New, even more open thread
Open Thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir Dec 23, 00:37
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
bbc’s bloody outrageous fixations with muslims, black people, Elon Musk and Donald Trump, for a publicly funded and impartial organisation.… - StewGreen Dec 23, 00:32
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
BBC “Elon Musk’s curious fixation with Britain ” by Mike Wendling is rightly double ratioed and CCBGB’d When someone has… - Guest Who Dec 22, 23:11
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
There might be a smidge of irony here. https://x.com/rrrrnessa/status/1870495794236977278?s=61 You people are deeply, dangerously unwell and evil. The majority of… - JohnC Dec 22, 22:54
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
I always go to the user reviews then sorth them by date so you get the ones after the initial… - BRISSLES Dec 22, 22:49
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
Also a non white detective in new season of Death in Paradise. The diversity directive that has infected the drama… - JohnC Dec 22, 22:44
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
Children among dozens killed in Israeli strikes, Gaza officials say https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9g4yl8j17o Here’s a new low: The BBC went from telling… - Deborah Dec 22, 22:22
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
I used to be a Covid numbers junky, from watching Valance asking for the next slide please to still regularly… - StewGreen Dec 22, 22:14
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
BBC presenters “we are IMPARTIAL IMPARTIAL IMPARTIAL” BBC presenter Paul Lewis Money tweets An interesting list of broadly good things… - Deborah Dec 22, 22:12
Start the Christmas Week 23rd December 2024
I am reading John C’s first post, and I am watching Wolf Hall at the same time. Cromwell’s daughter has…
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
Sometimes, out of the blue, you are vividly reminded why you hate the stinking BBC quite so passionately.
I try avoid the BBC as far as possible but last night I chose to watch the Masters Golf on Al Beeb because I quite like Peter Alliss’s droll humour. Suddenly, out of nowhere, for no possible reason and without any possible justification I find myself staring at that creepo celeb Chris Evans, talking about Rory Mclroy in that extremely irritating way that only Beeboid celebs are capable of. Well actualy, Evans was talking about Evans, and the fact that he was doing another BBC slot about the golf. Nothing about golf. And certainly nothing worth listening to.
In other words, just another slimey trail for a slimey celeb who pockets millions from the slimey BBC.
Click. Over the Sky, Allis or no Allis.
Just one of those small things that make you loathe the BBC like rat poison.
If you watch ‘Amen Corner Live’ on the Red Button you get to see every golfer come through, good (i.e. not obsessed with bloody Tiger) commentators, and absolutely NO danger of surprise celebrity appearances by the likes of Mr Evans (of whose existence the Americans are blissfully unaware).
It’s also ahead of the normal BBC service, so you can flick back and forwards if there’s a distant roar from the crowd.
On balance, then, him not turning up would really be no loss then (except to wonder on the ‘paid for what again?’ question)?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mediamonkeyblog/2011/apr/11/chris-evans-radio-5-live
Couldn’t agree more. It’s not always the self-evidently stupid things, it’s often the drip drip drip of low-level bias.
Earlier this morning there was a reference to the “notorious” Shirley Porter. A bit extreme in my opinion – but then she was a Conservative.
“Notorious Shirley Porter”? Only in Labour Mythology. She was mild compared with the shameless gerrymandering of London by Labour through the social housing backdoor. Look forward to the Conservative’s forensic examination of the Boundary Commissions work for the last twelve years. Expect there’ll be one along soon. Not. Tories are too clueless to know how they have been corrupted to send money to “the brothers” under the guise of weightings for “poverty” and “deprivation” , any excuse to skew it away from those evil Tory areas.
it’s amazing where this lefty crap rears its ugly head
was watching the dvd of Dr Who genesis of the daleks last night,and on the extras disc there was a segment about the imagery of the story
stuck in among the soundbites was a quick one-
“it’s like Maggie Thatcher meets the Nazis”
you just couldn’t resist the opportunity could ya?
wankers
There was an overt anti-Thatcher dig in the first Tennant series. RT Davis must have held a grudge about the Belgrano for decades.
A good antidote to much of BBC coverage on recent events in the Middle East.
I enjoyed the BBC News Channel’s introduction to Cameron’s appearance at a local town hall today to talk about budget cuts to local councils. The Beeboid reporter explained that, while the Prime Minister would be trying to tell people in some town with a Conservative-led council that it wasn’t necessary for local councils to cut essential services. In fact, said the Beeboid, Cameron was going to tell people that some Labour-led councils are paying executives enormous salaries while cutting important services, and that the councils were making political statements rather than necessary cuts.
However, she said, it was going to be difficult for Cameron to convince people of this because many councils, Labour-led or not, were being forced to make severe cuts. In this way, the BBC introduces a public appearance by the Prime Minister by openly suggesting that he is about to tell you a lie. But who’s really lying? I think I know.
