These are having to come out faster than a TV license demand! The floor is yours…let them have it.
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- vlad Nov 17, 15:55
Weekend 16th November 2024
That’s cos they cancelled him so effectively. 🙂 He was becoming huge, especially on the alt-right scene, and especially in… - Lazy Cat Nov 17, 15:55
Weekend 16th November 2024
Only the big stories for the BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98en7v43qzo Apparently India, a country that can afford a space program, has unsatisfactory… - Peter Grimes Nov 17, 15:54
Weekend 16th November 2024
“ Never will this mob be elected again for at least a generation, whoever is the alternative.” You can never,… - Peter Grimes Nov 17, 15:51
Weekend 16th November 2024
Great that you found it. She’s a lying cow…but would you expect anything different! - vlad Nov 17, 15:42
Weekend 16th November 2024
He was flamboyantly gay and had numerous black boyfriends (or, in his own colourful words, “I’ve su***d more black c*ck… - Fedup2 Nov 17, 15:38
Weekend 16th November 2024
It looks like Farage is trying to force the hand of the CPS by bringing a private prosecution for the… - Zephir Nov 17, 15:30
Weekend 16th November 2024
interesting bloke, but I strongly suspect his rather camp demeanour and open gayness is why he seems to get away… - Zephir Nov 17, 15:29
Weekend 16th November 2024
New job ? give her a treat, change her litterbox or something - vlad Nov 17, 15:28
Weekend 16th November 2024
That’s the one. In the immortal words of Trump: Fight! Fight! Fight!
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
This report isn’t very clear (for some reason… I can’t think why!)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11088841
Am I correct in thinking that the young guy actually took the knife with him? And he had his friend with him, right?
Tories getting ground up on Newsnight in the normal way, it’s actually quite funny. I wonder how many Tories will be bleating about it tomorrow?
Bias in bBC reporting…never.
I suppose that like many people here I don’t use the bBC for the news anymore. Why is that?
Could it be that the TV broadcaster which was built on a foundation of impartial reporting, honesty and quality TV shows has become a pale shadow of that image it still tries to portray? This isn’t more clearly seen (or felt) in its news reporting. Where the mandarins in their ivory towers actually dictate to the British public what and what they shouldn’t be told. Here are a few examples from today;
Arthur Scargill loses NUM voting rights
The above is a bBC article on an infamous British trade union leader. Reading it you get the impression that Mr Scargill is a victim and he has lost his voting rights. Yet everybody else is reporting that Scargill and his cronies have been kicked out (hence the loss of voting rights) and the reason behind that move is because he took the NUM to court because they wouldn’t pay for heating his house, pay for a burglar alarm and the use of a flat (paid for by the Union) in the centre of London.Now if the leftwing guardian can report that why can’t the bBC.
Woman who dumped cat in wheelie bin ‘profoundly sorry’
Reading the above, you’d think that this woman has learnt the errors of her ways and is truly sorry. But hang she isn’t the Guardian reports she doesn’t give a shit, that it was a cat and this has being blown out of all proportion. In the bBC eyes this women is the victim and as such she deserves a better write-up.
Part 2
Two die in Beirut clashes sparked by ‘personal dispute’
Reading that article you’d never guess that a car full of Hezb-allh gunmen turned up in a sunni neighbourhood and decided to shoot the place up. Problem for the 4 gunmen was they were soon outnumbered and started to lose the fight and buggered off leaving behind a dead body. When Hezb-allah found out that the Sunni muslims still held the body of one of their dead leaders. They demanded that they return it and in order to make them understand sent round their bunch of thugs to shoot up a local mosque in which to make the Sunni thugs understand.
Thanks to the internet, we now have the ability to cross check the information the bBC tries to pass off as the news. Thanks to such an ability we can see how far the bBC has fallen. That is why I don’t put much store in what the bBC tries to pass off as the news and why websites such as this are a godsend for folks like me.
Hi, viz the cat, I dont know if you can call the BBC reporting biased but extremely sloppy, without doubt. There’s no attempt to get to the truth of the story. The Guardian report though is the best I’ve read. You compare what she’s said verbally to the video and you can see what an evil, lying cow she is. As soon as she saw the cat she looked at the wheelie bin and intended it harm. Hopefully, the RSPCA will deal with the case according to her actions and comments, not the media spin she’s put out facilitated by this ‘Big Brother’ BBC coverage.
I’m deeply involved in cat welfare work in Barcelona, so this story particularly caught my eye. The owners have been hugely responsible.
Pounce, I thought you would have known that all BBC employees mandatorily take the superdrug NEROTNBU.
Nobody else reports on the news but us.
Have to laugh at Emily Titless on Newsnight going on about Mexico and the shithead gangs. Why does she think so many ordinary Americans are so pissed off about the border?
