As the last Open Thread is disappearing towards the South Pole, here is a new one. Please have your say!
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir Dec 26, 07:23
Christmas 2024
I could shed some light on that, having spent some time at Hs2 head office in Snowhill, Birmingham. The most… - Zephir Dec 26, 06:19
Christmas 2024
12 year old dealing drugs in Luton, no idea who dad is, mum, somewhere in Sheffield no one knows where,… - Doublethinker Dec 26, 06:00
Christmas 2024
King Charles obviously thinks of the good of family firm before the good of our country. He calculates that the… - Zephir Dec 26, 01:31
Christmas 2024
Diversity is…strength. Yep, we all feel so much stronger than we did 20 years ago don’t we ? I know… - atlas_shrugged Dec 25, 22:58
Christmas 2024
Stew It is kind of like being stalked/harassed online all in one go. Each direction you turn it is leftist… - G.W.F. Dec 25, 22:51
Christmas 2024
The King’s Speech. Communities of all faiths and none come together - digg Dec 25, 22:34
Christmas 2024
I totally believe the BBC has gone totally Muslim and is working to project Islam in the UK. - digg Dec 25, 22:31
Christmas 2024
QI has just rolled out about 5 anti-Christian or anti-Santa segments in a row. What is driving these W1 luvvies… - StewGreen Dec 25, 22:20
Christmas 2024
@emilyhewertson tweets Switched on Doctor Who. Heard the word “mansplaining.” Switched off.
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Tony – Tony, Blair I’m ready for tongues now.
Sky News was an amusing contrast to the Beeb last night. They were waiting for a Libyan press conference to start but it was delayed as bus full of journalists was missing. To kill the dead time the Sky commentators started amusing themselves with thoughts of what was to come. One speculated we were to be told several NATO warplanes had been shot down while bombing a childrens hospital which amused them all. The attitude was one that they knew they were going to be told a pack of lies and weren’t afraid to tell the viewer. I then flicked over to the BBC news channel to hear them filling the same dead time with a serious analysis of what might be coming at the press conference acting as if what was to come would be the truth and nothing but the truth.
1327, Do you have a link for that Sky bit?
Sorry no. All I can say is that it was on Sunday night I think sometime between 8 and 9 pm. I wasn’t really taking that much notice but found what I saw amusing.
Big Kate on Worrooyouthink !!!!! on Radio 5 Listeners sunday morning was setting out what I think is the new albeebeezeera line on Libya; ie it’s alright to ‘intervene’ now that we’ve got permission from the Arab world.
Of course if you’re sitting in Benghazi in what’s left of your house (and with what’s left of your family) after it has been blown to bits by artillery fire from your own government’s troops, I suppose the diplomatic niceties so beloved by Big Kate et al sitting in an albeebeezeera studio in London are somewhat far from your mind.
I mean we all know that of course a liberal humanitarian interventionist is just a neocon who hasn’t been shelled (or strafed or bombed).
Right?
Looks like Gaddafi is trying to get political asylum in England!
‘But Muammar, if you’d only said!
It seems he was getting dressed for a meeting with Gordon Brown.
Or an appearance on Question Time.
Almost everybody I talk to (except middle class Leftists) thinks we are taxed too much, with too many forms and regulations. Most people (except middle class Leftists) see the EU as politicians on a gravy train. A lot of people (except middle class Leftists) think that our benefits system creates perverse incentives, and that Islamic migration has done little but create problems for our nation.Finally many parents think that the Leftist (Guardian reading) educational establishment have failed a generation of children.
So where are these views reflected on the BBC? Where is the programme supporting low taxes – instead of programmes saying how terrible it is that there will be cuts. Where are the programmes saying that bureaucrats have too much power – instead of programmes advocating more power for the State. Where are the documentary programmes pointing out that the EU is an expensive (anti-English) farce (just send a camera crew to Strasburg) – all I hear is the sound of silence. Why are there so many programmes on the BBC about (the absurdities of) Christian fundamentalists in mid-western America and yet no programmes at all about the social disaster of inner city benefit funded Muslim communities right on our door step.
The BBC is simply the propaganda arm of the tax funded Leftist middle classes, pushing an entirely self-interested agenda (high and a big State for more jobs for themselves) and views which even the most bigoted multi-culturalist Leftist will have noticed have been an economic, social, and cultural disaster. The reason why they do not attack the Muslim religion (for example) is not simply the usual cowadice of Leftists, but because they hate the West, they hate England, and they hate “Tories”, and so Muslim fundamentalists (because they are totalitarians) are not enemies but allies in hatred – just as the USSR or Mao or Pol Pot was supported by a previous generation of Leftists.
Let the BBC do this on their own time and money. I despise your arrogance. I despise your intolerance. I despise your hatred of this country. You are are a morally bankrupt, hate filled, parasite, which (for your own reasons) seeks to create the decline upon which you feed.