Fortunately, for the BBC, the very first question was from the tea buyer at Taylor’s who asked what the PM could do to convince everyone that he was really concerned about Climate Change. Naturally, Cameron put on his green hat and babbled platitudes to show his environmental bona fides. And, oh, dear, three questions in and still nothing about council cuts, so the BBC News producer decided to cut back to the studio.
Much of the “news” output of the BBC these days consists of some broadcast footage (usually, but not always, the same footage that everybody else is showing) plus a live interview with a journalist.
In short it is picture and opinion led, with verifiable facts a fairly low priority. The results are predictable. They go for the most entertaining pictures, turning all television news into a visual entertainment show, with journalists opining in ways that accord with their assumptions rather than trying to tell us what (if anything) is going on.
Turning news into entertainment is perhaps inevitable. As is the fact that all news is interpreted. The justification for the tax funded BBC being the source in the UK of 90% of the television news interpretation however is non-existent. All the arguments are against.
Wherever you get State funding you get a tendency to employ people who believe in State control of everything i.e. Leftists.
The BBC therefore is gradually transformed into a Pro-Labour broadcaster – the Party of the State Sector. The Left like this arrangement because it not only gives them jobs, and a platform, it also squeezes out alternative voices. Being critical of the Left (especially its latest incarnation) will seriously damage your career.
Leftist are totalitarian, and so a dominant State broadcaster instinctively appeals to them. The trick (for them) is to try and wrap up their political propaganda in shows which get high ratings.
BBC journalists would inform us about the evils of capitalism while riding a unicycle in a clown outfit if they thought this got their message across. In fact they sometimes do. Historically the BBC (in true monoploy style) have opposed the setting up of any other radio and television broadcaster, until forced to accept them by various Conservative governments.
If news is deemed uncommercial, and yet too important not to be well funded, the money raised from the licence fee should be divided between a number of different television and radio news suppliers (Guardian TV Daily Telegraph TV et al) giving people the sort of choice that monopoly socialists hate.
There is always a danger in a free society people may discover the truth. It is hardly an accident that the BBC ran a radio series telling us how bad it is to give people choices, or that BBC dramas about the NHS are little more than propaganda on behalf of the wonderful State system.
The BBC is essentially the broadcasting arm of the State Sector. I look forward to sympathetic documentaries in the next couple of years about the Brown government. That it is anti- Cameron and Anti-Conservative is hardly a surprise.
P.S. We can already write the BBC script of “The Brown Years” documentary in advance. Brown (tearfully) admits he made the mistake of getting seduced by capitalist bankers (cue interview with Will Hutton) but at least he saved the NHS!
Seems that things have gone even further than enhancing the narrative to pretty much writing the script, which is a pretty fair term for what can often be a work of fiction from start to finish.
At least SKY tends to be simply inept.
The peroxide sink ‘interviewing’ asked Al Darling at lunchtime what he thought of Gordon Brown’s mea culpa, and with only the merest quiver of an eyebrow he batted that away with a ‘I don’t know what he said’.
Er….. the ex-Chancellor came into a studio unaware of what his ex-boss was all over the news for… that morning. Uh-huh.
Can only wonder how Aunty’s finest have been spinning the whole episode, and that rampant porkie in particular.. if the subject is raised.
The “fat cats” in Local Government are not affected by the “cuts”. There is also no “cuts” to the idiotic jobs like “Climate Change” Officers or “Diversity” Officers. I am no socialist but when they say that front line staff are suffering they are right. The elite in Local Government are looking after themselves. It is not just the socialist elite but the Libs and conservatives (not that you can tell the difference anymore).
Did my ears decieve me this monring on BBC news that the new enemy is now nitrogen in the atmosphere, not the naturally occuring stuff, but the nasty nitorgen producing by those nasty human beings. Sure enough they got Brabbin (?) to provide the science.
Good nitorgen, bad nitorgen. How would it know?
The green mafia nust be getting deparate now. Another scare, more regulation, more tax. Great!
deceive (I knew that!)
A prize for anyone who can spot any balance whatsoever in this report:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13025304
Goebbels was an amateur in comparison to the BBC.
I particularly like the estimate of “£55-£280bn” – clearly a very thorough and credible piece of work to conclude with such a narrow margin of error!
I was a little intrigued by the structure of the piece, which seemed, well, goobledegook as a piece of writing, much less a science report.
First off, we get ‘The study by 200 European experts‘.
… with, as far as I can gather, no further clarification save ‘The 600-page report relies on experts from 21 countries and 89 organisations‘.
Then this guy crops up: ‘Dr Sutton said nitrogen pollution was a serious issue‘.
However, it is not until much later one finds out who the heck he is.
Did the PR cut & paste fax come in the wrong order, with some pages missing?
Or… now writing the script Yoda is?
but maths is haaaaard!
Its the new scare isnt it?
