Orwell had them sussed. So have we. Here’s a new Open Thread to take us into the weekend. Thanks for all your great comments during this week and also for the many mails that come my way full of further instances of bias!
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
It’s time for a detailed register of which papers get featured in the ‘Here are the front pages of tomorrow’s papers’ slot, just before ten pm on News24.
Last night – Thursday – the Terrible Leftie Three (FT, Indy, Gradniau, total readership about 45) all got read out, no-one else did. Is it just that they send theirs quickest to the BBC?
The FT is lefty? How? It deals with market capitalism, lefties’ bete noire.
Come now, it isn’t printed on pink paper for nothing?
It is so left wing it has come full circle. 🙂
The FT is a fully committed Warmist paper. See, for instance (and there are many of them) : http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6d1fd25c-9a69-11df-87fd-00144feab49a.html
If you fervently support Warmism, then you support the destruction of business, and therefore you are left wing.
During a long drive on wednesday, I noticed a lack of the ‘L’ word on the bBC radio. Or more correctly ‘it was Labour that done it’. One was blatant, the speech by Cable. This was relayed in full and there was a LARGE portion of it critising Labours actions as being the cause of the problem, With typical bBC panache this was airbrushed from history. He did not say it according to him and then checking on the website the section on Cable’s speech says ‘Labour are in Denial’.
The next one was much more subtle. A london mayor spokeperson was talking about the effects of current legislation brought in 2000 about monitoring racial incidents. It turns out that those daft episodes, whereby a council has a report a 3 year old because they brought a golliwog to play school. This is part of actual law enacted in 2000 and makes it compusory on the council. So the bBC presenter mutted something about the 80s. No mention of who was in power in 2000 and who dreamt up this lunatic legislation. The airbrush of Labour stupidity goes on and on ……….
Birmingham City Council’s Lib Dem Deputy Leader makes official complaint about BBC bias:
http://www.birminghampost.net/news/2010/09/24/city-council-deputy-leader-paul-tilsley-complains-to-bbc-over-broadcast-65233-27331858/
Could it be that Beeboids hate the Lib Dems even more than they hate the nasty Tories ?
Grant they do hate the Lib Dems for two reasons.
1. For backing the tories not Liebour
2. They think by attacking the Lib Dems they can drive the wedge in between them, this is exactly what JohnPinhead actually said on Radio a couple of weeks ago “It’s our job” was his comment. It was heard by other people to this blog.
If the BBC edited the inaugural speech of their beloved Obamessiah to make Him sound more forceful on one of their pet issues, what chance does a mere Lib-Dem councillor have?
Paul Tilsley got the full Paddy O’Connell treatment back in May. The interview , which was about Lib-Con coalitions, began with this question:
“And would you kindly be blunt? In your heart, when you shook hands with the Conservatives, were you scared and did you feel slightly dirty?”
After answering “No”, and saying how well the Lib-Con coalition was doing in Birmingham, O’Connell said to him “And you’re making cuts” and then, having made this abrupt statement, changed the subject, giving Cllr Tilsley no chance to respond.
Will the Lib Dems be as submissive towards the BBC as the Conservatives if this sort of thing continues (as it surely will)?
The execution of the woman in america MUST under bBC Law be a BIG issue. Add together public execution, female and supposedly mentally handicapped. They made a big issue of the womans supposed low IQ of 72. No mention this was put forward as mitigating evidence by the DEFENCE.
I have not forgotten compelling medical evidence like ‘Megrahi has only weeks to live’ or ‘ Ernest Saunders (Guiness trial) has miracuosly recoverd from Altzhimers’.
IQ of 72? That would be high if she were at the BBC. Richard Bacon has an IQ of about 12.
INBBC: invariably appeasing Ahmadinejad.
Take the first, and defending sentences of INBBC’s Ms Kendall here:
“Mr Ahmadinejad did not accuse the US directly of being part of a conspiracy behind the 11 September attacks.
“But he did suggest that one theory he claimed was popular was that the US government had orchestrated it to provide a pretext to reverse its declining grip on the Middle East.”
Ms Kendall gives credence to his absurd propaganda by not challenging his Islamic jihad polemics.
Even a political ‘leftist’ poster said this (-but INBBC is oblivious):
“With tiresome predictability, the Iranian tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is again in New York for the United Nations General Assembly. And again, he is performing to type. Rambling, inchoate speeches about the decline of capitalism, facile equations of the Iran’s judicial system with that of the United States, ranting about Israel – of course! – and a televised sit down with Charlie Rose. And Larry King.
“As my colleague Kenneth Bandler argued in a recent op-ed, ‘no broadcast media outlet is obligated to give Ahmadinejad a platform. Some may argue about the need to protect free speech, but that’s definitely not the issue. It’s about the Iranian leader taking advantage of our open society to propagandize.’
“It’s hard to believe that producers and anchors don’t know that already, nor that they haven’t watched their colleagues wrestle with Ahmadinejad’s elasticity in the past. Really, why bother any more?
I am not suggesting that Ahmadinejad be ignored. But to indulge him in this way serves no purpose other than reinforcing his sense of immunity, at just the time that his clerical rivals are once more scheming to bring him down.”
“Press TV: Ahmadinejad’s Mouthpiece”
http://hurryupharry.org/2010/09/22/press-tv-ahmadinejads-mouthpiece/
Link to INBBC’s Ms. Kendall’s comments:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11402101
So Ken Livingstone has been selected as London’s Mayoral Candidate.
This therefore means that the BBC will commence it’s “Red Ken” love-in leading up to the 2012 poll.
I shall be watching, listening and reading and I doubt very much if I will be disappointed.
Ken is going on the slogan; ‘Fares will always be lower under Ken’. I doubt there will be mention of the £80M hole he left in the transport accounts or that rates will have to be higher to pay for his subsidies. Or that his wife (then partner) had a £90k job in his administration.
The airbrush of Labour Ken has just begun.
Oh God, that odious little creep will be on the BBC even more than he is now.
Yes *sigh* he’s going to be all over the BBC like a bad suit for the next year.
Livingstone is the presenter of a phone-in programme on a local London radio station (LBC). Will he be allowed to keep this job, with its self-propaganda potential?
Blogging of BBC’s coverage of Leninspart might almost be worth its own B-BBC thread, kept near the top of the blog. It’d be a useful journalistic resource. It’s not as if we don’t know there’ll be plenty to put on such a thread, after all.