Needless to say, I think this is an outstanding post and neatly sums up the views of 99% of the good folk on here. Yet, I’m afraid, nothing will be done. Under new leadership, the BBC is set to get even worse, forcing their leftist politically correct agenda down our throat at all hours of the day, wasting millions, nay billions on vanity projects, rubbing our noses in its own aggressvie, intolerant political prejudice. A plague on their houses.
You are not powerless, because the first word in BBC is British, and our ancestors chopped off the head of their king when they thought he was abusing his power. British liberties are not only old they were hard fought for; never let the Leftist establishment forget it.
If you do not have the freedom to pay only for the broadcaster you choose, you do not live in a free society. The BBC is an exercise in Philip II or Louis XIV uniformity of thinking – in the service of an elite which proved to be the most corrupt in living memory.
Remind me again (I forget) why should be forced to pay for them?
You are very correct, many died for the freedoms and liberties we are seeing dismantled now and many will in die in the fight to regain them. There are many people who actually believe that the ordinary people do not deserve freedom, that somehow the ordinary people cannot be trusted with real freedom and real power.
Real freedoms are never willingly given from those that benefit from their absence and there are always those who are ready eager and willing and always planning to steal away freedoms won like thieves in the night. The question is not IF we will rise up to regain our ancient rights but WHEN.
I fully agree with you about British or English liberties. However I don’t think the regicide scum were great examples of English liberty. Certainly Charles had gone too far in many ways(though he was more restrained than the Tudors in general.) and th early opposition, which included many later Royalists such as the great Falkland and Clarendon, is to be celebrated.
However the Parliamentarians, or at least most of those beyond a few very moderate ones, were not great defenders of English liberties and our constitution. They attacked our church, attacked our ancient constitution by usurping the power of the King and Lords amongst other parts of the constitution, attacked the poor and peasantry(they were unabashed lovers of enclosure for instance.) and established an oligarchy of the Whig magnates which was only ended by military dictatorship.
No, English liberties and even more the English constitution were certainly on the Royalist side by the time Charles the martyr raised his standard in 1642.
My point is not to re-fight the Civil War, but to remind ourselves that when our ancestors (rightly or wrongly) thought their freedoms were being attacked, even a king was not safe, and who are a few Guardian reading Leftists shysters in comparison with a king?
The Leftist elite may be as arrogant as absolutist monarchs, but a few well aimed kicks at their sinecures (as the MP’s expenses showed) will soon remind them of their true place in the affections of the public.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I have yet to find people with pictures of Kinnock family on their china, or who think that that the country will be plunged into mourning if we withdraw from the European Parliament. Not many people say “God save our Comprehensive Schools” or will be unduly concerned if the entire Labour packed House of Lords is dumped into the sea.
It was more the term ‘our ancestors’ that drew my comment. It is probably correct to say the Royalist side was the more popular side in numbers. They, despite later propaganda, were also the more ‘democratic’ side. The parliamentarians represented the Whig magnates and a key section of the gentry and not the lower classes. Only the New model army came close to that and it used any popular appeal it had to set up a military dictatorship.
I certainly hope my ancestors were on the side of Church and King.
A superb post, wild. In Joseph Conrad’s, The Secret Agent, a character says, ‘The imbecile bourgeosie of this country make themselves the accomplices of the very people whose aim is to drive them out of their houses to starve in ditches’. This was written in 1907, but is even more applicable to the Leftist middle class of today: the smug possessors of all the correct ‘nuanced opinions’, who don’t have to live next door to the violent criminals whose human rights are of such paramount importance to Bleeding Hearts Inc., behind their state-funded moat. Or ‘co-exist’ in wonderful diversity with muslims that look at you with naked contempt. They probably think the Caliphate Crew are all like Edward Said. The ‘thought processes’ of those who dwell in Beeboid-Guardianista are as robotic as windsreen wipers, & just as liable to bore you to death.
For all their ‘caring’ postures, my suspicion is that, in truth, these effete, selfish, traitorous bores are far more concerned with the provenance of their organically-sourced sausages.
Unfortunately, these people breed, & have even madder children to fill all the non-productive non-jobs that seem to be theirs by right. Witness the deranged ramblings of Jim ‘Berkshire Hunt’ Naughtie’s son on this site recently. A strong candidate for a Boden straitjacket.
Just past Hanger Lane, to the west of London, lie open fields in which little seems to happen. An excellent site for The Camp of The Beeboids, & their indoctrinated fellow travellers. O for the day when this space is filled with the likes of Marr, Montague, Jeremy Hardy & Brigstock, tilling the land to good purpose, & keeping their infernal traps shut – for ever.
The ‘thought processes’ of those who dwell in Beeboid-Guardianista are as robotic as windsreen wipers, .
What a great line. 😀
Witness the deranged ramblings of Jim ‘Berkshire Hunt’ Naughtie’s son on this site recently
***********************************
Aw I missed that.