Just another slavish cut N paste by Harrabinladen made up and sent to him by his eco fascist allies for imediate and uncritical airing, they could say to him ‘when we want your opinion we will give it to you’.
He claims that agriculture produces 70% of nitrous oxide, he must have inahaled a goodly portion of it to copy this veggiefascist claptrap, dont eat meat, meat is murder, meat is killing the planet, meat is murder murder murder.
As a mouthpiece of the greenpiss/fiends of the earth ecofascist axis his job is to present to the world a series of lies pimped by the newest and most dangerous industry yet devised by the human mind.
This rich industry belches out massive quantities of a highly toxic and poisonous sludge that poisons and pollutes the minds of the trusting and the weak and the young. Its called propaganda and not since the Nazis has it been so successful and so deviously designed and pimped.
The part about advising people to stop eating meat is a good one. It’s the first step towards population control. First, the elite can tell us all what we’re permitted to eat. Then it will be rules about how many children you can have. Then it will be an enforced one-child policy or similar (with exemptions for certain religions, naturally).
All because these scientists can produce report after report which shows that the benefits “far outweigh the cost”. Individual freedom means nothing to these people.
The once-industrial north of England is much greener and much more full of decorative trees / bushes / shrubs / gardens than it ever was – because of all the extra nitrogen – from those cars of course.
Dont’ forget the green health is also in part thanks to Mrs. Thatcher closing all those nasty, dirty coal mines. Thank Gaia for Maggie!
“At least two women have been detained in France while wearing Islamic veils across their faces”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13031397
“Islamic”? how odd! Recently, after a newsnight report on the condition of Saudi Women, Emily Maitless was telling Ayaan Hirsi Ali that she knew nowt & that such manifestations are cultural, not religious.
“At least two women have been detained in France while wearing Islamic veils across their faces”
Good.
A good start. Love the horrified tone of the bBC coverage. Dark hints there may be “retaliation” if anyone stands up to the “cultural” bullyboys. Or take the unconvincing Conservative line “Banning things is unBritish” Really? Smoking, speeding, cheap alcohol, or dropping litter in a 30mph zone…
Guido has it sussed!
Presuming this to be an accurate reflection (whilst not quite at uniquely funded levels of professional impartiality, Guido can on occasion rather shoot from the hip when it comes to ‘sources saying’. This one rings fairly true mind), one has to wonder if those at the BBC ever wonder how it is that they are ‘unique’ to the point of being pretty much the only ones tacking one way when others are steering more sober courses.
Were it not for that special place they inhabit, one could be forgiven for thinking they are, well, on another planet, albeit a well remunerated and oddly indulged one given the near consistent petty stirring, using a £4Bpa media/PR machine to ruin everyone else’s lives so they can prance about and pontificate immune from the market force undermining of the UK they indulge in near every day.
How come these two are not off on hols too? All the rest are. Andrew Neil might have managed some vaguely sensible analysis, but has probably been sent to Coventry after his last deviation from the hive line.
Andrew Neil is surely back in good graces now that he made those two rants against News Corp.
Ah, this market rate talent whose views we are compelled to support on matters money…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100083389/the-politicians-who-got-it-wrong-on-the-euro-are-not-being-called-to-account-because-the-media-made-the-same-mistake/
‘Here, even more hilariously, is the BBC’s Robert Peston as recently as two weeks ago:
Only in the event that the Portuguese financial crisis exhausted the available money in the eurozone’s bail out fund – which it won’t – would the UK become liable.’
Dr A writes;
In other words, just another slimey trail for a slimey celeb who pockets millions from the slimey BBC.
WRT Chris Evans at the masters. This is completely unfair. Chris Evans jaunt to the Masters was self-funded; he did it for the love of golf, not for money.
Also I dont see how you lot can have a problem with Evans. You might not like him, fair enough, but he made his money “the old fashioned way” through shrewd capital investment, luck and talent.
The phrase “you lot” says it all really. Yet another group thinking Leftie. BBC Biased is not a Socialist State. The argument (you might eventually get it) is about defending plurality within a shared vision of the desirability of having a free society.
The phrase “you lot” says it all really. Yet another group thinking Leftie. BBC Biased is not a Socialist State. The argument (you might eventually get it) is about defending plurality within a shared vision of the desirability of having a free society.
I can say quite honestly that’s the first time I’ve been accused of “being a “leftie”, cleary I’ve fallen head first into the realm of proffesional curmudgeon. My use of the phrase “you lot” was informal, it was meant to imply my belief that people reading this board (as individualists)would admire Chris Evans for his business accumen etc, rather than simply write him off as a BBC journeyman, which is patently not the case. In any case I’m sure the original poster I was responding to would view Evans trip to the Masters in a more charitable light, when furnished with the fact that he was not payed and didnt get any expenses.