As the likes of Fox News have been reporting the increasing violence along the border has been going on for years so how come the BBC have just woken up to it?
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2009/02/13/kidnapping-capital-of-the-usa-phoenix-arizona/
Look at the date on this report, that’s 18 months old you beeboid twats.
Oh and the wet liberal left oppose the placing of US troops along the border, I notice titless left that out.
Hell I love the BBC. Where else could you get such biased (er!) tax funded rubbish.
Shoot the lot of them, I say.
who would be top of the list,DV give us a poll.
First Kirsty,then emily,then laura
The problem with this list is that there wouldn’t be a bottom to it.
dave,
You are so sexist !
Any particular reason for singling out those three?
Read ‘Death in the Med’: Online Q & A doesn’t reflect Panorama investigation It refers to Q&A: Israeli deadly raid on aid flotilla not updated with the information in the Panorama programme.
Would the BBC be so sloppy about updating the other side?
Read Where did all the BBC’s anti-Zionists go? Who is he trying to kid?
Viz your last link, the ex-JC / Telegraph guy does seem to have his head in the sand somewhat about BBC coverage of Israel, but he does note a sea change that goes beyond the Panorama report.
Are there any white English male hetrosexual newsreaders left on the BBC?
Yes, but they’re a minority.
I see that the BBC are now philosophising on-line about the glories of Socialism……..Indeed they go a step further now, with their “Hitchhikers guide to Communism”, portrayed in full Beeboid glory. As if it happens to be true that “the revolution wont be televised”, then it seems that the BBC want to play their own small part anyway, in softening us all up, for the coming dawn of their perceived Islamo/Marxist utopia of the coming era…..
Hail Trotsky & Mohammad!!……
I’ll vote for it if it means we can all be on BBC wage rates (don’t forget the fantastic benefits and pensions)
while I’m here, I just wanted to get this off my chest. Why MUST BBC staff say Newcastle in the northern maner, as opposed to the way it should be pronounced (Newcaahstle).
Don’t get me wrong, this is not a dig at accents, the north – anything. But the simple fact is Newcastle has an apporpriate pronunciation and the BBC, in what is one of the lamer attempts at political correctness, insist on making all staff pronouce it the northern way, even if the reporter is a full blown southern softie from the home counties.
And of course, this is done with the full compliance of the ghastly lefty reporter who happily says Newcastle because in their bizarre liberal fantasy world, that is how they think it shoud be pronounced.
Sickening.
Hmmm. I wonder how the BBC will get on when it moves to Salford?
Is it actually possible to say ‘latte’ with a patronising northern accent? Panino with mushy peas anyone?
It’s so jarring. We once had received pronunciation. Now the Gramsci BBC has given us ‘received mis-pronunciation’.
on “the one Brain cell show” at 7PM last night on dhimmi 1,Alexei Sayle on what it was like to grow up in a “communist home”
a right bundle of laughs that must have been
is that why he’s such an unfunny shouty twat now,then?
No, I think that came naturally.
BBC has been running the death of an MI6 employee from GCHQ as a major item for a couple of days now – presenting it as a total mystery.
Nary a mention from ace BBC reporters that the guy was apparently a cross-dresser. Does the BBC regard cross-dressing as fairly normal, not in any way a matter that might be connected to his death ?
Either the BBC knows all this – and is deliberately refusing to report it – or it does not know, in which case as the biggest news-gathering organisation in the world it is incompetent.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3112102/Murdered-spook-Gareth-Williams-was-a-cross-dresser.html
It is not just the “scurrilous Sun” carrying this info – I first saw it in the Telegraph of Australia :
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/british-spy-found-murdered-inside-bag-in-bath-may-have-been-killed-by-gay-lover/story-e6freuz9-1225910376002
A double agent in the War of the Sexes? =-X
Cross dressing is seen as normal at the BBC.
Damn,
I was just going to post that !
Unless you’re a Lib-Dem who goes into Coalition with a Conservative Government.
BBC Breakfast at 08:00 this morning while running through the news headlines had the Nadir / Polly Peck story. This was introduced (by Sian Williams) as follows:
“Nadir returns to face fraud charges for his Polly Peck Company which he ran under Thatcher”. The Thatcher part was emphasised heavily. A more neutral take surely would have been something like:
“…his Polly Peck Company which collapsed 17 years ago”
Yes, expect the BBC to make a great song and dance about Nadir being a Thatcher supporter. I think in their perverted ways Beeboids miss Maggie. They just can’t build up the same level of hate for Cameron.
Even though it was also “run under Major” and he was more closely associated with the Major government to whom he gave a donation and if I’m not mistaken, government minister, Michael Mates, Nasir’s close mate, had to resign over it.
Hey, what about this cracker.
Cuba has to stop handing out discounted cigarettes.