As you are all aware october is “Black history week” in the UK (when is “white history week” ? ).
I just caught the start of a R4 programme about this. Apparently some “right-wingers ” are objecting. Cue interview with Tory MP Philip Davies ( boo, hiss ! ).
Then, next up, Rod Liddle, someone I have a sneaking admiration for. He said it was patronising and would be politically manipulated. A former Beeboid not following the script ( boo, hiss ! ).
Anyway I am sure the following topics will be thoroughly covered :-
1. History of black Africans before and after colonialism, and not just Apartheid.
2.The history of tribalism, nepotism, genocide and corruption in Africa.
3.The history of black on black and Arab on black slavery in Africa, which is still rife today.
4. A history of black African democracy.
5. A history of female genital mutilation among black Africans
and much more.
At the end of october, I shall be going to Gambia for three weeks so shall be able to ask my black African in-laws and friends what they think of Black history week. But, I know the reaction, looks of puzzlement and the question ” why ? “.
Only a week? In the US we have the entire month of Februrary for Black History Month. Plus we have a Black Man as President.
And the BBC says that Britain is more tolerant than the US? Tut, tut.
No, we have a whole month of it too.
We got the idea of it from America. So it’s all your fault!
Oh, no! It all started in America…. *DONT_KNOW*
Millie,
All the problems in the world are the fault of the Yanks 😉 I mean the white Yanks, of course.
David P,
Sorry, I mis-typed in my anger, it is “Black history month”, not week.
And to continue , switched on to rant mode.
6. Why does the EU discriminate against African food exports ?
7. Why does the EU pay large sums of money to bribe West African officials to allow the EU fishing fleet to rape the seas to the detriment of local, traditional ,eco-friendly African fishermen ,just so that some EU fat cat can dine out in Brussels , while the African fishermen are risking their lives every day just to feed their families ?
8. What is the problem with DDT ? It is perfectly safe when sprayed on walls and mosquito nets and is the best way to protect from malaria. I would like to take a Beeboid up country in Gambia to watch a child die of malaria. Beeboids, it ain’t Islington !
9. Why do Beeboids support ignorant, selfish, self-serving prats like Bono and Geldof who do nothing to help ordinary Africans ?
I could go on and, maybe shall, but time for my medication and a lie-down !
Great questions Grant and ones that the BBC would very much prefer we did not ask!
The African tragedies we see and the realites on the ground are somewhat different, the BBC is the mouthpiece of the aid industry, the most corrupt and useless band of numpties and fools and crooks ever assembled.
Free trade with nations that wish to join the family of democratic nations, open trade and free exchange of farming and irrigation technologies.
But Africa is ripe for the carpet baggers and the political ideologue and the cancerous dead hand of the tranzi vested interests and the eurotrash trade protectionista who would rather sabotage whole nations than trade freely.
I think that if we dealt with Africa on equal trade terms treating them as equals and adults then Africa would grow into a viable continent within thirty years.
Charity kills, it kills vibrancy and determination to better oneself and perhpas that is the point?
No more latter day missionaries and carpet bagger rapists and no more charity pimps just equal free trade of the ‘what have you got to trade’ variety. The troubles of Africa could in large part be solved if the bleeding heart racist holier than thou arrogant tranzi assholes got off the back of Africa and let it grow up.
Cassie,
I am getting so tired of agreeing with your posts. Please post something I disagree with 😉
If I didn’t have a personal connection with really nice, honest, decent , hard-working Africans, I would write Africa off as a basket case.
My friends and family there, want to “grow up” and stand on their own feet, but the African “big men ” keep them down.
Tragic, but not the BBC’s business. So, Beeboids, butt out of Africa or come out of your 5-star hotels and dig a well with your hands. That is real work !
The tragedy is that the remedies are so bloody obvious and simple to enact!
It doesnt take a genius to work out what the problems are and the solutions to fix them are just as simple, better still it would benefit the West imensely to have a free trade partnership with the emerging African nations that wish to enter the modern world.
No, I can only think that the establishment want Africa poor and led by dictators and fruitcakes, they must feel that a competitor continent is a threat.
BTW Great minds think alike 😎
Cassie,
Agree, totally.
Grant
It sounds as if it might be dangerous at this point to mention the World Trade Organisation (WTO). 😉
Millie,
If I may speak in Gambian “patois” the WTO are ” joker boys ” !
Where is INBBC’s campaign for free speech in support of these British critics of Islam? – On the lines of INBBC’s campaign for Muslim Ethiopian Binyam Mohamed.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/29823
And yet the BBC won’t mention these wonderful young men from the Religion of Peace.
Where to start!!!
OK so we all knew when the BBC saw the survey that only 1 in a 100 of us are gayers the BBC wouldn’t be best pleased. So Radio 5 have been spinning all morning that those thousands of gay Muslims (just knew it had to be gay Muslims) are to frightened to ‘come out’
Hang on how did they do this survey? 500,000 people asked did they knock on their front door and ask them on the door step? Of course not, it’s just the BBC and their gay leftie media pals (like Ben Summerkille) trying to make excuses.
Then Radio 5 through Nicki Campbell were lashing out at the Christian church (again) funny Dame Nicki didn’t want to lash out at the Muslims (but as we know the gay community are highly aroused by Muslim men). funny that the BBC doesn’t trust this official survey, but they used to trust them all the time didn’t they? The British Crime survey, Gordon Brown’s economic crap, Sheena Easton, Robert Peston, toenails all used to happily spin Government data as FACT (no questions asked)
What changed?
Then we had Radio 5 trying ot beat up on Eric Pickles. The BBC’s Andy Verity (where does the BBC manage to find so many lefty business people?) was haranging Pickles over the decision not to re-do the tax bands for houses, so millions won’t have to pay more “but that’s not actually saving money as you claim” spouted croacky voiced ugly female beeboid. Pickles just stated that people wouldn’t be forced to pay out even more money. Funny that the BBC parrot the lie that not replacing Trident would save us having ot make ‘savage cuts’ as of course we haven’t spent a penny on the Trident replacement yet. The BBC trying to have it both ways.
Martin, if there are any Pashtuns in Britain, then the BBC is right to suggest that there are far more homosexuals than the study shows. Not that BBC audiences would know what I’m talking about as the BBC has done exactly one report on the Pashtuns’ homosexual lifestyle: on the World Service. And even then the correspondent tried to pretend that this was a fairly obscure practice, while attending three local gay dancing boys parties in one week.
