The BBC was pushing the N.I.C.E. line that we should think about bribing the fat, the smokers, the drinkers out there to encourage them to desist from their unhealthy lifestyles. Today has this broadly sympathetic interview with Sir Michael Rawlins who kept referring to imagined and unspecified “cost savings.” I was invited on the BBC’s Nolan Show to discuss the topic an hour or so later. My view was that this was Nanny Statism, that it has no economic value and that it encouraged irresponsibility. The curious thing was Stephen made it into a much more personal issue as he has weight issues. Now I don’t want to be unkind to anyone but it is tough in an interview when I not only have to argue against the NICE orthodoxy but also against the obvious prejudice of the host. I said that fatness was NOT a disease and that fat people need to get out more, eat less and exercise more. This did not go down well but it’s another way that the BBC make it very difficult for those who oppose the established view.

Whatever Floats your Boat

Jews for Justice for Palestinians. What a handle! It implies that non-signatories are for Injustice for Palestinians. What about Jews for Justice for Palestinians and Israelis?

The JFJFP mission statement is pretty platitudinous at first, then it tails off into stuff that makes you think they’ve relied solely on the BBC for information.
Their blogroll features the websites of authors of those self-hating diatribes in the Guardian.

Luvvies like Stephen Fry typify ‘I’m-alright-Jack As-a-Jews’ all wrapped in the cosy embrace of the establishment security blanket. Why should they bother tearing out their hair over the complexities of the M/E, or waste precious time anguishing over why people defend evil Israel? They may as well relax and let the BBC take the strain. It’s the most well respected organisation there is, surely? Or does the BBC simplify everything for the simpletons they have created through years of dumbing everything down and missing half of it out ?

Personally, if I could be certain that the JFJFPs knew the full story, the ominously vast number of signatories would bother me in quite a different way. But I fear they might have been listening to the BBC, and relying on Wyre Davies and Jeremy Bowen to put them in the picture. For example, would they just pooh-pooh these little known facts about settlements and ignore the ‘history of the geography’ of the region if they had read these articles? Would they completely dismiss this credible hypothesis, which questions the whole desirability of “Peace” if they’d taken the trouble to read it and apply their brains to some of the similar material that’s out there before signing up?


Hi folks – been busy all day (was on the BBC earlier, we’ll get to that shortly) so just catching up with you. Everyday is now Red Ed Day and it started on Today this morning with the most SIMPERING  interview I have heard in a long time with Red Derek Simpson of Unite. He was able to suggest that the Unions have been a moderating influence on Labour, and he got away with it! I can only assume Sarah Montague agrees with such risible pro-Trade Union nonsense as she deferred to his wild claims. With a looming winter of strikes, the BBC are getting orgasmic about Labour’s lurch leftwards. 


Did you catch Red Ed Miliband’s debut on the BBC, his party’s broadcasting arm, this morning? With Dame Polly Toynbee watching on – it was fun to watch the rather geeky Red Ed demonstrate a lamentable grasp of the mood of the British people. However, on topic, I thought that Andrew Marr was very accommodating to Red Ed and he was given an easy ride with the primary focus being about how his brother David felt. Touchy-feely stuff that avoids the big political challenges and conspicuously does not pursue the fact that Red Ed is leader BECAUSE of the Trade Unions. Then again, the BBC are also one of the last bastions of admiration for hard left Unions. We can anticipate Ed Miliband being afforded maximum publicity from the BBC in the time ahead and I am certain he will quickly become the most popular political leader that the BBC has ever known.


Quick, catch him while you can. I refer to Mehdi Hasan. The BBC just can’t enough of this hectoring hard left pro Islamic apologist and so fresh from his “Question Time” appearance on Thursday he’s back on again on the Sunday Morning Live Programme. His appearance fees must cover his TV license and then some. One of the issues is ” Are we soft on Islam”? Quite. Other topics for Mehdi to share his insight with us include “Should prostitution be socially acceptable?” and “Should we allow Gay Marriage in Church”.

Shh! Don’t Mention The New Black Panthers

(Update added)

Imagine if members of a racist anti-Semitic white supremacist group, one of them armed with a nightstick, had been filmed at a polling station intimidating voters on the day of the 2004 presidential election. Imagine that this led to charges, but those charges were suddenly dropped by Bush’s Justice Department even though it had already won a default judgement in the case. And then imagine that two officials claimed that this was due to institutional anti-black prejudice within the Justice Department. Do you suppose the BBC would have made quite a big deal about all of that? Catholic Pope, defecating bears, swimming fish etc – damn right, the BBC would’ve been all over it, making sure that the whole affair got maximum exposure. It would’ve filtered down from BBC news to round-table discussion programmes, topical comedy shows and phone-ins. Oh boy, would we have known about it.

And yet the BBC continues to ignore the New Black Panther story. It’s not part of the BBC’s desired narrative, a narrative driven by hatred of the American right. We’ve been banging on about the Panther story here since polling day 2008 (in the comments and on the blog) but every new revelation that has emerged in the States has been met with silence by the BBC.

A Biased BBC reader emailed me to say that back in June he suggested to the BBC’s Americana programme that they have on as a guest the first of the Justice Department whistleblowers, J Christian Adams. Americana replied that it was “possibly something we could get to before the midterms”. Now a second employee (this one a Clinton appointee with ACLU bona fides) has testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and still nothing from the Beeb. The simple fact is that BBC U.S. correspondents just don’t like reporting on this sort of thing. It goes against their instincts, doesn’t get their juices flowing like a negative story about Republicans. “Nothing to see. Nothing to see. Nothing to see. Look everybody – a witch! And Stephen Colbert!”