Your second point is dreadfully confused; you accuse me of “groupthink” then in your very next sentence wax-lyrical about “shared vision”, was that a joke? Or are you one of those people who’s all for “freedom” as long as its their kind?
Anyway before casting “leftie” aspersions take a look at my blog here; http://edwardburroughs.wordpress.com/ and feel free to leave a comment.
Kind Regards,
Ed.
“Do not let spacious plans for a new world divert your energies from saving what is left of the old”-Winston Churchill
Excelent Motto, I believe old Churchill was once a Liberal (but not a “leftie”)
😉
“I can say quite honestly that’s the first time I’ve been accused of “being a ‘leftie’”
Well there is always a first time. Maybe people do not pay much attention to what you say?
“My use of the phrase ‘you lot’ was…meant to imply my belief that people reading this board…would admire Chris Evans for his business accumen.”
Well you thought wrong then didn’t you. I think you will find that the people who read this blog have a variety of opinions, including the view that having business acumen does not exclude you from criticism. In any case, as I recall, Evans making lots of money for himself was not the issue.
“I’m sure the original poster I was responding to would view Evans trip to the Masters in a more charitable light, when furnished with the fact that he was not paid and didn’t get any expenses.”
Possibly. Although I think he was expressing the view that he would rather not listen to Evans when watching a golf tournament.
“Your second point is dreadfully confused; you accuse me of “group-think” then in your very next sentence wax-lyrical about “shared vision”; was that a joke?”
I appreciate that you are not the sharpest knife in the box, but a free society is a shared commitment to the beliefs that generate and sustain a free society. It is not the claim that everybody ought to agree about everything.
Your mistake was to assume that sharing the belief that (for example) many people who work for the BBC abuse its power, implies agreement about everything else; such as the merits or otherwise of Evans as a broadcaster.
“Anyway before casting “leftie” aspersions take a look at my blog”
No thanks.
A very good blog and well argued.
I think people misunderstood your position earlier about Chris Evans. But I agree with Natsman, he is an arrogant, lou-mouthed leftie yob. The fact he’s made money by speculating is a little hypocritical for a leftie but I don’t blame him for doing it. I do think he gets paid too much tax-payers’ money though.
The blog I mentioned above is Edward’s.
Well nice to know that Edward! however methink when you take the tax payer shilling at the ministry of the true vision then sadly your credability gets stuffed like yer bank account! so sorry he get no slack from me !
Can’t recall anyone here complaining about how Evans managed his investment or made business decisions like buying Virgin Radio (unless someone thought he blackmailed them into selling it to him). Don’t remember that as a reason for complaints about him at all.
He’s still a loud-mouthed leftie twat (in my humble opinion).
A top talent in my view!
Other countries produce engineers, scientists, mathematicians and entrepreneurs who create large, wealth generating companies. We produce industrial strength twats like Chris Evans and I’m supposed to be grateful?
Not exactly Konosuke Matsushita, is he?
“industrial strength twats”
That made me laugh out loud. 😀 😀
He paid his own way – but elbowed his way to the front of the presenting queue, in much the same way that he elbowed his way onto the One Show.
Can’t bear the man.
INBBC’s Islamophilic ‘reporting’ in AFRICA from e.g., Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria and Ivory Coast.
E.g. on IVORY COAST, INBBC censors the mass (illegal?) Muslim immigration into that country to the Islamic north over the years, and its impact on election results, and then the violence against Christians; largely uncriticised by UN, and MSM, inc INBBC.
“Ivory Coast: where Islamic and Western ‘interests’ meet.”
http://www.christiannewstoday.com/Christian_News_Report_5009.html
“Lessons from the Ivory Coast”
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/11/lessons-from-the-ivory-coast/2/
George Galloway speaks candidly about his time in the Big Brother house:
Hare Psychopathy Checklist
Factor1: Personality “Aggressive narcissism”
*Glibness/superficial charm
*Grandiose sense of self-worth
*Pathological lying
*Cunning/manipulative
*Lack of remorse or guilt
*Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
*Callous/lack of empathy
*Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
I’m not a psychologist but …
BTW GG OT 2 BBC?
Most Read
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13043023 is apparently the 8th most read article on the BBC News website – yet at the time of writing, very few other news oragns are running it (an exception is the Liverpool Echo where the chap in question is from).
My question is this: how does an article get a place in the top 10 if there is no external stimulus to read it? I don’t know about you, but http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/england/merseyside/ is not the first place I tend to go to for my news.
I may be becoming far too paranoid and cynical for my years, but I reckon the BBC duty editor has a magic button which can launch an article into the ‘top ten read’ if s/he deems it to be ‘in the national interest’.
Yes funny this
“..in a confidential letter seen by the BBC” How did they “see it” I wonder.
“In the e-mail marked “In Confidence – Private” . No respect for confidentiality from the BBC then. Is the person who stole this email being persued. Reading peoples emails and publishing the details is no different than tapping peoples phones.