Who is to blame? Why, America, of course!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11092876
WTH? Cuba was doing well until the credit crunch? I suppose that until then it was a wealthy country of classic car collectors?
Well, I guess we can blame the nasty old US for the cessation of all that Soviet Union cash propping up Castro for decades.
“Profile: Arthur Scargill”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11090551
Is this a BBC-NUJ branch ‘Profile’ or ‘Obituary’ of its fellow trade unionist?
And what huge event occurred to warrant BBC-NUJ branch allocating such a huge space to him?
If you wondered whether you missed anything on BBC-NUJ branch’s ‘Today’, well, yes, there were THREE items on Mackerel, at 7.09, 7.43, and 8.49, plus another vital one on ‘Today’s fellow trade unionist, Scargill.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8945000/8945024.stm
The queen of breakfast radio is finally back at work (Nikki Campbell) so the phone in was about immigration. So the BBC wheel out some Liebour MEP (Claude something or other) who natch is very pro immigration, well I thought he will be on for a while then they will have an opposing view… silly me, they didn’t.
Didn’t hear it myself, although I would guess that it was Claude Moraes who before he became an MEP headed up the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants.
Moraes is of course also an “Asian” immigrant, Now Deputy Leader of Labour in the European Parliament – Lord help us.
His being a campaigner for gay partnerships as well as leading campaigner for excessive immigration makes him a welcome and frequent guest at the BBC.
Wow perfect beeboid material.
“BBC ‘turns Oxbridge into a term of abuse’… Shows accused of ‘bigotry and coining a lexicon of abuse'”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1306237/BBC-turns-Oxbridge-term-abuse–Shows-accused-bigotry.html#ixzz0xhbf85U8
A contrast to BBC-NUJ branch’s coverage of its preferred candidate, Labour’s Ms. Gillard and the Australian election:
“Australia marked another electoral defeat for climate change”
(Tim Montgomery)
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/international/2010/08/australia-marked-another-electoral-defeat-for-climate-change.html
‘Toffs’ are deemed to be Tories, so of course the BBC goes all out to bring them into contempt and ridicule. So reassuring that the BBC dude assures us BBC Comedy lampoons all sections of British Society. I guess I must keep missing its satire on Islam and Muslims.
“I guess I must keep missing its satire on Islam and Muslims.”
And if there ever was an organisation, institution, or religion that could benefit from being taken down a peg or two by well constructed satire, it’s Islam. It’s crying out for it.
And another thing.
A few years ago we had a house guest from Qingdao, China. He wanted to see Brighton for some reason. He was fascinated by some cartoons on display at the Pavilion satirising King George IV. He was amazed that this was allowed in the early 1800s.
Now Islam is a sacred cow. We’ve come a long way.
For my sins I watched “Coast” last night, partly because I have seen little of Denmark. The scenery was good but…
We were treated to a lot of wind turbine propaganda, many of them at sea and how they were erected, they could build three a week said the British econut. No balance of course. No one mentioned the fact that the “wind power” is sold to Sweden and Germany and then they buy electricity from them, conventionally generated of course.
Then came the really bad bit, the fat, chubby presenter talked of an island that “was” there, funny it still was, he was stood on it. He continued to say that there had been a thousand bomber raid shortly before the end of the war. He spoke with a man, Kruss I think who was there in a deep shelter at the time and survived, so he must have been German. Just after the war we stacked ordnance in the u-boat pens and gun emplacements and detonated them. “We shouldn’t have done it, the war was over” bleeted the beeboid.
As has been said before, if the current BBC scum had been around between 1939 and 1940 they would have backed Hitler.
I saw that as well. The voice-over was pure advocacy for turbines, like a commercial interlude between academic segments.
bbcpolitics Labour leadership contender Ed Miliband reveals his hero is the England cricketer Geoffrey Boycott.http://bbc.in/d4IchZ
Meanwhile, in other, er, ‘news’…..
Written a Labour political memoir? Tell BBC-NUJ branch.
Blair with Marr again soon.
http://londonersdiary.standard.co.uk/2010/08/written-a-political-memoir-tell-the-bbc-.html
‘You scratch my back; I’ll throw the full weight of the uniquely funded national broadcaster behind enriching yours…’
But, but… it’s in the public (ie: a small, select, self-serving group’s) interest!
There’s a shocking story hidden here but the bbc’s take on it is typically pc – and misses the main point:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11084476
The real story here is nothing to do with women scientists, it’s the fact that over fifty percent of those questioned could not name a single scientist, male or female!
The article is so badly written that it isn’t clear whether this figure relates to all those questioned or only the 18-24 age group, but it seems to be the latter.
This is an utterly disgraceful indictment of the pathetic standards of education in this country. Yet to the bbc, it’s about sexism.