Did they say why, exactly, the homosexual Mohammedans were afraid to come out? What happened to tolerant Britain?
Martin,
I suspect Beeboids like to have it “both ways” !
I assume that the give away of her intelligence; was the fact that she undersood the small print of an insurance policy. i.e. If she carries out the murders herself she will not be paid out.
Yes Radio 5 has been championing Red Ken already. The vile Scabby Logan just gave him the softest interview (even by beeboid standards)( just now.
She even said out loud that come the next election and if Ken wins he will be Mayor for the Olympics, ‘PERFECT’. So we know where her loyalties lie.
Livingturd was a disaster, anyone remember Lee Jasper? The BBC don’t, yet the BBC were tipped off about him and buried the story until I think the Evening Standard ran it.
The BBC knew about the allegations but kept quiet.
I bet the BBC remind us of the people who had to resign for Boris but Jasper won’t get a mention on the BBC.
It wasn’t just Lee Jasper, either. Corruption at the London Development Agency as well, with its seriously large budget.
Want to bet that when the BBC starts to attack Boris the BBC won’t mention any of Ken’s dodgy dealings?
Still think Boris will walk it, he’s one of the few genuinely decent politicians you wouldn’t mind having a pint with. Red Ken, the Jew hater?
Oh and a camp sounding male from the BBC’s Politics unit (whatever that is) on Radio 5 ‘claimed’ that Ken is more centrist these days than he was 30 years ago?
Centrist? I don’t think so beeboid.
Maybe it’s not that Ken’s moved towards the centre; it’s the BBC that’s moved towards the left?
Martin
“Still think Boris will walk it . . “
Remember Boris only got in because the voters on the outer rim of London got off their backsides – for once – and gave Labour (in outer London) a drubbing. The inner city is and was solid Labour, solid third world, solid non-Christian and solid anti-Jew: why do you think the fair Oona wasn’t selected? She’s half black yes but also half Jewish (which was why Galloway beat her in what was a hitherto safe Labour seat). Also, after what will be 3 years of the coalition (people locally usually tend to vote against the national government) plus the drumbeat of anti-coalition, stridently anti-Boris propaganda and undiluted Ken-love from the BBC both nationally and, particularly, locally, Boris might have trouble getting re-elected.
You might also recall what Cardinal Kasper said about “third world” Heathrow: it’s true not only of Heathrow but of our capital city too. If you don’t believe me, travel on the 102 from Muswell Hill to Brent Cross (which are by no means in inner London) in the rush hour, sit down and close your eyes (actually open your eyes and look at your fellow-passengers): you might as well be in downtown Khartoum and, except that the drivers aren’t as polite as they are in the Sudan, you are. Ken has the third world vote sewn up (with all that means both numerically and in respect of the incorruptibility (!) of the voting process) and, as far as London’s concerned, that means he’s almost a cert for 2012.
But Boris kept his word and dumped the Congestion charge on the west side, but red Ken wants to bring it back. Boris also want sot rid London of those crappy bendy buses.
I still think Boris will get it again, but you are right that Liebour has flooded London with 3rd world morons.
Why does the BBC keep quiet about Ken’s anti-semitism ? Er… no need to answer that question.
I live in the outer rim of London and will certainly be turning out for Boris again. My ward is a Labour safe seat yet a tory clean sweep on the council. I assume people around here don’t trust Labour at a local level (I wonder why.)
Is it just me, or is this the kind of boodget coot which is more of an ideological weapon than it is a fiscal necessity?
World Service boss announces cuts
The World Service will no longer broadcast plays, the Proms or Wimbledon, as part of a cost-cutting exercise, the BBC has announced.
Craig Oliver, controller of the English speaking section, said the “difficult decisions” he had been forced to make would come into force from April.
In an email to staff, he added the changes were necessary to deal with the “tough financial climate”.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that this is absolute BS. I listen to a lot of radio from around the world, and in the past have worked on events which have been broadcast in various media. I can say without hesitation that it’s perfectly simple for the World Service to take the feed from BBC 1 or Radio 3 and put it out over their own network. This would cost them next to nothing.
They certainly don’t need to create their own shows for this stuff, don’t need their own personnel. While a weekly Proms highlights show is lovely, there are much more effiicient ways to broadcast R3 concerts on the World Service, and there’s plenty of quality music there. Creating endless streams of specialty shows seems wasteful.
For example, you all saw how many Beeboids they sent to cover that 9/11 memorial service. They could easily have sent just one reporter with a crew and put that out over all their networks. There was no need to have Trevalyan and Atkins and three other Beeboids do their own report while standing in front of the same van. Did you get better coverage of the event from this method?
So instead of acknowledging the wastefulness of their business model, they make an ideological gesture instead. I see it as ideological because Craig Oliver says this:
“Like all of the public sector, BBC World Service is having to respond to the challenges of an increasingly difficult financial climate at home and abroad,” the statement read
“These are tough decisions, taken carefully and with great thought. We acknowledge that they will not be popular with some of our audiences and we share their disappointment.”
Why not do what other, more responsible broadcasters do an take a feed from somewhere else? I listened to performances from the Bayreuth Festival this year on Catalan radio as well as on WDR in Germany, and I’ve heard many European stations carrying live feeds of BBC Radio 3 concerts. They do this all the time. All it costs them is someone to translate over the presenter’s commentary, plus whatever licensing fee is involved. And there’s no licensing fee if the World Service takes it from R3 (I think there is, technically, but it’s not a real cost, just moving numbers around on paper, unless there’s some issue with the musicians’ union).
Instead they’ve been creating their own broadcasts for all this, which seems excessive and wasteful, nice as it is to be able to maintain a uniquely “World Service” feel to everything. Now the BBC can claim that nasty Tory boodget coots have cost the world some great broadcasting, when this could nearly all be replaced at a fraction of the cost.
Typical Lefty tactic of cutting something decent so they can blame it on the tories, I expect a lot of this from Labour run councils after the spending review.
Good points. I used to think what I heard on the World Service was eclusive to it until I started to realise that programmes like FOOC were also broadcast in the UK. It’s really deceitful of them to claim those cuts are financially significant.
