I’ll post a new Open thread shortly but the BBC has been biased beyond belief on Today his morning and I wanted to cover a handful of these items.
It all kicks off with the news that BBC DG Mark Thompson had been spotted going into Downing Street and photographers had been able to take images of the papers he was carrying. The suggestion was that Thompson could be trying to collude with the Coalition over the coming cuts. Oh no! As if to make up for that horrible thought, Today went into pro-Labour overdrive….
Ed Balls was given a slot just leading up to the prime-time 8am news slot to rant and rave about how he would save the economy. (Ignoring how he had been there as it ran into the bumpers. Remember Year Zero – all troubles started when the Coalition came to power) He was allowed to serially criticise and misrepresent George Osborne and then talk economic gibberish. No Coalition come-back, naturally.
Then, straight after the 8am news, we have Lord Prescott on to attack the evil “Murdoch Press”, quoting favourable from those organs of reason, The Guardian and the New York Times. There was a distinct air of bonhomie between Humphyrs and the fat oaf who was our Deputy PM. No opposing voice allowed, naturally.
Just when I thought this was going to a Conservative-free zone, up pops Bercow to pontificate on the Hague sideshow. Ah, but it’s SALLY Bercow, that well known Labour enthusiast. Given the BBC’s embrace of the gay agenda in almost every other walk of life, I find their sniping at the Foreign Secretary revolting.
Then, to finish, in all fairness the BBC moved away from Labour for a minute. Time to talk about Hamas. There was yet ANOTHER apologist for Hamas being given free rein. Yet again he was allowed to get away with spouting the most obnoxious pro-Islamic terror propaganda with no voice of opposition. Why does the BBC have SUCH a love-in a for the vicious Islamic killers from Hamas?
This was a thoroughly disgraceful programme from start to finish, an example of why the BBC needs axed. They must not be allowed to broadcast their bias at OUR expense. Maybe when they are stripped of our License taxes, they can turn to the Trade Unions for funding, like their pals in Labour. That way we can see them as the bought and paid for whores they so transparently have become.
I think this whole Thompson nonsense is a trick to allow Labour to claim the BBC is now biased in favour of the coalition and that the nasty Tories are putting political pressure on the whiter-than-white BBC.
It will be interesting to see how the narrative develops.
Grant.
We think along similar lines.This smacks of carefully orchestrated spin. Have some of the redundant Labour “advisors” been re-employed by the BBC to continue to serve the country?
I came to much the same conclusion myself on another thread.
I continued this on the open thread before reading these comments. Ben Bradshaw has written to Thompson that he hopes the BBC will maintain its independence.
The whole thing is a blatant pre-meditated stitch -up.
Note: this has the stink of Alistair Campbell. When New Labour went after Sky News post-election both Alistair Campbell and Ben Bradshaw orchestrated the attack on Matthew Boulton with the exact same talking points. While the spat between Campbell and Boulton got a lot of news coverage the pre-meditated attack by Bradshaw on Boulton the following night was largely ignored by the press.
The ‘accidentally-on-purpose’ revealing of the Downing Street talking points – because photographers have never before snapped briefing notes! – is such a blatantly obvious ploy by the beeboids.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. The rash of “Ooh, everyone says we must remain editorially independent” on the News Channel for the last hour – including having on somebody to whine about Evil Uncle Rupert – is proof positive of that. What an absolute joke.
Eric Pickles should be put in charge!
Obviously the only way to stop worries about political bias at the BBC is to take away government (aka us poor tax/licence-payers) money!
Let the Beeboids eat bread (plus an ounce or two hundred of humble-pie)!
Yes, today’s Today reached a new low in Beeboid bigotry. What a spiteful, hateful, mendacious, self-serving nest of vipers.
Kill it.
MailOnline William Hague attacked by Sally Bercow for going too far to dismiss rumours about his sexualityhttp://bit.ly/9BxAEM
‘Attacked’ using which media tool (in all senses of the word), I no longer need to wonder.
Well be can be in no doubt about Sally’s sexuality !