Rubbish journalism, spun to fit The Narrative.
I bet they can name Mary Seacole. A thimble can hold only so much special interest water. Keep drip, drip, dripping it in and things will get squeezed out of the curriculum.
Jocelyn Bell Burnell discovered the first four pulars ever, so that’s something that maybe the Eggheads or University Challenge students would know, but I certainly didn’t. And the only Hodgkin I ever heard of was Thomas of the Lymphoma (so to speak).
The BBC sub-editor who put this together might not have had that information available either, as they wrote Burnell “played a major part in the discovery of” pulsars. I’d say that kind of waters down her contribution. What’s worse is that she was unfairly passed over for the Nobel Prize for her work, while her graduate advisor got al the credit. Shame on the BBC for failing to recognize the accomplishments of female scientists in an article meant to scold people for not recognizing the accomplishments of female scientists.
You cannot expect a Beeboid to hold two ideas in his head at the same time. 😀
The arms of government, including the education system and the BBC, have been far too busy for many years indoctrinating children with something called Black History, to have time or interest to tell them about female scientists or indeed much about male scientists either, except, probably, that they were all raaaaaacist. They don’t teach them how to write and spell either.
Pakistan.
Of course, Islamic jihadists (INBBC’s militants) are threatening to kill foreigners who give aid to Pakistan’s Muslims.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11095267
And Christians in Pakistan are not receiving aid.
“Pakistani Christian flood victims are still waiting for aid”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/29291
Off topic of BBC bias, but a pertinent anecdote to the issue of Islamic discrimination:
Yesterday, I needed to pick up some cheap shower curtains, and went into the local big dollar store (very popular in my working class/welfare family neighborhood), which is run by Muslims. Only one girl behind the counter was wearing a hijab, and it’s an equal-opportunity employer of non-whites, no religious overtones at all, they sell those cheap candles with Catholic icons on the glass, etc.
After I had paid for my items and the cashier was handing me my change, another girl behind the counter (who would be inanely described as “Asian” in the UK) asked me if I had “heard about the flood in Pakistan”. I allowed that I had, and so she asked very nicely and with a big smile if I would put a little something in the donation box by the door to help send aid to those in need.
As I put the change from my purchase in the box, I remarked to myself that it was odd how there was no similar box there after the earthquake in Haiti, nor after Katrina, nor after any of the annual floods in the Midwest. In fact, this thought was so strong in my mind that I forgot for a moment that I had gotten change from a $20 bill for a purchase under ten dollars, and so put a $10 bill in the box instead of the dollar and change I thought I was doing. I only realized what I had done after I was half way down the block.
Should have given her a dollar and asked for the change!
I hate when people distract me at the till. I am bound to mix up my change or forget to pick up my wallet or my shopping or something.
Well, at least your money may do some good to someone who needs it. I hope so anyway.
As it was just a cardboard box covered in wrapping paper and no official insignia or markings of any kind indicating it was going to some organization, I’m happy to put the ten bucks in. They’re probably going to send whatever they collect to a local source or relatives or something and not to some crummy NGO or Hamas “charity” or the Pakistani government. I would trust my neighborhood businessmen far more than any official organization.
Mark Mardell reveals his fear of Sarah Palin. Again.
Palin power and its limits
Mardell is obsessing about just how much influence the BBC’s second-most hated female politician in history can have on elections. Since it’s almost certain that the candidate she supported in Alaska is going to beat the incumbent Senator, does this mean she wields real power now? Mardell is worried, but plays it as “it’s too early to tell, it’s always difficult to make predictions,” etc., as he doesn’t want to write out his own worst fears.
First, to illustrate his point, Mardell links to a piece at the JournoList-infested The Hill, which says that Palin seems to have actual influence based on results. The piece refers to her as a “Tea Party star”, and that her backing helped McCain win, even though his opponent was the Tea Party-favored candidate. Oops, a bit of cognitive dissonance there, but never mind.
For an alternative view, Mardell links to a shrill and vicious website run by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Check it out to see the kind of mindset Mardell thinks is worth your time.
I would have to say, though, that this one election in Alaska is not indicative of any national influence at all. She’s the most famous person in the state right now (apart from the crab fishermen on that TV show), not to mention a former Governor, so of course she can influence an election on her own turf. Not to mention the fact that the incumbent is one of her long-time political rivals. This is a local deal, plain and simple, so it’s foolish to apply this to a national scene.
Did the three candidates in other states she backed in earlier races win? Yes. Is that indicative of her real influence? Yes. Is it time for Mardell to start slandering Sarah Palin and anyone to the right of Gramsci? You betcha.
But let’s assume Mrs Palin wields a power in the party – that her folksy energy sways the base.
Is that good news for Republicans?
When even moderates like McCain feel the need to make right-wing noises there is little doubt the party is heading further in that direction.