A month or two back there was a flurry of ads lasting bout a week claiming that the WS was going to start broadcasting Hardtalk. Then they went very quiet about it and I’ve just seen that it’s on at the unearthly hour (well for me anyway) of 04:30 GMT. Maybe they’re aiming it at the US.
Or Asia, more likely.
This is going back a while, but I still nearly fell off my chair reading it:
ECU Ruling: London Summit on Jewish Refugees, BBC News OnlinePublication date: 20 January 2009
Complaint
A reader of the page complained that the item gave an inaccurate picture of the position of Jewish communities in Muslim countries before 1948, which tended to suggest that any animosity between Jew and Arab arose only from foundation of the State of Israel.
Outcome
The item was accurate in most respects, but the statement by the BBC’s Arab Affairs analyst that Jews in Muslim countries were “fully integrated” into their societies gave a misleading impression of equal treatment, whereas their ‘dhimmi’ status in Muslim countries entailed numerous laws and policies that discriminated against them. [My emphasis]
Further action
The report has been amended and the Middle East team reminded of the need to explain this situation clearly should it arise again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/ecu/2009/01/090120_ecu_londonsummitonjewishrefugees.shtml
I don’t believe I’ve ever heard language like that from the BBC Trust and since there’s a link on the page to the allegedly-amended article, I had a look. Here’s what the BBC considers an appropriate amendment – one phrase in the entire article:
He says one undisputed fact is that many Jews were part of Arab societies for centuries, although not with equal rights, until Israel was established.
However, they do add this below the article:
Correction 19 January 2009: This story originally said Jews were “fully integrated” into Arab societies. Following a ruling by the Editorial Complaints Unit, it has been changed to take into account laws and policies which might have affected their status.
Took them well over six months to come to their decision and make the correction. So it’s mostly a pointless exercise, since few people will access the amended version other than those who have been following up the complaint. Just interesting to note that there was actually someone at the Trust willing to tell it like it is re Arab discrimination against Jews.
I read most of that article wondering what the ECU was. Sounded like something to do with the EU.
Editorial Cockups Unit
“not with equal rights” could mean Jews had more rights than Arabs. Beeboids really are vermin.
True, I didn’t think about that. It could be read like that. Best thing that can be said is that they did the absolute minimum possible re that amendment.
Sorry, Grant, but I just can’t buy that one. “Not with equal rights’ could be interpreted as a watered down version of “second-class citizens who had to pay the infidel tax”, though.
Here in the frozen wastes of Bonnie Scotland, my sad, tired, little life is geared, on a weekly basis , to building up to the highlight of gorgeous, pouting, Jo Coburn on “The Daily Politics” and the inevitable , explosive, climax.
She seldom disappoints.
But, today, the lady had a surprise for me.
The politico guests were Labour backbencher, Emily Thornberry and Tory MP , Matthew Hancock.
Emily is quite repulsive and ignorant and was outdone easily by Matthew.
But, the funniest thing was Jo’s continued interruptions of Emily. I suspect a cat-fight.
Craig, if you are reading this, check it out, it is really quite funny.
Before I forget: in BBC1 News at 10 last night there was an item on world food shortages exacerbated by the ban on Russian food exports. The item concentrated on the bumper cereal crop in the US. So far so uncontentional. But this is the BBC. According to the report, food prices will be higher this year. Sure but it’s not primarily due to an actual shortage of grain. Oh no, it’s those pesky speculators in the Chicago futures markets: (cue library footage of wicked white traders in Chicago) making money at the expense of the starving third world. Cue a meaningless interview with an American investor (OK “speculator”) in the Chicago markets. Guess what? He invests to make money and he admitted that people buy food/food futures on the basis of their projections of price/supply. No mention that “speculation” of this sort is a zero-sum game ie for every buyer there is a seller who either wants certainty (eg a farmer who wants aguranteed price for his crop when it’s harvested) or another investor who considers that by the time the trade matures the price will be lower than the traded price.
The sheer meretricious ignorance combined with flagrant bias of BBC financial or economic journalism is breath-taking. In the BBC narrative, any corporation which makes a profit not subsidised by the taxpayer (which excludes “social entrepreneurs” and climate change racketeers) and any individual who is generously rewarded for his efforts in the private sector is prima facie a criminal or worse. Or, take the BBC narrative on the banks. The UK banks which required rescue were those which had poured their depositors’ money into crap loans (Northern Rock, HBOS/Lloyds) or who had gone haywire with their shareholders’ funds (RBS/NatWest) not the ones who operated “casino” banking (HSBC, Barclays). Yet the BBC is forever on the case of, for instance, Bob Diamond (whose bank didn’t require a penny from the taxpayer) and bigs up that world-class ignoramus and socialist-manqué, Vince Cable. Also when is the BBC going to interview Liam Halligan rather than economists who insist that “inflation isn’t a problem”?
BTW we rarely hear that Mervyn King was a signatory to the anti-Thatcherite letter from the Times from the 364 economists of Britain’s then economic establishment. But, to be fair to Stephanie Flanders, she wrote in 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4803858.stm
that the 364 economists ended up with egg on their collective face. However, that article was written in 2006 when the idea that the BBC would ever have to deal with a Conservative government again was almost inconceivable.
Umbongo. Spot on. Also the BBC fail to point out that prior to the setting up of the FSA by the right useless one eyed idiot from Fife (i.e. before 1997) you couldn’t get a mortage much above 3 times your salary (I only got 2.5 times) you couldn’t get a 100% mortgage never mind a 125% mortgage. These were simply not tolerated by the Bank of England.
Just watched fatty Mardell on the 6PM news. We get a clip of St Barry Obama and Mardell telling us that Barry was telling the people of Iran that the problem is with THEIR Government and not the people
So fatty Mardell, why didn’t you point out that Barry had plenty of opportunity to give support to the uprising in Iran last year and he bottled it?
Also Mardell says Barry doesn’t like military action. Of course not, Barry is going to shaft the Israelis who will do Barry’s dirty work for him. They will be forced into a corner at some point. No way will Israel accept a nuclear Iran, at least not with the current bunch of nutters in charge.
I guess Justin Webb was wrong about The Obamessiah “confusing his enemies” with that video kiss He sent to Iran. Or do we just disagree on who is the enemy?