Always fun whenever a droid comes on here to dook it out and invariably hits the canvas and stays there for the duration whenever anyone shouts ‘boo’ at him/her.
Not from the BBC.
‘Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Essam al-Arian, however, insisted that any change in Egyptian foreign policy would reflect the will of the Egyptian people. “The coming parliament, which will be elected by the people, will decide Egypt’s position regarding all international agreements and treaties,” al-Arian told IPS.
Fahmi, for his part, believes the brotherhood’s newfound political legitimacy will lead to “the formulation of a new foreign policy that can be expected to reinvigorate Egypt’s historical role as regional leader — a role that was largely destroyed by the Mubarak regime’s close relationship with the US and Israel.”
“The Hamas-run Gaza Strip, to cite only one example, was viewed largely by the Mubarak regime as a strategic threat,” Fahmi added. “But if the brotherhood is granted political legitimacy, Gaza will come to be seen as Egypt’s first line of defence in the confrontation with Israel.”
As if we didn’t know.
Let’s see what the BBC says about the Egyptian referendum and the MB. Results out soon.
At least he’s admitting what many of us have been saying all along, yet the BBC refuses to address: the “Palestinians” are and have always been mere cannon fodder to the Muslim World in their decades-long war against Israel.
Just been flicking getween Sky and BBC (alledged) news.
Unless I was ill at school when we were taught about Libya, I didn’t know there were two of them.
Libya 2 has been ganged up on by the Coalition 5, a very unhelpful US Colonel in Germany refused to admit how many happy innocent people in Tripoli were killed by his bombs last night.
Furthermore the MOD refused to give away details about what will happen next, but, stupidly, did admit that some of their aircraft don’t run on fresh air and actually have to use aviation fuel.
Then another breakthrough, the Arab League said it was all very beastly, so rushed into the studio were two Doctors with Arab sounding names and appearance.
Unfortunately they voiced the opinion that Gaddafi was a crackpot as indeed was the Secretary General of the Arab League. So the interviews with these two free thinkers came to an abrupt halt.
Libya 1 was being covered on Sky News.
Oh FFS! Sosngs of rais eon promises etc. Nice theme and gave them a chnace to show Obama making a promise etc etc. Then they flashed up a newspaper cutting ‘Conservatives promises on cuts will affect the young’ Ed Millband etc etc
They just don’t SEE how blinkered they are do they?
And can they please stop warning Gaddafi when our jets are taking off… did they not learn anything from the Gulf/Goose Green etc etc. Oh wait…
Songs of Praise! Jeez blooming keyboard
Songs of whatever, it is still shocking for the BBC to use a religious programme as a partizan political broadcast.
BBC-Democrat has:
1.) no blog questioning what Pres Obama is doing in Brazil;
BUT:
2.) has blog asking what Sarah Palin is doing in India
“What is Sarah Palin doing in India?”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2011/03/what_is_sarah_palin_doing_in_india.html
Palin in India? – Must be for a late night Tikka Masala
I notice that it seems to have quite quickly ‘closed for comments’.
Maybe before more folk post why more moron market rate ‘reporters’ are trying to suck up to more moron market rate management with cheap, selective hit pieces on the travel plans of certain pols they obsess about. And not in an objective way.
Maybe ‘What’s Obama doing?’ most of the time may work, mind. Mr. Mardell… what are the odds?
Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action
A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.
Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.
BBC: ZZzzzzzzzz
The BBC has been curiously silent about how – unlike Bush and Iraq – the President did not consult Congress for approval to go to war.
Instead, Mark Mardell finds a new way to tell you how wonderful his beloved Obamessiah is for making sure this time it’s different from Iraq. And he, too, conveniently leaves this bit out.
Don’t trust the BBC on US issues. Ever.
>>The BBC has been curiously silent about how – unlike Bush and Iraq – the President did not consult Congress for approval to go to war.<<
Oh but the UN has voted yes. Strangling your granny would be legal if the UN approved it, according to the demented mindset of the charlatan left.
Ah, of course you’re right, hippie. In my blood lust I forgot for a moment that it’s “screw your parochial domestic laws” when the transnational elite have an opinion.
Clearly, ‘Fox News’ is ahead of INBBC is explaining the notion of ‘ceasefire’ just announced by Libya’s Gaddafi regime.
As ‘Fox News’ explained, this is NOT a ‘ceasefire’, but an Islamic hudna– a truce treaty which allows a cessation of hostilities by an Islamic force until that force considers itself stronger and able to re-commence hostilities against, especially, any infidel enemy.
For more information on ‘hudna’ etc:-
“Fitzgerald: Waiting for Hudaibiyya”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/06/fitzgerald-waiting-for-hudaibiyya.html
On Radio 5 just now (On the Money hosted by Declan) they asked ‘Are the cuts too deep or are they just about right?’
What a shame that the BBC’s impartiality skills, honed to alleged perfection over the last 89 years, haven’t reached the stage where the presenter included ‘or haven’t they gone far enough?’ in his list of options.