“He faced pressure after claims about phone hacking while he was editor.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12251456
I see there is no name to the report, therefore the editor should be held responsible and his name splashed on the front page of the Guardian.
Probably most read only in that rather peculiar bubble that is our minority commentariat within the Congestion Charge zone, whose interests seem to extend merely to pushing agenda or stirring up ratings. Not agreeing with Nick makes easy headlines.
The SKY anchor ‘interviewing’ Mr. Clegg just now claimed the leader of Liverpool Council is a Lib Dem critical of Lib Dem policy.
Mr. Clegg replies this person is more accurately a former leader.
Seems the narrative felt that pushing the claim couldn’t hurt.
This media assault seems less like a search for light and more a desire to create cheap heat by any means, including misrepresentation.
All our media seem keen on is petty, distracting ‘rows’ over substance. What a waste of airtime.
Who does SKY think it is? The BBC?
Just in: Listening to some female peroxide sink on SKY In Japan mangling English and coming out with some ‘facts’ on Chernobyl I was not aware of. Is it true several thousand died immediately of radiation poisoning?
Most read in the BBC newsrooms?
al-Beeb; Joooz Gassed Themselves.
al beeb is turning into an offshoot of pallywood
Once again the Jews are the cause of their own demise.
It absolves everyone else of guilt- the Jews bring it onto themselves. It’s the oldest slander, and the oldest hatred, and it seems that the BBC is complicit.
Although they dispute this.
A tragic story of unrequited love? That’s mass murder in a nutshell, eh, BBC?
There’s absolutely nothing in that article that suggests what you say. It’s a very interesting article. In the context of overall BBC output though it’s bound to raise suspicions as to its intention.
Oh, one interesting snippet:-
Fritz Haber was born in 1868 in Breslau, in what is now Poland.
Shouldn’t that be ‘… in land that is held to be illegally occupied under international law, although Poland disputes this’? No, of course not.
I’m with Hippiepooter on that one. It’s an article about the sad irony of a Jewish chemist’s work being used in developing Zyklon B. What’s the problem with that?
Compare and contrast: US atronauts have constantly been portrayed as boring and souless. But Yuri Gagarin? He is being celebrated on the Beeb with the glowing praise usually reserved to the current American Presidebt.
ahhhhh
and no mention of his carbon footprint……..must have been enormous
or something
chernobyl…….Chernobyl……..CHERNOBYL…….
….CCHHEERRNNOOBBYYLL!!!!!!!!!
The BBC latch on to the comparison with gay abandon as they continue to be determined that Fukushima is much worse than it probably is (the situation is serious mind you). They even wheel out Archbishop Harrabin on the Today programme to tell us so.
However as always, context is missed – the release of radioactivity at Chernobyl was very different – fast and into the high atmosphere – but don’t expect the BBC to tell us so. It’s a bit like the BBC reporting Richter scale 7 earthquakes in Japan but not telling us that on this scale 7 isb 100x less powerful than a 9 earthquake.
gay would be the right word 😉
Well get this, on Breakfast 5Live today Shelagh Fogarty referred to the arrest of Laurent Gbagbo as ‘Ivory Coast’s disputed President who remained in office after an election that was recognised internationally as having been lost by him’.
Why isn’t this type of formulation used over the West Bank?
What we get is this:-
‘Nearly half a million Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel’s 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They are held to be illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this’.
What would be balanced in keeping with the above (although its not comparing like with like – you either lose an election or you dont, the West Bank is far more complex) I suggest would be this.
‘Nearly half a million Israelis live in 100 settlements on the West Bank. The UN International Court of Justice has ruled that these settlements constitute illegal occupation under international law. Israel contends that the Court is biased. It says under international law countries guilty of waging aggressive war forfeit land to protect the victims of their aggression. Israel cites German territory ceded to Poland after WWII’.
We’re never going to get this because there’s only one reason why the BBC uses their above formula: to make propaganda for Israel’s genocidal enemies.
Oh, and the above BBC report I link to from Barbara Plett concerns a report by UN Rapporteur Richard Falk on the West Bank issue.
His blog says all you need to say about UN probity in appointing him.
Jeremy Bowen – in context, thanks to Nick Cohen:
“The former US Ambassador to the United Nations Daniel Patrick Moynihan composed an aphorism as he watched dictatorships pile opprobrium on democracies: “The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there.” Journalists, lawyers, academics and opposition politicians can investigate the injustices of democracies, and because they can investigate, injustice is kept in check. They cannot expose the greater atrocities of dictatorships because there is no freedom to report, and hence their greater crimes pass unnoticed.