Yet another Mexican mayor has been murdered. Just last night Matt Frei was talking to the latest (but still alive as of this writing) mayor of Juarez about all this. Apparently there was some conference of Mexican mayors held in San Diego the other day, and Frei was trying to slam the US for all the problems in Mexico by saying that it was awful how only the mayor of San Diego showed up. He asked the Mayor of Juarez if he felt “snubbed” by the US because of this, and made out like this was the only meeting ever of its kind.
Frei’s ignorance (and BBC America’s failure to do their homework) was revealed immediately when the mayor said that they’ve been having these meetings for three years already on their own and this was the first time they got the US involved. The mayor of San Diego invited them up, and he was happy to open up the dialogue. Frei didn’t like having to go off message.
Mexico is a failed state, with at least as much killing going on in the last few years as Afghanistan. But the BBC will only occasionally report on the disaster, and then try to blame it on drug use in the US. No mention ever of the massive, endemic corruption in Mexican government, military, and police forces, which has been going on for decades. And I suppose no Mexicans use drugs ever? No mention either that most of the able-bodied, hard-working Mexicans in many areas left to work illegally in the US, leaving a vacuum which was always going to be filled by something worse.
Frei and ignorance go together don’t they.
Tonight the BBC prepares to bring its wholly disproportionate coverage of the Labour leadership election to a close.
On BBC online it asks:
WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM THE NEXT LABOUR LEADER?
An apology would be a start.
The BBC provided live coverage of…
– the Iranian and American president’s speeches to the U.N. (They got all they expected and more from the former and more than they bargained for – as Sue’s excellent post pointed out – from the latter.)
– today’s announcement of Labour’s candidate for the Mayor of London
– today’s release of a report into banking
….yet the BBC News Channel chose not to provide any live coverage of our country’s deputy prime minister Nick Clegg’s first address to the U.N. today.
Instead, after the speech had ended, the News Channel reported that it had happened and broadcast a clip from it that lasted exactly 22 seconds.
The Six O’Clock News ignored Clegg’s speech altogether.
The News Channel didn’t mention it again until about 7.40pm, when two short clips were shown and his comments were discussed with Adam Hug, policy director at the Foreign Policy Institute. Being a typical BBC ‘independent expert’, a little googling reveals that this particular ‘progressive think-tanker’ is also a Labour councillor. (More here). He was critical of the speech, saying it was more Conservative than Liberal – as you might expect of a Labour councillor. Never trust the BBC when it presents you with an ‘independent expert’.
That, Mr Clegg, is what the BBC does to you if you chose to go into power with the wrong lot.
Well. at least the 10 O’Clock News mentioned it (after twenty or so minutes of other news). The whole segment lasted 45 seconds.
Talking of ‘Newsnight’ presenters:
“Unions in Barnet blasted by Councillor Brian Coleman for advertising BBC Newsnight journalist Paul Mason would be speaking at meeting”
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8412824.Unions_blasted_for_advertising_BBC_speaker_visit/
Comrade Mason has form.
BBC misrepresents nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
IAEA rejects Arab nuclear resolution on Israel
The resolution expressed “concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities” and called on Israel to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This would require Israel to open any of its nuclear activity to IAEA inspectors.
The most important feature of the NPT is that only the permanent members of the UN Security Council are allowed to possess nuclear weapons. The resolution is a call on Israel either to disarm or admit it is bluffing and has no such weaponry. If a country has genocidal plans towards another the second country’s ability to retaliate would be a vital strategic consideration before making the decision to go to war.
Anyone notice the lack of coverage in the Black Panther voting scandal?
Good catch. Of course they’re hiding it. The BBC instead went with the Leftoid media smokescreen of a comedian testifying before Congress – while in character. Even the “anaylsis” inset by Paul Adams wastes brain cells on this charade.
This was deliberate, of course. A dopey Democrat Congresswoman invited him to testify about some non-story on the same day that the DOJ was getting its dirty laundry aired. This was not a coincidence at all.
All the mainstream JournoList-infested media in the US is covering Colbert and suppressing the story about the DOJ refusing to prosecute voter fraud when black people are involved.
It’s not surprise that the BBC follows like the good little White House lapdogs they are. Never, ever trust the BBC to report properly on US issues.
UPDATE: The story made the Washington Post front page this morning. Mark Mardell or Matt Frei might have tripped over it on their way to their morning’s dose of Starbucks, but I can’t be sure if they’ve actually read it.
No excuse now, BBC. Your friends and thought leaders have reported it.
Just highlighting a couple of articles at the EU Referendum Blog.
“As always, the BBC sprays out figures, but no information. We get told that there are 100 turbines in the £780m wind farm, and that these “are expected to generate enough electricity to power 240,000 homes” – perhaps the most dishonest way going of describing the capacity of these machines.”
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/09/scam-spreads.html
“The BBC is trilling its little head off about the announcement that the decision to award the contract for the LPPV has gone to Force Protection Europe and Ricado, with their Ocelot. That is probably the right choice and it means that the last of the Snatch Land Rovers can now be replaced.”
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/09/snatch-to-be-replaced.html
Also.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/search/label/BBC
The EUREFERENDUM site is a fantastic site, possibly one of the finest sites on the free web today.
It proves you do not need billions of pounds and thousands of puffed up staff to uncover real news and examine the issues in depth, a site run on a shoestring that kicks the arse of the BBC scumsite.
Agreed. You can donate to help Richard North; he deserves it.
I do this more and more; I can afford to as I don’t buy newspapers.
How much more could I donate if I didn’t pay the bBC tax.
4:22 Jo Coburn gives a massive tell. Why frantically bring in what people could have thought about the Conservatives into the conversation, when that same thing could be levelled at Labour and why say it at all?
Good catch Marky!
Thank you sir.
Dunno, I read it differently:
Christina: There were a couple of polls just before the Papal visit that were very surprising in that they showed that when people didn’t realise that it was the Pope who had made certain statements, people said, they really like that….
Jo: People used to say that about the Conservative Party. They liked the issues but when they heard it was the Conservative Party they didn’t like it anymore.
Christina: Absolutely – what does that show us? A little bit of hypocrisy.
Seems that Jo was agreeing with Christina’s original point there.
“LIP SERVICE: BBC LESBIAN DRAMA IN BAD TASTE RAP”
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/155374/Lip-Service-BBC-lesbian-drama-in-bad-taste-rap/
“BBC strike looms during George Osborne spending review speech”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/24/bbc-union-back-strike
-But Beeboids’ strike unlikely to affect their ‘Lip Service’?