Sally Bercow
beyond satire-literally
Yes, the on-going, deep political pro-Labour, pro-Islam , pro-EU, pro-Mass Immigration, pro-Obama bias of ‘Today’, ‘World at One’, ‘PM’ and ‘Newsnight’ gives the lie to the pontificating and deviousness of DG Thompson, and Deputy DG Byford in their public pronoucements.
There is no let up in the political bias of the BBC-NUJ.
When is the BBC-NUJ branch strike, when it deprives British people of programmes they have paid for?
Perhaps the answer is to split the BBC into entertainment and current affairs. Let the current affairs (where most of the bias is) fund itself and the license payer can fund the entertainment division dedicated to dramas etc.
1) Current affairs – Target audience: Those whose first language isn’t English and therefore more likely to vote Labour.
2) Entertainment – Target audience: Those whose average intelligence is that of a five-year old and therefore more likely to vote Labour.
No. I don’t want to pay for this shit.
The trouble is, drama can be a very important propaganda tool. For instance, the Horrible Histories programme discussed here recently.
Most Radio 4 “drama” – other than classics – is right-on PC dealing with the usual suspects.
The Archers became unlistenable to me after Bill Protheroe left all those years ago.
There should be no official state broadcaster doing news reporting at all. It’s too dangerous, and the BBC is too entrenched in the national psyche. The dramas and sitcoms and right-on comedians can do all they want on a publicly-funded entertainment channel or two.
As I’ve pointed out many times the Tories get what they deserve from the BBC .They’ve allowed this nonsense to continue once they took over, during the election the BBC did all it could to stop them getting elected.
The Tories need to make it clear that the current licence fee will be the last. The BBC will be told to prepare to convert to a subscription based model/advertising for its future.
The days of sponging off the British people is over and the BBC need to wake up to that. Paying scum like Paxman 1 million a year is a joke. OK so Clarkson and co get more, but Top Gear EARNS millions in profit so they deserve their pay, but just what does Paxman do to earn 1 million a year?
I’d like to see Eric Pickles and lord Tebbit be put in charge of overseeing the end of the BBC
The Conservatives should start simply by refusing all and any cooperation with the Today programme. No spokesmen, no press releases, no liaison, no nothing. If it wants to be the broadcast wing of the Labour Party, let it.
Now that is what I been saying for years. Herse in Sweden I used to rely on the BBC, but quickly found that something was amiss. It was impossible to form a reasonable opinion without first double checking the facts on the net with other sources.
Disdain,
Not just the Today programme. The Tories should refuse to co-operate with the BBC , full stop. No interviews, nothing.
That’s the net effect now. There’s barely one appearance per day by anyone from either Coalition party, in contrast to the endless parade of Labour figures.
An interesting idea, but it would make very little difference to the number of times Tories get on air!
I’d add, to me, the only decent, honourable and effective way to deal with the issue is to raise public consciousness about the bias and then go to war to kill it. I dont mean disband the BBC. The BBC is a great British Institution. I love the BBC, that’s why I hate its bias. The outcome of an effective war would be the likes of Paxman, Naughtie and Humphrys well and truly fumigated out of the BBC door along with their Gramscian behind the mic colleagues. All we are saying, is give war a chance. Is Cameron that war leader ?? … I cringe to think of the answer ..
Hippie,
The point is that if the Tories totally boycott the BBC and publicise the boycott , the BBC will lose what little credibility it has left. Tories can still appear on the commercial channels.
I doubt that very much, Grant. More likely this would be played up as an attack on the BBC’s “editorial independence”, the nasty old Tories trying to force the darling Beeboids into being government propagandists. It will only evoke another round of sympathy and hand-wringing over the orchestras and David Attenborough.
David,
Well, yes , you might be right . It is a fine point. But, since the Tories don’t actually seem to have a coherent strategy for dealing with the BBC, I just think they should “butt out” . To slightly misquote President Johnson, I think they are better outside the
tent !
If the coalition had any sense, now would be the time to take an almighty axe to this bloated behemoth. Given the huge tub of shit the country is in financially, I reckon they would at best face only moderate opposition. Sure the lefty media would squeal for a while, but they would pull it off, especially when we know there are going to be shorfalls in more imprtant areas.