I have my doubts about the universal jurisdiction of Moynihan’s Law — America was responsible for many great crimes while he was its good and faithful servant. But his insight explains why Jeremy Bowen is blinking at his cameraman in Tripoli, like some startled, uncomprehending mammal who has been shaken by the convulsions around him from a hibernation that has lasted for most of his career. ”
See:
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/television-april-11-they-missed-the-story-nick-cohen-middle-east-reporting-bbc-sky-jeremy-bowen
Cohen is one of the very few on the left who can see through all the pro-Palestinian garbage with which the BBC pollutes the airwaves.
The only problem with Cohen’s point is that Bowen and the rest of his kind will easily shift blame from themselves and say that the nasty dictators he’s talking about were only allowed to be in power and slaugher their own people by the imperialist US and other Western countries who propped them up.
As Abandon Ship commented, the BBC have gone Chernobyl mad this morning. Today (quite properly) interviewed David Weaver, professor of nuclear physics at Birmingham University who explained (not particularly well unfortunately) that the “5”, “6” or “7” grades of nuclear accident are not measures of their ultimate severity (in terms of human casualties) but more a measure of what has occurred. He specifically stated that the use of these grades does not mean that a number like 5.6 or 7.9 (like an earthquake) can be attached to a nuclear “event”. He also stressed that the Fukushima event wasn’t remotely comparable to what happened at Chernobyl.
So all (fairly) clear. Unfortunately the BBC couldn’t leave it there. Harrabin was brought on to provide a non-scientific non-explanatory non-clarification which comprised a (reluctant) agreement with Prof Weaver about measures of severity and comparisons with Chernobyl together with a completely gratuitous blow job for Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth which, Harrabin can disclose, were correct to say that dealing with Fukushima would take longer than everybody thought. He omitted to tell us that those two propaganda outfits have been effectively screaming Armageddon, the end of the world and “we told you so” since 11 March.
Fukushima is a godsend to Greenpeace and feeds straight into its anti-nuclear programme http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/safety/accidents/Fukushima-nuclear-disaster/QA-on-Nuclear-Power-and-Climate-Change/ .
In the interests of balance – and getting sufficient info to make up our own minds – we’d all be happy (I think) to hear a (genuine) scientist disagree with Prof Weaver’s assessment. As it happens there are very few (if any) genuine scientists around who do disagree with him and, IMHO, Harrabin has probably tried (and failed) to find one: hence the Greenpeace/FoE blow job. Again, we see the usual bias and the usual crap journalism all in one taxpayer-funded package wrapped in green string by the BBC’s “environment” section.
“As it happens there are very few (if any) genuine scientists around who do disagree with him“
In other words, “the science is settled”? There seems to be a certain inconsistency by the BBC in deciding how settled various branches of science are.
Talking of the BBC costs, they dropped the knowledgeable golfer Sam Torrance from the coverasge of The Masters as they were only covering two days out of the four. When we saw the coverage howevewr there were the usual two golfers, Ms. Irvine, scots presenter and Cotter also scots and a new face Cugach who did stupid interviews. He was so stupid he carried on blocking out a serious problem that McIlroy was having. Strangely one Chris Evans was there and popped up for chay with C. Sod the golf let the Z list celebs enjoy their well earned?? jollies. B*****ds
I have an ongoing interest in the ‘Tomlinson’ inquest. It was clear that Tomlinson was going to be made a martyr by the lefties, nomatter what evidence came to light. When I look at google news to see who is doing the most reporting, Guardian, Independent and bBC.
The bBC keep digging the hole deeper and will be amazed when they finally fall into it.
the BBC seem delighted that Mrs Duffy has had an opportunity to bushwhack Clegg after the damage she did to McDoom. But should a report of Clegg’s actions be written through the eyes of a lifetime Labour voter? (that’s Mrs Duffy not the BBC reporter!)
” Mr Clegg attempted to explain the reasoning behind the government’s controversial deficit-reduction strategy, saying future generations would suffer if savings were not made now.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13047890
I see nothing wrong with the report, it was a news event. As the report says: “Mrs Duffy, a lifelong Labour voter”.
Strewth, I find I’m having to defend a lot of BBC reporting these days. Chaps, can we see bias when we see it and not look to find it? It’s like grievance mongers looking for ‘racism’.
Why could clegg only manage to attempt to explain? Is he too incompetent to understand the policy? Too poor a politician to get his message over? Does the policy defy rational explanation?Or are we all expected to see his actions through Mrs Duffy’s Labour prism, where his words would never satisfy?
Because she wasn’t very interested in listening to what he had to say?
So why not “Clegg explained the policy, but Mrs Duffy wasn’t interested/didn’t understand” ?
Concision?
Oh, and I thought Clegg was a right condescending git when he explained to her why the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories.
h-p
We are all entitled to our opinions. The BBC is not meant to have any opinions, is not meant to insert gratuitous stuff like “attempted to”.
But we see all the time that BBC groupthink opposes the coalition, and sees Clegg and the LibDems as the weak link, so they keep chipping away at them.