What a difference a word makes!
Jerusalem Post:
Hamas reports fisherman killed by IDF fire off Gaza coast
Adham Abu Selmeya, a Hamas media official, said that a 20-year-old fisherman Mohamed Mansour Baker, arrived dead at Kamal Odwan Hospital in the northern Gaza Strip, according to the Xinhua news agency.
Actually, the Jerusalem Post misquotes Xinhua, due to a spelling mistake in the Chinese source which calls the Hamas medic Adham Abu Selmia “a medial official”. It meant “medical official” not “media official”! Xinhua confirms that this doctor works for the Hamas government.
BBC:
Gaza fisherman ‘killed by Israeli navy’
A fisherman has been shot and killed by the Israeli navy off the northern coast of the Gaza Strip, doctors in the territory say.
Were they merely ‘doctors’ or were they ‘Hamas doctors’? If the latter, wouldn’t that have a bearing on the story?
Both on the 10pm news last night and the toady programme this morning Ed Milliband is described as the person who could be the next prime minister (if I am being kind they may have said IF but I wouldn’t swear to it – it could have been WHEN) the coalition falls.
IF the coalition fails the next prime minister COULD be David Cameron but is that beyond anything anyone at the BBC could even consider
Emily Maitlis is literally wetting her knickers on News 24 right now over who might be the new Liebour leader.
She talks of a ‘ceremony’, bloody hell is the queen coming or something? No just Emily get turned on.
I might be tempted to watch the BBC if she was actually wetting her knickers. :-[ 😀
Perv 🙂
As I have occasionally mentioned before the Humberside (by the way Humberside only exists in the minds of the Left) version of Look North produces much bias in favour of the left.
Last night there was a feature of some poor old 84 year old blind woman whose carers (nb emphasis that they were employed by a private company) had not turned up for 2 days. (Feelings of sympathy all round) – so in the end she had rung the local paper. The old lady when shown had a piper line round her neck (why hadn’t she used it to call for help?), who had found her the telephone number of the local paper (or did she call so often with one story or another that she knew it by memory); does she not have any family or friends that she could have rung first for help? The story was obviously incomplete but was a subliminal message that this is what happens when private companies are used.
At the moment the Look North message (perhaps like the rest of the BBC) is scare tactics about how the whole world will disintegrate when ‘the cuts’ come. Every opportunity is taken
Please please will someone (A conservative for example) explain that cutting government spending leaves more money in the economy for taxpayers to spend and not how the Left and the BBC portray it.
The blind hypocrisy and bias of Robert Peston on display:
Triumph of the investment bankers
Peston is upset that the bosses of the big four UK banks all came out of the investment banking side of the business. Peston hates them, and has always held the investment bankers wholly responsible for the credit crunch and economic crisis. Oh, he has sort of gently frowned at lax government regulation, but never even went so far as to point a finger at the government (US and UK) policy of forcing banks to lend money to people who were never going to pay it back when the variable rates were inevitably jacked up.
No, Peston pretty much blames investment banking exclusively. So of course he’s angry that four investment bankers are now running the show.
He tries to explain why they will bring what he considers to be a reckless culture to the big desk. He complains that they don’t have enough experience in retail banking or whatever, so aren’t as qualified as he would like. Peston sums it up this way at the end:
It’s just that we’re all prisoners of our backgrounds. And therefore it must be of some significance that an entire industry, of some importance to the rest of us, is managed and regulated by investment bankers.
Really, Robert? Are you sure you want to go down that path? I could just as easily say that Robert Peston is not qualified to report and inform objectively on the financial industry because he wrote a biography of Gordon Brown in which he championed Mr. Brown’s fiscal policies which turned out to be just as reckless as anything those nasty bankers could have imagined. And it was all driven by pure ideology, and not the realities of finance at all.
Robert Peston, meet your own petard.
Peston is a joke, now he no longer has speed dial to Downing Street (just like Toenails and Sheena have lost) he has nothing to big himself up.
Jeff Randall is far more widely respected than Peston.
Peston is great on the “hows”, the way the financial world works. He’s just biased about the “whys”.
Mark Mardell thinks that the President of the US is going to appease the President of Iran, and let Iran go nuclear. Of course, Mardell doesn’t say it that way at all, and tries to shift blame a little bit to the US citizens. Oh, and of course he casually slips in a suggestion that Israel will take care of it anyway. This means that Mardell can approve of the President’s brilliant diplomatic strategy of allowing Iran to get a bomb because he knows those nasty Israelis are always looking for a fight and will sort it out. Maybe it’s just me, but this hardly seems like a reason to praise Him. Of course, I’m biased in that regard.
Mardell also completely buys into his beloved Obamessiah’s claim that He’s reaching out to the people of Iran while criticizing their government. When the President says, “Don’t worry, I’m not going to bomb you,” what the hell are people supposed to think? Is He lying to them?
As Martin pointed out on the other thread about Mardell’s vidoe report from Thursday, where was the President’s love for the Iranian citizens back when the mullahs screwed them over in the last election? I’d say He had His thumb up His ass at time, but clearly there’s no room for all the Beeboids up there.
Ed Millipede Liebour leader, Jesus they replaced a one eyed mong with a two eyed one. Cameron must be laughing his head off.
Miliband Minor is now Labour leader. So it’s Red Ed for leader and Red Ken for Mayor? The Beeboids must be thrilled to death.
They are, at least Sky News did talk about the Liebour party being ‘split’ but on the BBC it’s all sweetness and light.
look he can do the rubics cube in 1 minute 20 one -handed. What more do you people want?
What was he doing with his other hand ?
Here’s a US politician using racist speech to encourage people to vote for her. You will not hear about this from the BBC.
Hispanic Congresswoman Says Vietnamese Are Trying to Take Her Seat
California Rep. Loretta Sanchez’s racially-charged statement was made during an interview with Univision and aimed at her opponent, Van Tran, the Republican state assemblyman whose family had to flee Vietnam after the fall of Saigon.
“The Vietnamese and the Republicans are, with an intensity, trying to take away this seat — this seat that we have done so much for our community – take away this seat from us and give it to this Van Tran, who is very anti-immigrant and very anti-Hispanic,” she said according to a translation on YouTube.
Video of her ad at the link. It’s no joke.