It’s long been a dilemma for political leaders that what is red meat for their party can be unpalatable fare for the centre ground. They have to woo to win elections.
This is less so for parties of the right – tough lines on immigration, law and order and defence can be very popular.
But on the whole, the voters in the centre don’t like the shrill and vicious.
Shrill and vicious? Seriously? No mirrors in the Mardell household, apparently.
He’s just continuing the Narrative established in an another BBC piece about how McCain had to shift to the right to beat his opponent. Note to the BBC: that’s been the complaint about McCain for years. This is nothing new, and not indicative of some sudden shift to extremism by Republicans. Of course McCain had to finally say something about immigration because that’s been his biggest weakness, even back when I lived in Arizona. With the dopey Hayworth downplaying his extreme conservatism on certain social issues and jumping on the Tea Party bandwagon, the only issue McCain could move on was immigration. Not a very difficult concept, but then again the Beeboids don’t really know all that much about it.
The thing is, the ultimate influence this time around won’t lie with celebrities or BBC arch enemies: it will lie with the Tea Party movement and like-minded independents. If Sarah Palin is a Tea Party favorite, it’s only because she espouses fiscally conservative viewpoints and not because of any folksy nonsense that the Beeboids sneer at.
But because Mardell and his BBC colleagues can’t get past the superficial, they won’t get it, and will continue down the sorry path of Palin Derangement Syndrome.
She’s a force of nature, Mark. Accept it before it destroys you!
Spot on David, I really wish more people could see your comments after turd sniffers like Frei, Kay, Mardell and Webb have spouted thier utter lies and crap.
Cheers, Martin.
I caught an in depth interview today on Russian English language TV( a much better news channel than the BBC in every way) with an independent standing in Virginia ( i think). He was allowed by the interviewer to state exactly why the 2 main parties were failing. A probable tea party sympathiser in my opinion- sound fiscal policy etc. Would Mardell ever interview this man? In your dreams. He does not fit the pre ordained beeboid narrative so prime BBC directive says ignore ignore and ignore again.
It has come to something when we get unbiased news reports from Russia!
OK, OK, OK, BBC 6 o’clock News, we get it, we get it – every day-care centre in the country is being closed down because of coalition cuts (actually coalition slowing down of the rate of increase in spending but never mind the facts)
Now can you just MOVE ON.
(Or alternatively, how about an interview with the shortly to be redundant, seventy grand (of our money) a year Head of Diversity at the UK Film Council.)
Spot the missing word.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11102833
Is it ‘Mormons’?
Craig,
Don’t be silly, it is ” Buddhists ” .
They said, “Canadian”. What more could we possibly ask for, and why would anything else be relevant? Surely Canadians are arrested all the time on terrorist charges.
One thing’s for sure: we know they’re not Israeli Arabs or the BBC would have called them “Israeli Citizens” right in the headline.
Back on the subject of the you-know-what at (or very near to) You-Know-Where…
One of the Washington online beeboids, Finlo Rohrer, has written a piece called Is ‘Ground Zero mosque’ debate fanning the flames?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11076846
The article isn’t the worst the BBC has done on the subject, but you can tell where Finlo’s sympathies lies and…
– The article worries only about the ‘vehement tone’ of the opponents of the Cordoba House project. This is backed up by the two sub-headlines: ‘Muslim-bashing’ and ‘Burn a Koran’.
– It spoils a rare admission that “opposition and support for the mosque is not always split along Republican and Democrat lines” by only citing the example of Republican Ron Paul, who supports the Islamic centre/mosque, using him to say “This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.” Neither here nor in the list of “notable opponents” – “Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh” – does it mention that top Democrats Howard Dean or Harry Reid are also opposed.
– At the bottom of the bullet points under Opposition it states “Some also want the group’s sources of funding investigated”. Is that the first time the BBC website has mentioned this? It doesn’t go into any details though. (A case of what Guest Who calls ‘watertight oversight’ again?)
– One of its main commentators is “Eric Boehlert, senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a group which monitors conservative media”. Mr Boehlert, naturally, is a JournOLista and – like any good JournOLista would – slings accusations of “Islamophobia” around.
– Its other main commentator is Prof Akbar Ahmed, author of Journey into America, who is worried and believes Muslims “need also to be much more sensitive to the culture and society in which they are living.” Finlo neglects to mention Prof Ahmed’s views that “the imam in New York should ensure that the cultural center — which he has clarified is not simply a mosque — invites Christians and Jews to include a church and a synagogue so that the building is truly a symbol of interfaith worship. That is the American way. Also, the center must include a special memorial to those who died on 9/11, as proposed, so that people of different faiths can pray for their souls and thus begin to heal the wounds.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/10/ahmed.mosque/index.html#fbid=fCqxf0wPmqd&wom=false
Nice one, Craig. Looks like the BBC News Online sub-editors got tired of losing every round of Spot the Missing Word. Silly bunts.
