour would have sorted it all out. Is the Government boycotting the BBC again? Sopel is just letting him babble on and on about how he will make Labour great again. This is such BS, though.
After less than a minute spent on the boodget coots story, the last ten minutes have been spent on giving Miliband a platform to campaign for Labour leader. And what a coincidence, he’s giving a speech tonight somewhere about it.
I’m getting the distinct impression that the next four years are going to be one long ‘Labour Will Save Us’ campaign on the BBC.
Hey, the BBC has done a second unbiased report on the Tea Party movement. It’s the first one in nine months, and I think I see a problem with the title:
Tea Party Awakening
Actually, I think that should be “BBC Awakening to the Tea Party”. This barely counts as a report, it’s more like a case where JounroList groupie Katie Connolly went to Scottsdale, AZ, to check out the freaks at a campaign rally for Sen. McCain’s opponent, who has gathered Tea Party support.
But full marks for Katie, because she lets the Arizona grandmother talk freely, with no editorializing, no hinting at nefarious forces behind the scenes, no talk of anger, no suggestion of racism, and no insulting with sexual innuendos.
At last.
I always say that reality occasionally forces the BBC to report it eventually. Well done, BBC. It only took you about 18 months.
Additionally, the woman being interviewed was a supporter of the failed challenger to McCain, J.D. Hayworth. He was a dopey sportscaster, ex-jock (athlete, in US parlance), who turned to politics after it was clear he was too stupid to move over to the big desk. He’s still dopey, in my opinion. The thing is, he initially ran on conservative social issues, not fiscal stuff. He’s only doing that now because he saw the writing on the wall and jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon. So I almost want to give Katie Connolly a bonus point for not mentioning the social conservative issues in spite of the grandmother’s clear statement (which I’ve only been saying for the last 18 months, in spite of the BBC’s lies). Almost. I still doubt that any in-depth research was done before she sent that stringer to Scottsdale for the shoot, so she may have no idea.
Yes, most unexpected! And it follows an equally unexpected piece by Kevin Connolly, Wyoming’s cowboys teach fiscal restraint.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10994412
Katie Connolly’s video piece is an offshoot of a larger article on John McCain’s victory over Mr Hayworth, How did John McCain win so easily in Arizona?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11087051
This is not quite so free of editorializing, or talk of anger, and it even plays the “mostly white” card:
The Tea Party has made headlines around the country for months, with pundits fascinated by the spectacle of mostly older, mostly white, mostly angry conservative activists demanding that President Barack Obama “give their country back”.
Their anger at Mr McCain is palpable, but it did not translate into political potency.
They’re all angry, but they’re not all angry about the same thing.
Two steps forward, one step back maybe?
One step forward, maybe. I’ll grant them a second if they finally report this:
Tea Party Group Hit With Death Threats
They’ll talk about it when a few windows are broken at Democrat offices, or wring their hands over right wing violence when somebody gets a finger bitten off after attacking a Tea Party protester, or even rush to publish an unsubstantiated rumor if it suits the Narrative. But the BBC has never, ever reported violece against Tea Party people. They’ll get no full credit for improvement until they do so.
I forgot to mention this: Mark Mardell must be devastated that the BBC thinks the Tea Party movement is waking up.
Is the steam going out of the Tea Party?
No, Mark. As has been the case for the last 18 months, the Tea Party movement is moving from strength to strength. Not that you’d know it from BBC reporting, of course.
Has anyone noticed this piece in the Telgraph? Where did all the BBC’s anti-Zionists go?
You’ll be pleased to know one unbiased report on Panorama is the sign of an earthquake for BBC personnel – NOT!
Thanks for this. I object to Kossoff’s claim that Israel’s supporters are now fauning over Auntie again. We’re certainly not doing that here. We give credit where due, but at no time has anyone here declared that the BBC’s problem of anti-Israel bias was suddenly fixed. Kossoff must be living in the media bubble still.
I do agree that the BBC has learned from at least some past mistakes: they got rid of the useful Jews.
Green propaganda invades even history docu-programmes like “Coast”. Today’s episode is about Denmark. The bit they just showed was off one coast and featured a bunch of wind turbines out in the sea.
Voice over: “Look at this: it’s awesome!” (emphasis in his voice was clear)
He went on to enthuse that it was taller than the thing in Trafalgar Square, and gush about how beautiful the spread of turbines was. “Coming soon to a coast near you!”
There is no legitimate reason to include that bit of propaganda in this show. It’s only due to the political biases of the producers and presenter, as well as the BBC 2 boss who encourages this behavior.
Come see the bias inherent in the system.
And he’s coming up to bowl, it falls short of leg, a clip to the side, yes, 1 run, the century comes up …