How about it, Katie Connolly or Mark Mardell or Matt Frei, or any of the rest of the platoon of Beeboids who are allegedly reporting on US issues? Or does this not fit in with the “rapport” Frei says you’re trying to create with the US for the BBC audience?
The BBC has heard of Loretta Sanchez, because they’ve talked to her on air before, and even done a report of her, shall we say, “ethnocentric” activities. She’s a big-time politician, so has political power. Can we call her a racist even according to the BBC/Jo Brand definition?
No no no! This is not the sort of thing that would interest the BBC at all, best keep that little story well hidden, a minority group republican you say? Unheard of, most unusual indeed as the republican party consists of rich white racist redneck racists who hate foreigners in a racist manner. To the BBC the republican party is simply the political arm of the KKK.
Republican=bad white people
Democreep=good white people+black/brown/yellow people all of whom are good because as we all know skin colour is vital in deciding whether a person is good or bad.
So remember the key, white right is very bad and white left is very good. White right is racist and white left is not. Black right does not exist and black left is the norm.
True, Cassandra. Instead of covering this story, the BBC sent Kevin Connolly to the Liberace museum to lament its closing. Kevin seems very pleased that the conservative US of a bygone era would embrace a homosexual the way they did. No need to bother about what a good pianist Liberace actually was underneath all the feathers and teeth, or how he excelled at the kind of music and showmanship that was popular at the time, which is why he got rich and famous enough to even start acting more flamboyant. Why couldn’t that be the main thrust (sorry) of this story?
This is the same Kevin Connolly who joked about calling people like me “teabaggers” in a BBC report, and pretended that this was what Tea Party people call themselves and not that it’s an insult from the other side. He’s a liar and biased, then. The fact that they still have this up on the website speaks volumes about BBC bias.
“The Great Asbestos Hysteria: How one man claims the BBC, profiteering firms and politicians have exaggerated the dangers”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1253022/The-Great-Asbestos-Hysteria-How-man-claims-BBC-profiteering-firms-politicians-grossly-exaggerated-dangers.html#ixzz10ZajanXN
“Der Spiegel reports here on a new paper appearing in Nature that shows climate change in the 1970s was caused by ocean cooling. Climate simulation models once indicated that the cooling in the 1970s was due to sun-reflecting sulfur particles, emitted by industry. But now evidence points to the oceans”
http://notrickszone.com/2010/09/24/der-spiegel-the-oceans-influence-greater-than-thought/
In other words the models were wrong. Or as the author puts it.
“Yes, there’s a quite a bit more to climate than a single trace gas in the atmosphere.”
Needless to say that this does not crop up on Blacks Alarmist Self pitying site.
Harrabin and Black becalmed on wind costs, but Booker isn’t:
“The Thanet wind farm will milk us of billions”
(by Christopher Booker)
[Opening extract]:
“In all the publicity given to the opening of ‘the world’s largest wind farm’ off the Kent coast last week, by far the most important and shocking aspect of this vast project was completely overlooked. Over the coming years we will be giving the wind farm’s Swedish owners a total of £1.2 billion in subsidies. That same sum, invested now in a single nuclear power station, could yield a staggering 13 times more electricity, with much greater reliability. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8025148/The-Thanet-wind-farm-will-milk-us-of-billions.html
BBC Persia: Middle-Eastern Bureau of the White House Propaganda Division
My 20 minutes with US President Barack Obama
Check it out and decide if this is your tax dollars being spent to promote the foreign policy agenda of the leader of a foreign country.
The latest Question Time (from Liverpool) was another blatant example of BBC agenda-pushing and proved again that David Dimbleby is a biased chairman. (All you late night bloggers here gave plenty of examples of that on the ever-entertaining live feed).
Vince Cable may have got longer to speak than anyone else but that’s only because DD kept questioning him. Indeed Vince got the sort of bullying treatment also received by Nigel Farage (and others).
Here are some figures that show the extent of the imbalance:
Number of questions/points put by DD to each guest above and beyond the question from the audience (not counting such invitations to speak as “John Redwood?” or “Caroline Flint?” (as a general rule, the more extra questions put the tougher the ride for the guest):
Vince Cable – 18
John Redwood – 9
Caroline Flint – 5
Mehdi Hasan – 3
Ian Hislop – 1
Number of interruptions made against each guest by DD:
Vince Cable – 15
John Redwood – 4
Caroline Flint – 2
Mehdi Hasan – 1
Ian Hislop – 0
Length of time each guest got in the spotlight (all the time they were speaking & all the time DD was putting a question to them):
Vince Cable – 13 minutes 32 seconds
John Redwood – 10 minutes 3 seconds
Mehdi Hasan – 8 minutes 2 seconds
Caroline Flint – 7 minutes 45 seconds
Ian Hislop – 3 minutes 56 seconds
Interruption Coefficients (the number of interruptions/the length of time spent in the spotlight – the higher the number the tougher the experience!):
Vince Cable – 1.1
John Redwood – 0.4
Caroline Flint – 0.25
Mehdi Hasan – 0.1
Ian Hislop – 0
By that index, Vince Cable had 4 times a tougher ride from David Dimbleby that Labour’s Caroline Flint (which feels about right!)
****
Dimbleby, who sometimes seems to be the personification of the BBC’s self-satisfied malice towards the Right and those who (like Dr Cable) ‘collaborate’ with the Right, didn’t just relentlessly interrupt Vince Cable throughout the programme, he allowed others – usually Mehdi Hasan – to do the same, and even backed up one of Hasan’s hostile interruptions (“But he’s (Hasan) right that you haven’t done the things he’s describing“). He encouraged hostile audience members to join in by asking them further questions that allowed them to continue their attacks. He also stopped Vince Cable from defending himself against several attacks. After one such strong attack, he stopped Vince and Ian Hislop from intervening and passed the baton to Caroline Flint, saying “Fair’s fair!” to Ian Hislop. Dimbleby doesn’t seem to no the meaning of the word ‘fair’, as this is standard practise with him – though it’s usually people from the parties of the Right who’ve been on the end of it. Time’s change.
Sorry Vince, this is what the BBC is going to keep doing to you…until you walk out on the coalition.
Craig
Another excellent analysis – your interruption coeficient really is a clear test of bias.
It would be possible to put together a compendium of the top dozen or so of your close analyses, across several different types of programme – to demonstrate beyond peradventure that the BBC “has leftwing bias in its genes”
The bias has made little difference to the Tories view of the BBC – will it sway the even more left wing Lib Dems to take action. I doubt it.