This story can only get bigger and I think that the BBC will finally have to report it – reluctantly and with much anguish. As with similar controversies, those who rely on the BBC for their news will be last to know (if they get to know at all) and will receive but a fraction of the full picture. But once again the BBC will have done its job as gatekeeper, restricting the impact of the story on public consciousness by limiting its time in the spotlight.

In the comments on the open thread David Preiser points out that even The Washington Post had the story on its front page today. I’m amused by this from the Post’s article:

“the dispute became a major issue in conservative circles. It has been slow to gain traction among the general public…”

I wonder why that might be, MSM? As David L. Riddick pointed out in July, The Washington Post claimed it had ignored the story due to “limited staffing“. What feeble excuse will the BBC try?

Update September 27. The original version incorrectly identified both Department of Justice officials as former employees. Christopher Coates, who testified last week, is still employed by Justice having been transferred from his previous job as voting chief at the department’s Civil Rights Division to his current position within the South Carolina attorney’s office. He has whistleblower protection for his testimony.

Here’s a segment on the story from The O’Reilly Factor (h/t John Anderson).


Well, BBC hearts seem to be a-beating today as the coronation of the new Labour leaders approaches, and Red Ed is being touted as the likely winner. I was listening to Today this morning and one of the BBC commentators was saying that the new Labour leader COULD be Prime Minister soon, if the Coalition collapsed! Talk about true colours and wishful thinking. The BBC and Labour are different sides of the same coin and it strikes me that the BBC has not quite accepted that the heroes have been booted out of power so today is all about the fightback.  

Are You Being Served?

In today’s (friday) Telegraph, tree version only, Neil Midgley has an article entitled “BBC’s £1/4m to keep Israel report secret.”

“The BBC spent more than £270,000 on legal fees to keep a report on its coverage of the I/P conflict out of the public eye, it disclosed yesterday. The sum was among nearly £400,000 of spending on outside advice about FOI requests.

The 20,000 word internal document was written in 2004 by Malcolm Balen, a senior journalist. Steven Sugar, a solicitor, asked to see it under the FOI act, and sued when the BBC refused. The case went all the way to the House of Lords. The courts eventually found in favour of the BBC and the report was never published.
In figures released under the FOI, the BBC has now disclosed that it spent £264,711 on barristers’ fees defending the case and £6,156 on other legal advice. […]On the Balen report a BBC spokesman said “If we are not able to pursue our journalism freely and have honest debate and analysis over how we are covering important issues, then our ability to serve the public effectively will be diminished.”

Mark Thompson, the D.G. complained last month about the burden of spurious FOI requests. He said questions had included the number of lavatories in Television Centre and the policy on biscuits. However, requests have also elicited less trivial facts, such as information about executive pay.”

About pursuing your journalism freely and having honest debate and serving us effectively. When can you start?


24 hours a day, the BBC keep pumping out their toxic mix of facts and myths, half-truths and lies. Consider;

BBC Radio 4 news briefing, ‘On this Day’ spot – 5:40 (ish) am 24 /09/10

“This spot features brief reminders of historical anniversaries, things that happened ‘on this day’.This morning, together with the creation of the George Cross medal, the removal of ‘the prophet Mohammed’ from Mecca to Medina featured, as a comparable historical fact. Now there are loads of things wrong with this even from a Muslim point of view – but the most egregious is the conflation of a tradition that is disputed with verifiable incidents in recent history. The date of Mohammed’s (if he even existed) alleged flight from Mecca is not known, it may be commemorated on this day (Some years, the islamic calender not being the same) for all I know but that lesser claim was not made. Would the BBC be caught saying ‘on this day 4000(?) years ago Moses parted the Red Sea? 1977 years ago J! esus Christ entered Jerusalem? was crucified?!

Yet another great catch by a B-BBC reader. Wonder do they have prayer mats at BBC HQ?

Cherry Ripe

Like Pounce, (Open Thread yesterday 23:41) I was at the keyboard when the strains of Barack Obama addressing the UN wafted in from the TV in other room.
“Those who want to see an independent Palestine rise,” I heard, “must stop trying to tear Israel down”
I rushed in just in in time to see Obama saying:

“After thousands of years, Jews and Arabs are not strangers in a strange land. And after sixty years in the community of nations, Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate. Israel is a sovereign state, and the historic homeland of the Jewish people. It should be clear to all that efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States. And efforts to threaten or kill Israelis will do nothing to help the Palestinian people – the slaughter of innocent Israelis is not resistance, it is injustice. Make no mistake: the courage of a man like President Abbas – who stands up for his people in front of the world – is far greater than those who fire rockets at innocent women and children.”

“Oh!” I thought, “I wonder how the BBC will like that?” Imagine my surprise (not really) when I heard the BBC’s summary of President Obama’s speech on the BBC news this morning. Apparently he focused on Israeli settlements, borders, and the Palestinians’ right of return! That would have summed up last year’s speech, surely, when he did focus on all that, to rapturous applause from the Palestinian supporting UN. (About 20:40 in )

This is what the BBC website makes of the above excerpt from yesterday’s speech.:

“There was advice too for those Arab states who back a comprehensive peace in the region. Mr Obama urged them to take tangible steps towards normalisation with Israel”

It’s as though they could hardly bear to repeat any of it. Back in their comfort zone, the website continues:
“With Israel’s deadline to end its partial moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank looming in a few days time, President Obama inevitably focused on the Middle East […….] That reference to the “hard realities of demography” represents a clear warning to Israel to acknowledge that trends in the region are not in their favour and to act on the consequences.

He called for the moratorium on settlement construction to be extended.”

I say potayto, you say potahto. But I’m allowed to cherry pick and the BBC is not.