Perhaps there was some of that BBC analysis conducted behind the scenes which conclude that this third option wasn’t required. More likely it never occured to them.
It’s time again to play Compare and Contrast. Or Spot the Loony, take your pick.
Our first example is BBC North America editor, Mark Mardell (if you can read through the tears in your eyes after laughing at the title of his blogpost)
The President jumped off the fence at the last moment for a number of reasons. The rapidly crumbling of the rebel forces, the realization Kaddafi was about to win. The support of the Arab League. But unavoidably, choice was forced upon him by the vigorous lead given by Britain and France. Crucial allies of the US, they were out front, loud in their demands and the moment was approaching when Obama would either have to oppose them or back them.
Not joining in was too risky, a declaration of independence too far for a president who stress the need for the world to work together.
Up against him is ABC News Senior White House correspondent, Jake Tapper:
On Tuesday, President Obama became clear that diplomatic efforts to stop the brutality of Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi weren’t working.
Presented with intelligence about the push of the Gadhafi regime to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, the president told his national security team “what we’re doing isn’t stopping him.”
Some in his administration, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been pushing for stronger action, but it wasn’t until Tuesday, administration sources tell ABC News, that the president became convinced sanctions and the threat of a no-fly zone wouldn’t be enough.
In other words, the President actually thought Ghaddafi was going to stop all on his own, and the talk about sanctions and sabre-rattling was useless. It was only Tuesday that He figured it out. Not that He knew it wouldn’t and eventually worked out a way to lead from behind (or whatever we’re supposed to call it), but that He thought it would until just now.
And Mardell thinks that it was the open aggression of Cowboy Dave and Sancho Sarkozy, along with Ma Clinton, who forced Him into action against His will, and He really did it only so that He could make the world truly understand what we were doing. No other politician was making the case that this wasn’t about oil, apparently.
‘Our first example is BBC North America editor, Mark Mardell (if you can read through the tears in your eyes after laughing at the title of his blogpost) ‘
It is… ‘epic’ that headline.
More prosaically, I notice the very first comment questions his geo-political grasp/proofing. Was this poster in error? Any newsniffer types who can find out if the BBC ‘evolved’ the story to erase any awkward stuff?
Mardell clearly got his Narratives mixed for a moment while typing. He’s got three of them to juggle here, so I imagine it must be difficult. The Narrative about how this is so much more kosher than Iraq made him type the wrong country by accident. He obviously corrected it without acknowledging the comment.
It has been noted.
Sadly, the new whizzo BBC site ‘improvements’ seem to have resulted in an inability to pitch in and ask him why he thinks only he and his mates can get their geography in a tangle, when others not in their ‘crew’ are subjected to merciless hounding.
Never seen this one before, all in a nice red-bordered, pink time box:
We’re having some problems posting your comment at the moment. Sorry. We’re doing our best to fix it.
Wonder if that is like the ‘referred without any reason until blown over’ blog referrals technique?
That should be ‘pink tint’.
Seems they are breaking what was already pretty busted.
Just posted a comment elsewhere, now with a 3-line comment box and the darn ‘awaiting moderation’ thing went yellow.
Muhammad ElBaradei was attacked after voting in Egypt,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12793484
by a ‘crowd of angry youths’
Now look at,
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/03/elbaradei-stoned-and-shoed-truth-in.html
confirmed at
http://bit.ly/e8qWRi
The BBC lies again…
What I’d like to know is: What was Andrew Marr doing in Egypt Earlier this week? What every it was it as important enough to stay in Luxor at the Sonesta St George, obviously it’s only a 5 five or more for our hard pressed BBC budget? Mrs. Kronos has the pictures….more to follow (assuming the thumb over the lens trick isn’t employed)
An excellent project that is worthy of support from the good people who visit this board, especially given that the BBC have had a leading role:
Journalist’s wall of shame for the reporting on the Japan disaster.
Sources say…
They are all as bad as each other (SKY currently has a nice young man in a suit claiming ‘Women & kids have come from far and wide to protect this military compound’. As you do. Media lapping up the Arab League thinking wars don’t involve warlike stuff, proving to be a trustworthy as yer average tribal despot and simply trying to wangle a petty political brownie point with nutters who can usually firing AK’s in the air…. and united against nasty Allied… er… Coalition… er… Westeners) but this was interesting:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100080547/gaddafis-gruesome-use-of-the-dead/
Someone in Misrata yesterday said in a tweet or some such ‘I bet they are digging up the corpses in Zawiyah and taking them to Tripoli to show journalists’. This morphed into someone on BBC world being told that this was the rumour, and then on to a wire report.
If true… that world-renowned BBC news system working its magic again.
Oh, FFS, SKY has just deployed the ‘.. facing questions…’ media weasel for ‘we need to ratchet up the controversy at home, so have gone out and found an opportunistic numptie from the anti side to whinge without much clue as to what they do instead’. Cue yet another Scots Labour pol. Dougie’s cred bolt well shot, so now it’s Jim Murphy.