How on earth is the Prescott thingy worth the prime 8.10am slot, as well as umpteen headlines all morning ? What sort of warped editorial priorities makes this top news ?
I don’t know the pro-Hamas spokesman – but I would bet serious money that he is on record somewhere (maybe frequently) for defending terrorism and murders of civilians. As soon as he came on, I was thinking of the 4 Israelis murdered early this week, their car machine-gunned and then the terrorists going up close to shoot them all again through the car windows. Why didn’t the BBC make a much bigger issue of this – the sheer cowardly brutality of Hamas ?
Circulating the twittosphere, some not perhaps twigging that making Lord help us Jabba of Creosote the ‘go-to’ guy daily, for the entire day, might not be viewed something to savour:
@johnprescott: If you missed it, here’s my full Today interview on #Hackgate http://bbc.in/9JdZkO
And another, more insightful tweet that the ‘pr as ne..views’ BBC might ponder:
alokjha @AdamRutherford Blair, Hawking, Lomborg. 3 front pages* this week, 3 books to sell. Journalism became optional for newspapers this week
*I might add, as space probably precluded the author adding, 3 somewhat selectively editorialised across Aunty’s broadcast media estates, too.
Unique.
John A, the Beeboids view this as an heroic act of resistance. They look at these Hamas killers and see Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto fighting the good and righteous fight. They truly do not have a grasp of reality here.
I still think Cameron is well aware of the BBC problem and the illshaven one’s visit to number 10 is to discuss this. It has just got too obvious especially as the Tories seem to have been avoiding the BBC for some time and the BBC seems to have taken this as a sign to open hostilities.
Cameron must realise by now that the BBC will never change. Institutionally left through and through. Like all such bloated organisations it overestimates it’s power and is too stupid too see it’s precarious position.
Oh dear, another apology for the green tosser, AKA the boy king, he publicly praised the BBC not that long ago, ” how wonderful it is” he said. And you expect him to hit the BBC, in your dreams. It will never happen.
The BBC didn’t lose him the GE, Cameron lost it all on his own….deliberate?????
I trust that you will support whole heartedly the reduction in number of M.P.s and equalising of constituent numbers shortly to be presented to Parliament which should ensure that when the Tories score 36% it’s a hung parliament and when Labour score 35% its a majority of 60 never happens again. If the BBC managed to knock 1 or 2% off the Tory vote then they can count that as a success. You will have noted the attitude of the BBC to the Liberals. If they had coalesced with Labour they would be being fawned on rather than detested.
Vince Cable was all but beatified by the BBC before the election. Treated like a pariah now though!
Islam Not BBC (INBBC) propagandises against Israeli ‘Settlements’, and censors any counter-viewpoint.
INBBC:
[SOME] “Israeli academics boycott West Bank settlements”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11141774
Non INBBC alternatives:
“The West’s bloodstained hands”
(Melanie Phillips)
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6244074/the-wests-bloodstained-hands.thtml
And, extracts from Robin Shepherd’s book, now in paperback:
“A State Beyond the Pale: Europe’s problem with Israel”
https://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Beyond-Pale-Europes-Problem/dp/0753827131/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283508562&sr=1-1#reader_0753827131
There were a couple of Conservatives on this morning, but unlike Balls, Prescott and Mrs Bercow (who got their interviews all to themselves), they had to share their interviews with others.
So Graham Stuart MP was interviewed with Today programme regular Lee Elliot Major of the Sutton Trust, and Murdo Fraser MSP was interviewed with a fourth Labour politico, Kevin Barron MP.
This is quite a common BBC practice.
Pre-97, TODAY would only interview Conservative Government Ministers if there opposite number was present. For some spurious reason that completely changed when Blair got in. Seems to have come back again. Yes Mr Thompson, we all admire how scrupulously unbiased the BBC has become.
Well spotted, Craig !
There was also a very rare appearance by someone from UKIP, acting leader Jeffrey Titford. Unlike that cheery Prescott interview, Humph gave him the full ‘interruptions and rude questions’ treatment.
That’s usually the way. UKIP rarely get onto the BBC & when they do they usually get short interviews (like this). Never mind how short the interview though, they still get talked over by BBC interviewers!
