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.
INBBC/College of Journalism propaganda on Islam, carried out to the letter:
‘-Do not report sdverse stories on “Islam”, and do not use word ”Jihadists” even if story relates to a threat to British people’s security’.
A non-INBBC report (‘Daily Telegraph’):-
“Jihadists using British website to spead terror, think-tank claims”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8026785/Jihadists-using-British-website-to-spead-terror-think-tank-claims.html
Just to show that the BBC is still in bed with the JournoListas, here’s a news brief from last week about the Republicans’ new “Pledge” platform.
US Viiew: Media on the Republican ‘Pledge’
The link to this from the main US/other page it titled “Hedge on the Pledge – Republican’s pledge gets mixed reviews from US media”
Of course reviews will be “mixed” when most of the media is against it because they’re Democrats and Obamessiah disciples. It’s a bit lame to set it up that way.
And whom does the BBC quote from the US media? 3 JournoListas – including founder Ezra Klein, no less – with one guy from the Republican establishment-linked National Review, and one other conservative pundit.
Now check out the amazing dishonesty of Katie Connolly and her minions at the BBC News Online US department. Four out of five of these media voices are correctly identified as either left- or right-leaning. But Ezra Klein – founder of the JournoList and a far Left hack, whose opinion is not respected outside the Leftoid media, is identified only as a “Washington Post scribe and policy wonk”. Nothing about his political leanings at all, even though he’s the ringleader of the greatest media collusion scandal (which the BBC has hidden from you) of our time.
Katie Connolly’s staff has censored the political affiliaton of Ezra Klein thus skewing the readers’ perception of the balance of the piece. It appears to be 2 on the Right for and 2 on the Left against, with a respected Washington Post sage also against, helpfully leading the reader to believe that even non-partisan pundits think the Pledge is no good (the BBC reports that Klein gave it “a scathing review”). In reality, Klein’s political leanings and his leadership role in the JournoList and whatever seems to have replaced it tips the balance of this piece far over to the Left.
Disgraceful, but that’s the BBC for you. This was inevitable once they hired all those Obamessiah supporters and activists to inform you. Don’t trust the BBC, etc.
Hey, credit where due, my complaint got a comment removed from the blog post “Do you understand the Tea Party” on the World Service site. I complained about a comment which was full of the usual viciousness: Tea Partiers are not really “fiscally conservatives”, but are instead religious fundamentalists and homophobes who “reject science”. It was a typical rant which, sadly, could have been a collage of BBC reports on the movement. I didn’t expect a result, so I wish now I had thought to copy the offending comment.
Still, this is the complaint I sent in:
This comment slanders tens of thousands of people with unsubstantiated accusations such as “religious fundamentalists” and that they are all against homosexuality and “reject science”. No evidence is provided. Furthermore, by saying that the Tea Party people are not “fiscally conservatives” (sic), this commenter is accusing all Tea Party protesters of lying. Libelous and slander. This comment goes beyond disagreeing with the stated objectives of the Tea Party movement and instead slanders the participants. Opinion of issues is one thing, but this is an ad hominem attack and slanders innocent people by calling them liars and worse. This is not merely disagreeing on principle.
I realize this kind of thing is allowed all the time on this website, but I’m hoping it’s because nobody has complained that it’s slander and not opinion of the issues.
To their credit, the third-party moderators hired by the BBC to do this stuff agreed that the comment I complained about did “contravene the House Rules”, and so removed it. I sent in the complaint on Saturday, and it looks like they got to it first thing this morning. So well done to the moderators.
It can be done.
Emily Maitlis just gave a nice dramatic reading (she’s a stage performer, not a newsreader) about Miliband Minor being “pulled in two directions” about how he should lead the Labour Party. Maitlis said that some were telling him not to cut too much too quickly, and others were telling him not to stop the investment in economic recovery. This is actually telling him to two things in the same direction, but never mind that. Maitlis is only reading the talking points being handed round at the Conference this morning, so it’s to be expected. But her choice of language made it seem as if she thought Labour was still running the country.
It was very obvious that a producer was yelling in her ear right at the end of her segment that she was acting as if Labour was still in charge, and so she hit the brakes really hard and quickly corrected herself. Funny.
I love how the official BBC line is that the Israeli Government has total control over all settlers everywhere and can stop the bulldozers and builders at any time, but Hamas does not have control over any rocketeers or any other Gazans who try to harm Israelis.
Hey, BBC: Where’s the diversity in your weather reporters on the News Channel? They’re all hideously white.