I don’t know when he is due at the BBC, but Newsnight’s ‘guests’ shaping up nicely.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100080498/eu-media-manipulation-a-case-of-motes-and-beams/
Current most recommended comment, lgrundy, is noteworthy.
Well, in certain media if not others, one suspects.
While ‘liberal-left’ pontificates about Islam and Muslim Brotherhood sharia ‘democracy’ in Egypt, the usual undemocratic political lobbying for the next DG of BBC-NUJ-Labour has begun:
“Who will be the next director general of the BBC?”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/21/bbc-next-director-general
EGYPT.
INBBC still cheering on its Muslim Brotherhood Islamic ‘revolution’, and still censoring out Christian opinions.
Two, compare-and-contrast, reports:
1.) ‘new kerala’ has:
“Egypt’s historic referendum could bolster Islamists”
http://www.newkerala.com/news/world/fullnews-172703.html
2.) INBBC:
“Egypt referendum strongly backs constitution changes”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12801125
I did start earlier in which to highlight how the bBC (As I predicted) would start to paint Gadiffi and his thugs as…victims. But decided not to, as i felt I would have been biased in my opinion.
Well the bBC have updated their picture montage by a couple of pictures and my fears of coming across as biased in my view just cannot be upheld in light of how they surreptitiously remake Gadiffi into a little fluffy white lamb, in which to play devil’s advocate with the news. So to the photos:
1) A nice picture of a bombed out building, with the bBC asking the question:” It is unclear whether supporters inside the compound at the time” Supporters? Why not his military as the guy in the picture in uniform doesn’t look like a ..supporter and lets be serious here, I know about Military compounds and Military targets, but Supporter compounds?
2) A nice picture of an explosion amongst lots of white cars and such which the bBC airs as:” The barrage of strikes began on Saturday.” So looking at that do you get the picture that some supporters got hit by a French plane. (It’s actually the aftermath of a French strike?)Have another look, notice something. Like a few burnt out military trucks, have a look to the left of the picture, notice that explosion, that is ammunition cooking off. Have a look to the bottom right notice who took the picture. Reuters. Well according to Reuters, that is a picture of the aftermath of a French airstrike on a military convoy heading towards Benghazi. Which in other photos shows rebels grinning like Cheshire cats and giving the V sign.
4) How about a nice picture of a blown up tank outside Benghazi which the bBC reports as: “Bodies of pro-Gaddafi fighters have been found around their destroyed tanks.” Instead of reporting the facts that the tanks where attacked after attacking a city, the bBC highlights the casualties Gadiffi has taken. The funny thing is , the people in the picture are having their pictures taken next to the tanks. If they were concerned about the bodies they have a strange way of showing it. Unless of course, they understand only too well what those dead thugs would be doing if they weren’t currently in that great mosque in the sky.
That’s just it with the bBCs picture montage of Libya at the moment, all the strike pictures show only the human angle from a pro Gadiffi angle and all the Western military ones come across as foreboding ,dark and ominous. You know the sort of thing in which to galvanise the antiwar crowd into action.
Now I said they would do this and here they have . It really does make you wonder if the B in the bBC should be removed and replaced with a ‘T’ and no it doesn’t stand for ‘Twat’.
Further to my last here is a picture of a burnt out military vehicle after an airstrike and here is what that vehicle looks like in real life: Its an SA 8 Gecko and its a self contained anti-aircraft missile system. I wonder why it was taken out?
Further to the serialisation of Peter Sissons’ book recently I thought it might be an idea to ask the BBC under FOI how many copies of the various newspapers are delivered weekdays to their offices within the M25.
Newcomers to this site may be surprised to learn the name of the clear “winner”. Regulars will not!
Copies received in the 10 months April 1st 2010 to Feb 28 2011 –
Guardian 59,829, Times 51,384, Telegraph 48,968, Mail, 45,553, Independent 43,709, Sun 42,905, Mirror 35,756, FT 33,721, Express 24,923
Well, they could argue it is not a complete reversal of the ABC ratings, public representation-wise, and one has to wonder if Mehdi Hassan hand delivers the entire New Statesman print run to warrant his pervasive promotion across all possible commentary opportunities.
No doubt this is what we shall hear about the Egyptian MB from the BBC in coming weeks as the party gears up post the refendum.
“Islam Al Lutfi is an international human rights lawyer and young member of the Muslim Brotherhood. He doesn’t think Egypt should be governed by Sharia law, and said many members of his generation are more progressive than the “old guard.”
This, however, is what will be studiously ignored in the narrative:
“Islam Lutfi, a lawyer and Muslim Brotherhood leader in Egypt, said he opposed the military intervention because the real intention of the United States and its European allies was to get into position to benefit from Libya’s oil supplies. “The countries aligned against Libya are there not for humanitarian reasons but to further their own interests,” he added.”