Agreed, but the disgusting Panorama on Michael Ashcroft will teach them a lesson.
Nice one Craig, I really wish the tossers in the press would pick up on your analysis, the BBC ‘claim’ they provide balanced output but clearly they don’t.
The ‘Sun’ may have ‘borrowed’ some of my Dimbleby figures for an article they did on BBC bias back in March (LABOUR panellists were given more time to speak on flagship political show Question Time). Their ‘investigation’ read like a piece knocked up after a quick trawl of likely sites on the internet! B-BBC was doubtless visited.
But the MSM never give their thanks for any material pinched. Don’t let this put you off Craig, we know who does the hard work. Without your work we would not have such a strong case. Keep it up it really is appreciated
Craig
When you pen one of your analyses here – maybe you could keep a copy on your PC eg in Microsoft Word or whatever. So you could build up a folder on disk of your postings. (You would need to mention the date of each broadcast).
And when you have a bundle of them – send them round to some websites and also to editors, with a covering note explaining how you work out the figures.
The Adam Smith Institute poster has a go at bBC bias – http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/media-and-culture/george-bush-and-robert-mugabe-walk-into-a-bar…/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAdamSmithInstituteBlog+%28The+Adam+Smith+Institute+Blog%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
He’s right about everything except the Patriot Act. It didn’t destroy anything, just added the word “digital” to a few communication media which the government was already allowed to tap into and investigate. Plus library records, which are government-owned anyway. I guess it’s an old myth that still hasn’t gone away.
From David Jones’ link above.
“Examples like this reinforce the case for the license fee to be abolished and for the BBC to be privatised. It cannot expect to take our money and then use it to propagate a slanted worldview. The BBC must adapt and compete in an open media market: It cannot go on being the loudest voice of authority in the broadcast media simply thanks to its government-enforced monopoly.”
Amen to that.
Good grief, the World Service just introduced Kevin Connolly’s “From Our Own Correspondent” audio report about the closing of the Liberace museum by saying that he has found “further evidence of the fading of the American Dream”. It wasn’t so clear in the online text version (see my comment on this threa from yesterday), but Connolly is making it very clear here that it’s because the optimism of the “American Dream” from the ’50s is dying. Maybe it just comes through more from the tone of his voice than it did when I read the text.
Even more ridiculous is Connolly’s assertion that the museum is closing because Liberace represented prosperity and wealth, which is no longer acceptable, and today’s United Statesians “find jarring”. If that’s the case, why are all those videos of rappers with bling and furs and fancy cars and bejewlled pimp cups still popular? Why are there so many reality shows about immensely wealthy people? Does Connolly even pay attention to anything that goes on in the US outside of a few Leftoid political publications and “Sex in the City”?
What a joke. Here’s a thought: could it be that most people under the age of 30 haven’t even heard of Liberace? Could it be that the light entertainment music and showman behavior of the past was never going to hold that much interest for later generations, and so less people will care about going to an exhibit of furs and fancy cars and bejewelled pianos owned by somebody they don’t know about and whose music they wouldn’t care about if they heard it? No, of course not. Connolly has to make up his own symbolism to fabricate a story with which to bash the US. Yawn.
I suppose I should at least give him credit for not saying that nobody’s going to the Liberace museum anymore because of a rise in homophobia in the US.
That type of myth-making fair gives the lie to the Beeboid college of journalism’s lofty claim that journalists only like objectivity, facts and things that can be proved. See also the flights of fancy of that romantic soul, Matty Frei Boy, on the subject of Obamessiah, for further examples.
Somewhere, a Beeboid’s head just exploded.
They’re gay, conservative and proud
The broad surge in the conservative grassroots made it as far as PayPal founder Peter Thiel’s grand apartment overlooking New York’s Union Square Tuesday night, where about 150 backers of the conservative gay group GOProud gathered to laugh at Ann Coulter’s red meat riffs on Democrats, blacks, and the Obamas at a fundraiser organizers touted as “Homocon.”
GOProud is the tea party of the gay rights movement, with well-tailored dark suits in place of revolutionary war garb. The event, complete with lithe young men in black “Freedom is Fabulous” t-shirts guiding guests to the elevator, marked a new high tide in the shift of the Republican Party away from “social issues” and toward a broader complaint about Democratic management of the economy, national security, and the idea of America. GOProud is an explicitly gay group that isn’t particularly focused on gay rights, and Coulter’s speech – full of conservative red meat, and only the occasional Judy Garland joke – reflected its focus.
I think it wouldn’t just be their head exploding.
Here’s more evidence of violence from the Left that you won’t hear about from the BBC:
FBI cites terror links in raids of local activists
The FBI raided the Minneapolis homes of five antiwar activists, including three leaders of the Twin Cities peace movement, Friday morning as part of what it called a probe of “activities concerning the material support of terrorism.”
The Minneapolis office of an antiwar organization was also raided, protest leaders said. No one was arrested in any of the raids.
Imagine if this had happened while Bush was in charge, and not under the rule of The Obamessiah. Anyone want to bet who these clowns voted for in the last election?
The warrant for the raid on Kelly’s apartment, in the 1800 block of Riverside Avenue, sought notebooks, address books, photos and maps of Kelly’s travels to the Palestinian territories, Colombia and in the United States on behalf of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. It also sought materials on his personal finances and those of the group, on Kelly’s “potential co-conspirators” and recruitment efforts for the group.
The warrant also sought any information about efforts to support FARC, a guerrilla organization in Colombia, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Hezbollah, the political and paramilitary organization based in Lebanon.
This is exactly why I always refer to these types as “anti-this war”, rather than simply “anti-war”. It’s obvious that they’re not against war per se, but are actually against only certain ones. These people are clearly quite happy with war when it suits their beliefs.
Anyone want to bet who these clowns voted for in the last election? The activists, the FBI or the BBC?
I dunno. Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Charles Jay, Frank McEnulty, Gloria La Riva, Gene Amondson, Ted Weill, Brian Moore, Roger Calero, Alan Keyes, Joe Shriner?
Was any other insomniac as unlucky as me, to hear the interview with and explanation of Che Guevaras politics at around 3.40am this morning, on up all night?
Certainly stopped me from nodding off again.
A 40 odd year old interview in Spanish, followed by a typical 6th form whitewash of his life