@ JA, the use of the word ‘attempted’ may be bias, it may not, but its pretty thin gruel to say it is. Personally, when I make accusations of bias I think to myself would a reasonable, neutral person think the evidence justifies the accusation? Otherwise, we’re just giving hostages to fortune to the BBC to discredit us if this site ever leads to something more concrete to fumigate the BBC of its Gramscian infestation.
Strewth hippiepooter I’m sorry to have failed your reasonableness test. Why don’t you get the power to zap comments that don’t meet your high standards? I am always agog at your contributions.
<pops head over parapet>
As two posters here whose contributions I (almost always) value, if not necessarily agree with all the time, in the spirit of ‘united they stand, divided they fall’, may I suggest that while the odd comment on whether or not something seems a valid criticism is fair enough, such ‘policing’ is usually better left to the remoras who lurk and provide such a service (sometimes, if rarely, with justification) rather than falling out? Especially on matters of degree?
Whilst the standards of the site owners, authors and fellow posters overall set the bar at a level one could only dream the BBC and its groupies would apply to their own output, I would not dream of suggesting valid checks and balances on excesses (such as inappropriate terminology) do not continue, but perhaps the absence of a ‘Like’ from others may be enough to show it is a critique with poor traction?
Personally I can be quite devastated that my latest ‘clear example’ is struggling to float folks’ boats, and usually take that as a cue to allow it to wither on the vine of obscurity in archive as things move on.
<pops head back down, hoping spirit intended is appreciated O:-) >
Dont worry My Site, I dont take constructive criticism personally, whether I agree or disagree with it.
It’s not a question of ‘policing’, its a question of do we perceive it or dont we? I’ve mentioned before that a significant amount of what I see presented here as bias I see as ideological axes grinding, which is a huge pity, because the BBC is on many levels a deeply subversive organisation that has done huge damage to our country.
If there’s bias here, I’d say it’s in the BBC running with the story as if Mrs Duffy’s presence was just fortuitous and had nothing to do with Labour. To me it was an obvious set up.
According to Guido, Mrs D has already met Red Ed, having congratulated him on his victory. So she’s no longer just your ordinary Labour voter.
Labour plant? Nah, couldn’t be. The BBC would have told us, right?
This is what today’s report in the Mail Online says:-
Flanked by three Labour officials – in what was apparently a pre-planned ambush – Mrs Duffy, 66, tried to ‘handbag’ Mr Clegg when he made a campaign visit to Rochdale.
BBC bias or just not up to speed or the Mail got it wrong?
The Telegraph report today is very similar to the BBC, so I guess that just leaves us with our suspicions based on long experience of an agenda driven BBC.
All this episode suggest to me is that ratings trump agenda in all but the most ‘loyal’ of papers, or broadcasters.
As regards this episode, having a ’15 MoF MoP’ (Fifteen minute of fame member of the public) offer up a pol-bashing sound bite was too good to miss for all and sundry. SKY was equally in the frame.
Few seem too concerned as to the circumstances behind this ‘meeting’, or the fact that policy is apparently dictated now by ‘representatives’ of public opinion such as the less than clued-in Mrs. Duffy being indulged by venal media happy to be fed easy fillers by the spinners they claim to loathe.
Someone else with suspicions
“Strangely though Nick Clegg didn’t look very surprised to come face to face with the only famous resident of Rochdale (besides John Peel, that is) when he rocked up in the town. There was Mrs Duffy waiting, ready to pounce. The BBC News Channel knew to cut over immediately. There were TV cameras and paps everywhere. How did they know what was about to happen?”
http://www.totalpolitics.com/blog/156172/the-downfall-of-mrs-duffy.thtml
Mrs. Duffy was in the audience – sitting in the VIP section, IIRC – for Red Ed’s inaugural speech as Labour leader. They brought her into the fold immediately after the election, and it was only a matter of time before she was used like this.
Hi, an obscure part of the BBC website confirms your suspicions:
“This was, apparently, no chance encounter. Since an open mic caught Gordon Brown calling her a “bigoted woman” almost a year ago, Mrs Duffy has been befriended by the local Labour MP, Simon Danczuk. He reportedly alerted her to Mr Clegg’s visit and suggested she take the chance to have her say.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13050723
Todays inflation figures have led to an update from the BBC’s Economics editor Stephanie Flanders. This is unusual as she rarely mentions inflation as she has long told us there isnt any.
“It’s not just the Bank of England that’s been taken by surprise by the level and persistence of inflation in the past few years – most City forecasters (and, as some of you delight in pointing out, Stephanomics) have been surprised as well.”
The rudeness of those people. Do they not know that Stephanie is doing them a favour by giving them her thoughts? Do they think they pay her wages? Oh
Don’t worry, Jane. Stephanie says at the end that she’ll be right about inflation eventually, just you wait. Broken clocks, stopped watches, etc.