Although it is unfair to predict how Al Beeb will narrate, if experience is any guide, the less the comfortable realities in the mix will be suppressed.
The political complexites (see the Amr Moussa’s expression of horror at the no-fly zone he so vigourously supported until it happened), are at odds with the BBC narrative.
Are INBBC Beeboids on to this?:
“U.K.: Home buyers posing as Muslims to avoid stamp tax under Sharia“
I dont know if anyone else has raised this, but Lenny Henry opened this year’s Comic Relief with a spoof on ‘The King’s Speech’, splicing himself into the opening sequence when Firth as the King soon to be can’t get his words out when giving a speech and Henry interspliced in the movie getting more and more impatient with the Prince’s stammer till he yells out “Hurry up, we’ve only have 7 hours you know!”.
The British Stammerers Association has issued a statement of complaint and carries youtube footage on its FACEBOOK here. Richard Curtis, director of Comic Relief 2011 was on Breakfast 5Live this morning (2:22 in) and responded to the BSA’s statement with what I considered quite a weasely apology.
I’m sure that Lenny Henry or Curtis as the Director didn’t intend any harm by what they did, and I can understand the intended humour, but it really does show what a sham Political Correctness is. Leftoids claim its all about being superattuned with compassion and consideration for others, as we know, its just about creating ‘thought crimes’ to unperson people who disagree with left-wing opinions. We must of course remember Curtis’ ‘No Pressure’ which clearly intended us to think he was joking but left enormous room for reasonable doubt. Compare Curtis explaining the Henry stammering sketch with Davidson explaining ‘Chalky’. Yo Curtis, some ‘politcally correct’ empathy with Davidson now, hey?
I think the Head of the BSA went a bit over the top at the end of his statement that NC read out (and I speak as someone who had a chronic speech impediment as an infant that recurred in my late teens and which I still suffer the r-r-r-remnants of – hey niggaz! I’m allowed to! 😛 )
All in all though, as Gene Wilder once said, ‘there’s a difference between bad bad taste and good bad taste’.
The apology sounded fairly sincere, but the Beeboids sure were in a hurry to draw a line under it and move swiftly on to more celebration and praise for Comic Relief. Which is a BBC product, really, so no wonder they don’t want to dwell on it too much. They could have pressed Curtis just a tiny bit about why nobody raised a concern in the writing process, and the excuse that they were just thinking about “the moment” is weak. But no, it was all very perfunctory, job done, compliance box ticked, moving on, nothing to see here.
When I listened to it live I was prepared to accept it as a sincere apology, but when I heard it second time round, the weak excuses he gave led me to revise that opinion.
Like I said, I’m sure there was no ill intent – benefit of the doubt the likes of Curtis and Henry dont give to Jim Davidson over ‘Chalky’ – and I can understand the explanation he gave for how the piece came about, but nevertheless, somehow, these self appointed paragons of virtue missed something extremely basic and instead of addressing that he tried to glide over that by trumpeting his virtue. Moral vanity is always a huge impediment to introspection.
Just turned over to SKY from BBC24 cos of EdMili overload to find a chat on the legality of the Libyan action with Nabila Ramdani (guardian) and George Galloway! What the bloody hell is going on these days?
Where can I get my bloody news without a left wing slant 🙁
Saw people on Facebook yesterday complaining about Sky’s now almost complete left-wingification. I think it’s a shame that the neutral broadcaster has switched to the left-wing mainstream but, of course, we can choose not to pay for it.
Michael Moore rips Obama over Libya
May I suggest a 50-mile evacuation zone around Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize? #returnspolicy
…and…
“If you go to West Point tomorrow night and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president,” he wrote to Obama. “Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you.”
Farrakhan Blasts Obama For Calling For Qaddafi To Step Down
“I warn my brother do you let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world…Why don’t you organize a group of respected Americans and ask for a meeting with Qaddafi, you can’t order him to step down and get out, who the hell do you think you are?”
BBC: We don’t want you to know about any of this. Or about certain Democrat Congressmen talking about impeaching Him. Check out our celebrations of His audiences with Brazil and Chile instead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/03/comments_and_making_our_covera.html
510. At 12:59pm on 21 Mar 2011, Alex Gubbay – BBC News wrote:
Given the thrust of the comments left since Friday, it would be naïve to think we’re going to convince many of you – at this stage anyway – about the merits of this move, and indeed the reasons for it.
I’d simply hope that in time, people do eventually see this and the other related developments I mentioned as progress in terms of our website as a whole.
However, I do feel it’s important I again reiterate that exactly the same editorial considerations will inform our choice about when and where we’ll enable comments as has hitherto always been the case on Have Your Say.
And in terms of editors’ picks, as #498 David rightly [498. At 09:17am on 21 Mar 2011, David wrote:
This is a sound decision and I support it]
highlights, we absolutely intend those to be a reflection and representative sample of the balance of opinion submitted by you on that story or topic, provided it has been cleared by our moderators to publish.