Coming to your radio next Monday is Uncertain Climate.
“In a special Radio 4 series the BBC’s Environmental Analyst Roger Harrabin questions whether his own reporting – and that of others – has adequately told the whole story about global warming.”
Wonder what conclusion he’ll reach? Answers on a postcard…
Would we need a whole postcard for the answer?
Can I do a series please BBC?
“Martin questions whether his own comments here have adequately told the whole story to the world about what an utter penis Roger Harrabin is”
Starting soon on the BBC…not!
As David and several commenters pointed out, yesterday’s coverage of the IFS report on the first Coalition Budget and its apparently disproportionate impact on the poor, commissioned by the End Child Poverty Campaign, saw the BBC News Channel in full Hammer-The-Coalition mode, disregarding the point that much of the problem is part of the legacy of Gordon Brown.
Here’s how the day went:
9.00am Interview with James Brown of the IFS.
11.04 Interview with Ed Balls, Labour (uninterrupted). Attacked the Budget (surprise, surprise!)
12.04 Full reprise of interview with Ed Balls.
12.20 Ceri Goddard, Labour-supporting head of the feminist Fawcett Society (given easy ride by Jane Hill). Attacked the Budget.
12.53 Mark Hoban, Conservative minister (interrupted three times by Jane Hill).
13.33 Full reprise of interview with Mark Hoban.
14.04 Interview with Fiona Weir of the End Child Poverty Campaign. Attacked the Budget.
14.33 Short (under two minute) clip of an interview with Nick Clegg.
14.35 Interview with a couple from Nottingham by reporter Anthony Bartram (more about which below), who attacked the Budget.
15.05 Interview with Helen Longworth of Oxfam, part of the End Child Poverty Campaign. Attacked the Budget (and talked of “extremely rich people”).
15.30 Bartram’s morbid interview with the Nottingham couple reprised in full.
16.31 Interview with David Miliband, Labour. Attacks the Budget. (Sopel then moved on to press Miliband over the Labour leadership).
17.04 Interview with Sally Copley of Save the Children, part of the End Child Poverty Campaign. Attacked the Budget as “not fair”.
19.04 Interview with Helen Barnard of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Attacked the Budget as “clearly regressive” after some initial less critical remarks.
19.34 (You could see this one coming!!) Interview with Polly Toynbee of the Guardian. Attacked the Budget, and praised Labour. (Worst interviewer of the day: Julian Worricker, who fed Polly questions that virtually encouraged her to attack the coalition).
20.04 Interview with Lizzie Iron of the Citizens Advice Bureau. More nuanced, but had many “worries” about the Budget and outlined them.
21.31 Reprise of interview with Helen Barnard of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, cutting her initial less critical remarks and beginning with her “clearly regressive” remarks.
So:
– a good day for the End Child Poverty Campaign, whose agenda dominated the day’s news and whose members were granted interview after interview.
– a good day for Labour, who were not challenged on their own government’s record of hitting the poorest hardest in most recent budgets – except for one question from Jon Sopel bringing up the 10p tax fiasco with David Miliband – and allowed more airtime than the coalition.
– a bad day for the Coalition.
The worst part of the day’s coverage though was the extraordinary interview conducted by BBC reporter Anthony Bartram with a couple from Nottingham, John and Louise Ridley. They were not happy, coping with three kids on £20,000 a year. Bartram made them considerably more unhappy, getting them to say bad things about the coalition, and wearing a very concerned expression as he did so.
They were told that “their annual income could fall by about 5% by 2014” and that they could be about £650 worse off over the next couple of years. “How does that..what’s your reaction to that?” he asked, obviously just stopping himself in time from asking the worst question any interviewer can ask: ‘How does that make you feel?”.
His next question asked having £650 less to “spend on the essentials…how is that likely to hit you?”
Then “You must be wondering what on earth you can do to try and bring in some extra money to try and offset what it’s going to cost you over the next few years?”
Then “With VAT going up as well, it must feel as if it’s coming at you from all directions?”
Finally, “You’ve got three children to support and provide for and obviously on £20,000 a year I would imagine things were pretty tight anyway but I sort of..the prospect of things better even worse than that..I mean we’re all obviously bracing ourselves..but what’s your biggest concern then?”
If they weren’t scared and depressed before that interview, they certainly would have been afterwards. As would we all.
Anthony Bartram’s agenda was very, very obvious – and damn the consequences.
The couple also featured in the report that lead the Six O’Clock News.