Craig,
Nigel Farage announced his standing for UKIP leader today. Now there is someone who knows how to swat a pesky Beeboid !
I think the yobbery and decline in manners we’ve seen in our nation isn’t just to do with footballers but the microphone louts of the BBC.
You are quite right Mr Hippiepooter.
Yes Craig, par for the course when it comes to the BBC vs UKIP. Building prisons, spending more on the armed forces, anti-Islam, anti-EU… Everything a beeboid hates.
When I turned on the radio this morning there was no Labour Candidate Leadership Contender and no Tiger Tony’s Daily Revelation*.
Deeply concerned I phoned the BBC’s mother at home and asked if everything was alright.
‘Yes’, she said, ‘Nothing to worry about. Edward will be in shortly’.
I heaved a sigh of relied.
*I mean does it get any more puke-making than this…
That night she cradled me in her arms and soothed me; told me what I needed to be told; strengthened me; made me feel that what I was about to do was right… On that night of the 12th May, 1994, I needed that love Cherie gave me, selfishly. ‘I devoured it to give me strength, I was an animal following my instinct.’
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Oh god sick !! wheres me service revolver!!!
I am about to throw up my lunch.
The pro-Hamas guy was Ali Abuninah. If my Google search didn’t come up with another journalist of the same name, he’s part of ‘Electronic Intifada’. So two pro-Hamas interviewees on consecutive days, and not once were either asked the question: “If Hamas is pro-peace why does it’s charter call for the destruction of Israel?”. Simple, obvious question. But these Gramsci beeboids are there to pull the wool over people’s eyes about an anti-semitic terrorist organisation. If we had Government in this country worthy of the name there would be an MI5 investigation of this promotion of Hamas. I think the facts clearly demonstrate across the years that Humphrys and Co need to be turfed out on their ears from the BBC as terrorist enablers. There is also good case for them to face prosecution for Treason.
Is this the guy I mentioned earlier ? Well tracked.
By its choice of guests, it is clear that the editorial and research teams at the Today programme are infested by terrorism-apologists and fellow-travellers of terrorism.
Plus, of course, the weekly appearances of Islamist supporters with Gavin Esler.
I am sure people have protested to the BBC about these terrorist-supporting scum. But still they remain on the BBC’s Rolodex.
The protest that needs to be made to the BBC is that they are terrorist supporting scum. A huge wad of them need to be taken off the payroll.
Biased bBC just sank to a new depth.
Why don’t black Americans swim?
A month ago, six African-American teenagers drowned in a single incident in Louisiana, prompting soul-searching about why so many young black Americans can’t swim….
The major reason behind the problem could lie in the era of segregation says Prof Jeff Wiltse, author of Contested Waters: A Social History of Swimming Pools in America.”The history of discrimination… has contributed to the drowning and swimming rates,” says Prof Wiltse…..
Black respondents, far more than white or Hispanic respondents, were sometimes concerned about the effect chlorinated water would have on their hair.
And here is the full bBC list of excuses for why Blacks in America wont’ swim;
Theories for low black American swimming rates :
Propagation of incorrect scientific theories such as black people being much less buoyant.
Historic factors going as far back as slaves not being allowed to learn to swim
Denial of access to pools in 1920s and 30s causing ripple effect to present day
Lack of municipal pools in predominantly black neighbourhoods in 1960s onwards
Perception of swimming as elitist or white sport
It seems that even with a blackman in the white-house the bBC can still find an excuse on which to blame whitey for something.
There are some fair charges there, but why on earth is the BBC dredging up this hoary old chestnut? Oh, that’s right. There’s a mid-term election coming up and The Obamessiah and Democrats are in trouble, so the BBC needs to constantly remind you that I’m a racist.
Ps on my banana break this a.m. I had the great misfortune to catch three minutes of the Victoria Dreadfulshire show.
Nothing pleases the BBC (and bores us) more than when ‘Auntie is the story’. She had three or four worthies all adopting the ‘nothing to see here move on’ stance on Thomson and number 10.
While all of them were following over themselves to agree on how fair and impartial (sword of truth etc) the BBC is one of them said ‘Don’t forget these stories are in the Telegraph and the Daily Mail who oppose everything the BBC stands for.