I hope that is clear.
‘This hole is not deep enough… hand me that spade’
I have come to the conclusion that 50% of everyone’s licence fee hould be put in pot for other news organisations reporting on Israel.
Why?
Because everytime I read a story like this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12799772
I know I’m going to have to search for another source to find out what the BBC aren’t telling me. Jpost could make a small fortune this way.
As ever some key “context ” inserted into the BBC report:
Israel often opens fire on people who it says go too close to the fence to stop attacks by militants.
Dozens of people have been killed in this way, many civilians.
And as ever (& more importantly) some key context missing from the BBC report:
On Saturday night, IDF tanks opened fire on two Palestinians moving suspiciously in a border area considered off limits. Medical officials in Gaza said the two, known to be gunmen, were killed.
So it looks like the BBC don’t always want to hear everything Palestinian medics have to say, especially if they’re known gunmen
Unless I completely misunderstood what’s actually going to happen, I think this might be a good move for the BBC. If they get rid of the whole HYS feature and instead enable comments on articles on the website like the newspapers do, this will eliminate the opprotunity for egregiously inflammatory HYS questions like the one which asked if Israel should be allowed “to get away with whatever it likes” (or similar wording). That’s got to be an improvement.
Oops, this was meant as a reply to Guest Who’s comment above. Sorry about that.
The BBC is still censoring news of Hillary Clinton’s curiously dissembling and very early announcement that she will not be part of a second Obamessiah Administration, in any capacity whatsoever, should there be one.
Come on, Beeboids, surely this is worthy of comment? Any defenders of the indefensible care to explain the silence?
What an utter joke this Emily Maitlis hit piece on Sarkozy is. She’s saying that the problems of the Mohammedan banlieus are Sarkozy’s fault, and yet another sign that he’s out of touch with the ordinary folk.
Cue edited shots of Maitlis posing for the camera outside of some housing project, “only an hour from Sarkozy’s Presidential palace” (with obligatory class-war emphasis on those last two words), looking all concerned with her po face on. She is such an actress.
We hear about how Sarkozy used water cannons on the banlieu rioters back in 2005, then complaints from a couple vox pops, then Maitlis brings up something about how Le Pen agrees with him on the problems of Mohammedan immigration. Guilt by association, a classic BBC technique.
Oh, and Sarkozy has banned the burqa, and naturally Maitlis’s producers manage to find a Mohammedan woman who doesn’t wear the burqa who is opposed to banning it for human rights reasons.
The Maitlis intones that Le Pen agrees with the ban. Second guilt-by-assocation box ticked.
Yes, it’s all Sarkozy’s fault that there’s a problem with Mohammedan immigrants and their descendants in the banlieus.
Yes; a France censored by Islam Not BBC (INBBC):
‘Gates of Vienna’ (4mins: 30 sec CBS video)-
“The Coming Civil War in France “
The video above is not CBS, of course; it is CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network).
It’s a funny old world.
Of course, Gaddafi is a murderous socialist, but what about the opposition.
Asharq Al-Awsat 9.3.2009
“One source from the Libyan Islamist activists told Asharq Al-Awsat that “the Islamic trend has been shocked by the latest reshuffles in government.” He added: “After the release of some people from prison, they [the regime] came up with people we cannot negotiate with on anything. We have refused to negotiate with them in the past because they were the cause of past events.” He went on to say: “Some representatives from the (brotherhood) Islamic trend have previously started talks with Saif al-Islam Al-Gaddafi who promised them reform, and who himself was not happy with the new changes in government. I believe that all this is part of a game they are playing against reform.
According to Libyan sources, support for the Muslim brotherhood in the country has been on the increase since the late 1990s and coincided with a fierce blow dealt by Gaddafi to the brotherhood movement, the Salafi Libyan groups and the fighting Libyan groups, whose leaders mostly consisted of returnees from the Afghan Mujahidin war against the Soviet Union based in Benghazi, Derna and Tobruk.
The sources point out that “the brotherhood leaders negotiating with the regime are negotiating on behalf of the Islamist trend as a whole, not on the assumption that there are various Islamist groups. That is because the regime wants to open a channel with the Islamist trend as a whole, so that the Islamist trend recognizes the Libyan regime.”
The Libyan source added that the newly formed Libyan government opposes most of the demands of the Islamist trend.
Who are we helping?
The Telegraph has a contributory piece:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8391632/Libya-the-West-and-al-Qaeda-on-the-same-side.html
After all the Brotherhood’s Qaradawi wants Gaddafi shot and has stated that the UN action is ‘not a crusade but a punishment for a bad Muslim’
And Qaradawi is an…….Islamist like the 1200 who Gaddafi had locked up and who broke out in a mass violent prison break at the end of February.
Just a thought on the complexities and ironies.
No BBC on this post.