For more on the issue concerned, and a perspective not heard on the BBC, please read Ian Cowie in the Telegraph:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100007442/why-should-the-poor-pay-higher-tax-rates-than-millionaires
Nice one Craig I commented previously as well at Hill giving Ed Bollockchops an easy ride and the dopey feminist cows.
Another superb analysis, Craig.
Please tell me that you did not spend the the whole day watching the BBC News Channel…
The BBC’s bias does not surprise me any more, it just disgusts me. What does surprise me is that the Conservatives don’t point out the BBC’s bias when interviewed. They can’t be scared that the BBC might start really attacking them if they did.
BBC going on on Chuggers. Fine, but how about a BBC exclusive on the licence fee
“You are forced to hand over £150 a year to the BBC, but just how much actually goes into making half decent programmes and how much goes on camp poncy left wing twats?”
Off topic but quite funny (re the Cat and the bin)
More funny stuff, obviously written by someone with experience of the BBC.
Who saw the extraordinary “interview” of socialist economist Joseph Stiglitz tonight. To call it as interview is to credit it to much. It was an exercise in brown nosing with Paul Mason agreeing with everything Stiglitz said and feeding him lines so that he could attack democracy. The BBC managed to slip this piece of statist propaganda, worthy of Stalin, during their coverage of the Edinburgh festival.
See 34 minutes in:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tl0kk/The_Culture_Show_2010_2011_Edinburgh_Festival_Special_Part_3/
Leftwing economic propaganda during a supposed arts programme. No problem for the BBC.
Stiglitz and Krugman are the BBC’s favourite US economists – of course. And Krugman is on the infamous JournoList.
I would find it very surprising if Mason-the-Trot interviewed any alternative US economist – he’d be bewildered by facts and market realities.
Krugman was awarded the second Nobel Prize in the category of Speaking Out Against George Bush. But aside from that impressive credential, BBC, which countries followed his sage advice and which ones didn’t? Compare and contrast the former against the latter and get back to me on how correct he is. Funny how Krugman’s theories match almost exactly with Gordon Brown’s. Which countries are in the sh!t and which aren’t, BBC?
Haven’t been through the entire thread but noticed this article on the telegraph.
“The BBC has compiled a “lexicon of abuse” against people from privileged backgrounds and turned terms such as “public school” into dirty words, a magazine has claimed.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7965073/BBC-attacked-over-posh-jibes.html
Don’t look if you’re eating.
Aagh! My eyes! You should have posted a warning about that hideous orangutan photo right at the top.
Does anyone remember that Andrew Marr interview with David Cameron, before the election, when Marr (yet again) brought up the subject of the Bullingdon Club and then left up the BBC’s favourite photo of Cameron and his ‘posh’ Oxford friends on a video monitor – behind them both and always in the viewer’s eye – for the rest of the interview?!
And yet they never put up that picture of Balls dressed as a Nazi at Oxford when Balls is being interviewed (and Balls is always being interviewed by the BBC at the moment, so they’ve had plenty of chances!!)
Just as the BBC never showed the video of Gordon Brown picking his nose and eating the extracted matter – http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/02/whats-sauce-for-john-redwood-should-be.html
QUOTE from the BBC in that Telegraph article:
The BBC told the Daily Mail: “British comedy has a long history of satirising all sections of society and this kind of comedy is instantly recognisable to audiences.”
==========================
So why doesn’t the BBC carry on this tradition of British comedy by satirising all sections of society, e.g. black men, “Asians”, Muslims? Do tell, Beeb.
Also this article where Mark Thompson twats on about Sky and public service broadcasting, like the BBC do public service broadcasting these days and it cannot / is not done by private companies…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1306533/BBC-boss-Mark-Thompson-plans-rallying-hit-critics.html
Forgot to post this earlier:
Twitter backfires for Climate Camp
Others have already noticed that the BBC barely made a sound about it this year, but I assume that’s because they’re all in Pakistan and Edinburgh or dragging back in from a long vacation (Martin will have other suggestions), and not because the public is waking up to the Warmist scam and so the turnout is dramatically down.
But I’m really mentioning this because Old Holborn’s hilarious tweets seem to have angered the Guardianistas, which means the Beeboids know about it as well. The first of OH’s tweets the Guardian features is brilliant:
Someone has stolen my “all property is theft” banner from #climatecamp. My mum gave me that for getting 3*A’s at Winchester
Brilliant! Thanks David, I nearly choaked on me Ovaltine whilst reading the the fist OH comment.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7966861/BBC-chief-Mark-Thompson-attacks-Sky.html
No… er… fooling. In other news, the toiletry habits of bears will be further rehashed.
I wonder if he will go on to ‘attack’ any other independent entity providing an optional service, unsupported by £3.6B of public funding backed by draconian legal support?
Indeed. Will Mr. Thompson respond to charges that BBC-NUJ branch propagandises publicly subsidised political bias, at his Edinburgh lecture today? Will he volunteer cuts in the licence fee? How many useful jobs could £3.6b a year spent elsewhere create?