Out of the mouth of babes eh.
Like to elaborate, would you, on what this ‘everything the BBC stands for’ might be.
No. Thought not.
Perhaps Cameron should ask the BBC why every time the Guardian runs a story the BBC insists on making it THE ONLY STORY across the BBC?
Andy Coulson? Yet again this non story is high up on the BBC agenda.
Lord Ashcroft, perhaps Cameron might like to ask twat face why the BBC refused to properly question Lord Mandelmong and slag shagger Prescott over Liebour non doms and big union money?
Yes, they went insane about this story just over a year ago too, after the Guardian ran its non-story about Coulson. It went on for three days, despite nothing new emerging. Newsnight went into overdrive, especially Crick. And when the story fizzled out (after Yates of the Yard pulled the rug out from under the Grauniad/BBC bandwagon), Crick simply popped up again the following night and changed the subject to Lord Ashcroft.
Pithy and, even if half true, apposite.
OldHoborn Oh do shut up @johnprescott Labour recorded all of OUR phonecalls and read our emails #hackgate #metgate
Not likely to prevent the BBC pausing much in its PR assistance for Lord Creosote’s latest campaign, the most recent stalling a bit at 15% currently.
Doesn’t do to spread oneself, er, ‘thin’, John.
As Newsnight’s recent outing, and history, show, FoI and info requests a smidge selectively embraced and endorsed by Prezza and Aunty, depending…
BBCBreakfast We should point out, to @FrufruB and others,#FF is just to highlight cool people we think you’d enjoy following, we can’t list everyone!
One might wonder who qualifies, why, and if it ‘reflects the views of the BBC’, as such?
Maybe another week in a retreat for Twitter training upgrades required?
More a #FFS, maybe?
David, you are slipping – you missed out the prominence given to the comments of the Indie re the end of the honeymoon period for the Tories and , of course, the grauniad’s comments trying to link Coulson to dirty deeds at the screws – one of the old beeboid favourites, Tories guilty by association.
Backwoodsman
Listening to it at all makes me ill! 😉
This is the Telegraph’s lead to its piece below:-
‘The director-general of the BBC has been accused of risking the corporation’s editorial independence after it emerged that he attended a private Downing Street meeting to discuss coverage of Government spending cuts.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7978695/Mark-Thompson-BBC-chief-talks-to-No-10-about-selling-the-cuts.html
The piece slips this in:-
‘Senior Conservative Cabinet ministers are privately furious at the alleged bias of the BBC when reporting the Coalition’s public spending plans’.
Surely the story is ‘BBC DG holds Downing Street talks amid concern by Senior Conservative Cabinet ministers about bias’. Instead, for some peculiar reason, the Telegraph gives the story the BBC/Labour spin. Is this a sign of how brainwashed so many are at Gramscian Thought Policing?
Fat shit Prescott on News 24 just now “I’ve been asking the Met Police to tell me if my phone had had an ‘inception'”
What a mong.
I think he means “conception”.
Who could possibly believe that the BBC has done something wrong regarding its editorial independence for meeting with Cameron about coverage of the spending cuts when the Labour Government consulted Robert Peston and briefed Nick Robinson countless times about coverage before making policy announcements, including the PBR. Both Robinson and Peston have admitted it.
Yes and as I’ve posted before since the Tories took over neither Peston or mongo Robinson have had a single scoop.
In earlier postings Craig has documented how the BBC often picks on an issue and runs it right through the whole day. Often out of proportion to its importance.
How often does this happen ? And when it happens – how often if the issue the main headline in that day’s Guardian or Independent ?
Today’s “issue” seems to be the Prescott non-story.
All this stuff about Hague and then Andy Coulson….I can only assume it is the Labout Smear Office back to work.
It was only when the news first broke about Hague that the BBC reported the use of a ‘twin’ room …sombody somewhere then obviously decided future references should be to ‘shared a room’.
The BBC’s call through their ‘News’ for anybody who had knowledge of Hague having a homosexual relationship was blatant. And any doubt has now been erased from my mind as the BBC has now nothing further to report.