What a shock, tonight’s edition of “The Secret War On Terror” series about the not-really-secret-at-all US drone attacks in Pakistan puts forth the suggestion that it’s most likely that we’re killing innocent people because we have no idea who the targets are and are probably getting the wrong info. That, plus the collateral damage, plus the fact that “some say” this is extrajudicial killing without due process (BBC Narrative: It’s not a war, it’s a criminal investigation gone horribly wrong.), drip, drip, drip, means that we musn’t do it. Is it hurting Al Qaeda’s or the Taliban’s influence in Pakistan? Who cares? Don’t distract from the Agenda, please.
At least they mention that The Obamessiah is doing it. But I don’t hear any calls for His arrest for war crimes. It’s all pointed at the evil US in general, without making too much fuss about how He has actually ramped up the drone attacks, and killed way more peole than Bush did with them. Funny, that.
Mindset games.
Just saw a report on SKY from Japan, with a very odd comment’ “No matter how hard I tried, i couldn’t get them to criticise the government’.
With government competence unlikely to be much different there than anywhere else I doubt there is no opportunity for valid critiques, but actively trying to foment civil unrest seems an extraordinary thing for a medium to try and do, and admit. Especially in face of such devastation where you can’t do everything at once.
Having read about the Maitless banlieu review above I am starting to see the media as creating most of the problems, and in no measure either mitigation for or even attempting to solve them.
The BBC toady show always ready to air the ignorant prejudice of bigots, idiots, fools, imbeciles and todays toady was no different.
This time we got to ‘enjoy’ the thoughts of the chief ‘scientist’ Robert Watson who actually believes that the CGAW fruad is failing only because people like him have to answer awkward questions from “climate deniers” Huuuh, whats a “climate denier” then?
Nobody outside a loony bin denies that we have a climate, so why did a scientist use that phrase I wonder? According to to Watson there is no debate and should be no debate, we must trust them utterly and ask no questions and express no doubt or dissent.
Naturally the primetime slime Montague allowed him to waffle on without interuption, no hard questions for Watson as he freely expressed his ugly creed blaming those sceptics who dare to differ from the orthodoxy, Lysenko woud be proud of Watsons performance. People are easily confused by climate deniers and if only Watson could address the ignorant masses alone and without contradiction all would be well.
If only CAGW fraudsters didnt have to answer any searching questions or prove their fraud to the public, if only the public obeyed and kept their mouths shut, if only the CAGW fraudsters could silence sceptics for good and all, if only the media blackballed the enemies of the state climate deniers deniers deniers deniers!
So here we a man who has been a primary driver of the CAGW fraud, a man who has ridden the fraud gravytrain with glee, attacked his political enemies with all the enthusiasms of one of Maos red guards, fraud on his mind and hate in his heart for those who dare to expose his lifetime of fraud and lies.
So Watson got to air his anti science hate mongering and BBC toady got to support their CAGW fraud and happily provided a prime unopposed slot to launch an ignorant attack more suited to a political fanatic. The message we got of course was not the message that was intended, we were meant to share Watsons hate and prejudice and ignorance, we were meant to believe that the scapegoats are to blame for the fall of the lack of belief in the cult of lies.
The actual message we got was very different, we istened to a desperate frightened angry little man, we got a perfect insight into this mans petty hateful ugly mind, we got to feel his spite and vindictive nature, we got to scent his anger at the collapse of all he has worked for and all the continuous degradation of his moral centre eaten away by countless lies and justifications for those lies until the shell of a man is left, an empty shell eaten away by the lies he has told.
We heard a man who knows deep down that he chose the wrong road all those years ago, he jumped to the wrong conclusions and then spent years building himself an ever uglier house of cards. A man whose legacy will be that he supported and perpetuated a giant fraud and that he attacked those brave sceptics with a poisonous fury and spiteful intensity, everything he worked so hard to pimp for most of his working life is about to be found to be a giant fraud, his only legacy will be compared to scum like Lysenko, nothing more than a pimp of grotesque lies.
On his grave could be written ‘lying cheating scumbag who held back science for years’
FRANCE.
In which of the following two reports does the reader get the most information about French politics, and Ms Le Pen?
1.) DPA report:
“Le Pen all smiles after poll success”
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=423494&version=1&template_id=39&parent_id=21
2.) BBC-NUJ-Labour report:
“France vote bolsters Le Pen’s far-right National Front”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12804493
How interesting that this matches exactly a key Narrative put forth in Emily Maitlis’s feature report last night about Sarkozy. (See my comment about half way up this page.)
Agenda? What agenda?
“It’s Wuthering F*@king Heights From The BBC”
http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/passtheremote/2011/03/its-wuthering-fking-heights-fr.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CoventryTelegraph-TvBlog+%28Coventry+Telegraph+-+TV+Blog%29
Israel ex-President Moshe Katsav jailed for rape
Let’s be accurate here. Katsav was sentenced to gaol. He will appeal and it could be months before he enters a gaol to serve his sentence.
BTW Isn’t it the British Broadcasting Corporation? Why the American spelling?