DROUGHTS AND FLOODS…DROUGHTS AND FLOODS!
The BBC are pimping their drought’N’floods narrative like crazy at the moment and this time its the turn of Niger to enjoy the limelight.
The BBC report is heavy on emotion with cyring babies and awed hushed tones of reporters, oooh noo its a real tragedy isnt it?
Well of course the reality is quite different to the BBC narrative, the BBC forgets to mention the primary causes of the problem.
It doesnt mention that stone age subsitance farming and stone age cultures are vulnerable to normal changes in climate and if it rains too much or too little then subsistence farming suffers. Political and social problems and the acceptance of poverty and government corruption is hidden away in the haste to present yet another disaster in an emotional light.
Plenty of food available but stone age subsitance farmers relying on stone age farming techniques cannot afford the prices so the tranzi aid agencies pile in and dump tons of food which in turn destroys Nigers food supply industry as farmers who do produce find nobody to buy their produce so it rots or gets bought by the tranzi idiots who then give it away therefore encouraging many people to give up farming and rely on free aid deliveries. Poverty increases as more and more people are fed and less and less try to grow their own food and fewer producers can sell their produce, the truly awful aid cycle begins in ernest with more dumped food meaning less domestic production meaning more food dumping and so on.
The BBC highlights a woman claiming the loss of FOUR babies to hunger? Then WTF are poverty stricken people doing bringing many children they cannot feed into the world?
The BBC fails to mention that the aid cycle is destructive and the ONLY methods of real help are good governance and good education and modern farming techniques and free trade. An uncontrolled breeding population living at the mercy of their ignorance and stone age mentality subsisting at the mercy of natures cycles but the BBC see none of the reality preffering instead to pimp the tranzi emotional blackmail spread since the Ethiopian disaster. Poverty stricken stone age people breeding like flies and then finding that the land cannot support them? A stone age people living a stone age lifestyle and then finding out the golden rule of living at the mercy of nature, you dont breed more than your environment can support. People throughout history have found out this rule to their cost and now its applying itself to Niger.
The highly damaging tranzi aid industry spreads povery and misery because it will not challenge the real causes of these tragedies, in fact the tranzies have become so big and powerful relying on disasters to fill their coffers that they are engaged in amplifying local problems into the status of disasters to rake in more revenue. The only thing most tranzi aid agencies succeed in doing is perpetuating bad governance, uncontrolled breeding and the destruction of internal markets, aid is simply helping to put off bigger disasters for a few years when an artificially enlarged population hits the golden rule of population limits yet again.
Part two.
The BBC will never explain and explore the link between population,breeding and the area needed to support that population, the golden rule can be bent with modern farming techniques/water management and even short term food aid dumping BUT it cannot be broken, the land will onlly support a certain number of people and assisting an artificial growth in that population WILL lead to another collision with the golden rule.
The utter short sighted foolishness of using emotional blackmail to encourage the expansion of a population beyond the lands capabillity to provide for that population is a modern crime against humanity. The longer this crime is allowed to go on then the worse the disasters along the line will be.
There must be a hard headed determination of each nations resources and potential agricultural production and how many people this can safely support without intolerable stress, its simply no good saying that populations of poverty stricken people can breed without limits as if its some kind of human rights issue.
The West is at the mercy of weak foolish people basing their actions on kneejerk emotion rather than cool cautious hard headed pragmatism and its storing up gigantic problems for the planet.
If a population is too stupid/too ignorant to realise their predicament then wise heads in the West must do it for them even if that means allowing the natural population shrinkage and self adjustment that nature has made for hundreds of millions of years.
The public are being asked to do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, we are being asked to help expand a population that cannot or will not be able to support itself without addressing the golden rule and its going to lead to disaster.
Never ever give money to the tranzi aid gangs and never give in to or listen to the BBC spread emotional blackmail.
Sorry, just an added thought!
Just ask a beeboid idiot what is the point in piling in short term aid so the poverty sricken popualtion can breed without limits therefore causing another collision with the golden rule in a few years?
We are being asked to underwrite a third world artificial population expansion with aid only to see that expanded population smash into the golden rule yet again in a few years with even more people starving because the land cannot support them.
One mother having six children supported by food aid, the children then breed themselves and need food aid who then breed yet more children who need yet more food aid and so on, its a crazy avoidable tragedy and its happening right now and being perpetrated by fools in the West. The only sustainable solution is to not allow the mothers to breed entire generations of unsustainable descendents who will need ever more aid to breed yet more generations of aid addicts.
The tragic cycle has to stop and the foolish idiots in charge of the tranzi aid gangs have to be stopped. If a person cannot provide for their offspring they should not be having them.