Again compare that to how the BBC treated Mark Oaten (if people really want to know I can print what he did with his rent boy but it’s not pleasent and very smelly), they hardly reported it or Prescott’s slapper shagging which was also lightly reported by the BBC.
And has Sally Bercow a book coming out…. she is all over the place (I saw her on Sky reviewing the papers) And I thought she was just a failed labour candidate.
Mark Thomson is caught red-handed conspiring with the coalition government, and yet the very place where I might have expected to find some good commentary on that is actually raving on about Labour bias on the Today programme. Frankly, I thought this post was embarrassing.
Conspiring? Have you not been paying attention to the BBC’s close relationship with the Labour Government for 13 years?
And are you implying that this “close relationship” with the (now non-existent) Labour Government somehow precludes the possibility of the BBC developing a similar relationship with the current government? In essence, you are denying the antecedent. Umm, that’s a piece of formal logic for you – which is probably not your strongest game.
And are you implying that this “close relationship” with the (now non-existent) Labour Government somehow precludes the possibility of the BBC developing a similar relationship with the current government?
In a nutshell.
It’s your own logic which is faulty. The BBC is ideologically biased towards Labour, not towards just anyone who is in power. I should remind you that the BBC has admitted to working against the Thatcher Government. That should be the relevant antecedent. So you’re basing your own logic on an error.
Actually, I’m wondering about your honesty as well. You come in here claiming that you “expected to find some good commentary” about Mark Thompson’s meeting at No. 10. It’s not possible for someone to be familiar with this blog – even in passing – and believe that anyone here would think the BBC is in any danger of conspiring with a Tory on anything, never mind their broadcasting.
Nor is it possible for anyone familiar with this blog to believe that one would find commentary here criticizing the BBC for surrendering its editorial independence to the Coalition Government.
I think you’ve come here under false pretenses, with faulty logic and a condescending tone. I suppose your moniker should have alerted me before I even read your comment.
Faulty logic? I hardly think so. Your argument was: If the BBC had not spent the last 13 years conspiring with the Labour government, then it might be conspiring with the coalition government. (i.e. If P then Q.) However, because the BBC did spend the last 13 years conspiring with the Labour government (not P), it cannot be conspiring with the current government (therefore, not Q).
This is the very form of the logical fallacy known as “denying the antecedent”. Google it up if you don’t know it (as you obviously don’t).
Much more interesting is this idea that the onus on me, as a first time reader of this blog, to be on familiar terms with its agenda before have even read a single word of it! All I did was search for “BBC bias” having heard today’s news about Mark Thomson, and this blog was one of the first things to appear in the search results.
Bizarre.
I know what it means. It’s the usual condescension from the Left, I see. If I don’t agree with you it can only be because I didn’t understand what you said, or am ignorant.
I say you’re in error regarding your choice of antecedent. If the BBC has spent nearly its entire existence collaborating with the Labour Party – whether in power or not – then it will continue to do so. This is not a logical fallacy. You’re inserting the element of “government” into the equation, creating a false argument. The logic behind choosing “government” is faulty in this case. You can try it another way, but the fact remains that the BBC has collaborated with the Labour Party, and continues to do so.
Much more interesting is this idea that the onus on me, as a first time reader of this blog, to be on familiar terms with its agenda before have even read a single word of it!
So you made an erroneous assumption when you entered with your original statement? You assumed that we would be in lock-step with you simply because of the word “bias”, is that it? Furthermore, if, as you say, this blog was “one of the first things to appear in the search results”, then you don’t have much basis to expect that this blog would be “the very place where I would expect to find some good commentary”. Instead, you should have said “one of the places where….” At the very least, you seem to have misrepresented your perspective there.
Still, I doubt the honesty of your original statement. You did not come here because you hoped to find someone who agrees with you.
I did not insert the predicate “government”. You did. You said that the BBC had been in a conspiracy with the “Labour Government” for 13 years. But regardless of whether or not we are talking about the Labour Government or the Labour Party, you did cite this as justification for denying the possibility that the BBC is now conspiring with the current government. This remains logically wrong and, on the basis of today’s news story, laughably at odds with the most elementary of established facts.
Incidentally, I did not come here to find someone who “agrees with me”. As it happens, I currently hold no opinions on the matter. I hold only the facts as they stand i.e. that the Director General of the BBC had a meeting with the Government in which he discussed how the BBC could help the coalition make their case for the forthcoming spending review. In the process of coming to a considered opinion on the implications of these facts, I seek some commentary on them.
Of course, one’s opinions often do become the filter through which we come to understand facts. That is something I have no issue with. But I do think it is a virtue if one can suspend one’s rush to opinionated judgement and, instead, give the facts some space to breathe. That is a skill that I hope you learn someday. Because right now you come across as illogical, ignorant and paranoid.
You assumed the “government” bit was relative. It isn’t. So this entire argument is based on a false assumption.
Once you’re finished with the insults, perhaps you’d care to debate the BBC’s eternal pro-Labour, Left-liberal bias, as admitted by so many of them, including most recently the Director General?
But I do think it is a virtue if one can suspend one’s rush to opinionated judgement and, instead, give the facts some space to breathe. That is a skill that I hope you learn someday. Because right now you come across as illogical, ignorant and paranoid.
That’s really funny coming from someone who came here with the assumption that we would agree with you, simply because this blog came up on a Google search for “BBC bias”.
Agree with me about what? The only disappointment I have reported in relation to this site is its failure to provide any commentary whatsoever about the Mark Thompson story in today’s news. That is not a case of “looking for people to agree with me”, that is just looking for information about today’s biggest story about BBC bias.
My apologies for daring to imagine that a blog calling itself “Biased BBC” and which claims to be focussed on bias in the BBC might actually be interested in that story. Sheesh.
If the BBC tone down their anti-coalition bias as a result of conspiring with the current government, it is purely to save their own skins, not out of ideology or a sudden conversion to impartiality. But, I don’t believe it will happen. The Beeboids sniff that the Tories are too weak to do what should be done and destroy the BBC.
Thompson and the Beeboids ( name for a pop group ?) are playing a clever, tricky game and will probably get away with it.
You allege that Thompson’s meeting at No 10 was to discuss how the BBC could help the Coalition present its case for cuts !!!
That suggestion in itself is biased. If you listen at all to BBC news, they have been whining non-stop about the cuts, notably failing to report that it is Labour’s fault that we need deep cuts, many of which Labour would have made anyway.
The obvious reason for the meeting is that the Coalition are trying to blow the whistle on this constant bias – and are onsisting that the BBC get round to reporting things in a more balanced manner.
‘The only disappointment I have reported in relation to this site is its failure to provide any commentary whatsoever’
Were the multi £B BBC as responsive and timely as certain free sites (there you go: RE-ASSURANCE REQUIRED
>> FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 03, 2010 ) to those ‘reporting’, though what has been penned hardly comes across as that.
Speaking of which, if trying to provoke one to make a point, the most persuasive argument is usually a simple, honest one that stacks up.
So coming across like a few client hours were left over from the failed Stig defence seems a poor strategy.
David’s patience is admirable, but given the hyperbole in just the first para of the point-less ‘critique’ that kicked this sub-thread off, perhaps optimistic to presume any sensible debate might ensue.
As to logic, that seems hard to credit from one claiming to be seeking to be on a simple mission of education based on research, and then pens vast, convoluted explanations with snide asides to ‘explain’ why they are disappointed in a private blog they have never heard of until 10 seconds before.
Plus hitting the ground on touching down for the first time with a diatribe not so much on the topic (failing to notice it is but one thread of many, and indeed highlighting a somewhat predictable party-centric tendency that could hardly be deemed supportive of the new government) but the premise of the site, whilst professing to know nothing about it.
At the very least, that suggests a level of blinkered arrogance, self-absorption and lack of professional courtesy that I suspect is not unfamiliar to many readers/posters on this site.
It’s like popping up on a Graun CiF blog on AGW and trying to gain respect from the author and commenters by moaning that they have not opted to focus on one’s personal beef of the day because it was front page in the Mail. Whilst lobbing in a few snarky ya-boos for good measure.
To imagine this may sway any of independent thought is, truly, bizarre.
Or as some may fondly imagine, unique.
Guest Who,
Wow, that is some post !!!
trolls
you just gotta love ’em