NIGERIA.
INBBC censors ‘Muslim’ word from its reports, unlike this:
“Call for protection of non-Muslim Nigerians after election violence”
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/call.for.protection.of.nonmuslim.nigerians.after.election.violence/27810.htm
“BBC news chief: flying big names to stories can be wasteful”
-Really, Ms BOADEN? It ‘can’ ? It ‘is’, you mean. But never, mind, it’s not your money which BBC-NUJ is spending, it’s the British people’s. And it’s always easier to spend someone else’s money, isn’t it?
And in the case of the Cairo jaunt, it was all in your worthy political cause of the Muslim Brotherhood, wasn’t it, Beeboids?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/apr/12/bbc-news-helen-boaden
And, BBC’s internal justification:
“Did the BBC send too many reporters to Egypt?”
In her BBC reply to a BBC question, Ms Unsworth attempts (on audio clip) to explain how the vast BBC empire needs vast numbers of Beeboids to service it – World Service, BBC Arabic, BBC Africa, web services, BBC TV news 24, BBC 1, Newsnight, Radio 1, 2, 4 (World at One , Today, PM, etc) Radio 5, etc.
Think that Beeboids are anti-empire? -Not a bit of it when it comes to the BBC’s world empire.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio4/2011/02/did_the_bbc_send_too_many_reporters_to_egypt.html
Here was me thinking near every vowel or consonant she uttered was a market rate gem, but then I see this… ‘“I thought Jim added quite a lot,”
Presuming that means to the carbon footprint of each jolly he’s dispatched upon, what with his awesome linguistic skills and all, she may have a point.
“BBC News has wasted money sending anchors to cover major stories, admits its own boss”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376155/Helen-Boaden-BBC-News-wasted-money-sending-anchors-cover-major-stories.html#ixzz1JKl52YnB
WTF?!
Well spotted
Some Beeboid in the newsroom suffering from a Freudian slip?
Probably how Bowen dictated it to him.
INBBC’s Ms Kuenssberg’s LOCKERBIE, from viewpoint of British politicians and Libya’s Mousa Kousa, NOT from viewpoint of American and British victims:
“Moussa Koussa, ex-Gaddafi aide, leaves for Doha talks”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13049308
‘Daily Mail’ has what INBBC censors:
“Britain is a ‘transit lounge for war criminals’: Furious row as Gaddafi’s torturer-in-chief jets out off for talks in Qatar”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375965/Libyan-defector-Musa-Kusacalls-halt-bloodshed-taking-Libya-civil-war.html#ixzz1JKdUvlbL
This guy (Robert Howarth) is an activist, talks to street activists about how his study will confirm their foregone conclusions. And, of course, Richard Black goes for his published conclusions like a duck to water.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13053040
Fodder for the converted.
Bet Richard couldn’t wait to get at shale gas….the warmist worst nightmare. It distracts from the windmills etc .
Here he is with his placardeers on the street….
Bishop Hill posts a damning response to the pile of dung from Cornell:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/4/12/cornell-shale-study-debunked.html
Does the BBC never take a cool, dispassionate look at eco-hysterical stories?
“Activists” is an interesting word, much in vogue at bBBC, alongside the other smoke screen word “Protesters” (sidesteps having to use more accurate description like International Marxist Agitators, Anti-capitalist G20 Anarchists, whatever)
Activists includes “paid activists” – press officers of NGO’s /was previously an animal charity/ DECC/EU/Hedgie-guilt grant-funded campaign groups. Not at all the “concerned citizen” image the word implies at all. Greenpeace has a huge payroll of people who organise stunts for media attention. It’s an industry keeping the media in receipt of a flow of briefings reports, policy papers, and televisual demonstrations.
But do Greenpeace offer a good pension scheme I wonder? Or even bonuses? Should I look to family connections for an internship in activism?
Just watched ‘South Today’ which had a snippy little article about a former Tory MP who had been caught up in the expenses scandal. This chap had voluntarily paid back £17k for building work on ‘the servants quarters’. So in BBC eyes he is a top hatted eeeeeeevil Tory.
The reason for the news item was that he had been found ‘not guilty’ of a false claim and got £15k refunded. There was not indication that he had accepted this money but the ‘autocutie’ was at pains to say that the guy was still eeeeeevil as he has said when he returned the money wouldn’t accept the money back if it was offered.
So eeeeevil Tory still eeeeevil for not been guilty.
Then we have a piece on the One Show about compensation for the residents of Happisburgh in Norfolk. To be fair this was mostly even handed allowing that the current Government was going to pay compensation but of course it wasn’t as much as was wanted by the hapless residents. But there was no mention as to why the last government had stopped paying for coastal defences. Something to do with Gordon Brown and the need to pay an EU fine IIRC.
The BBC1 programme “See you in court” has a rather surprising format (but i’m sure that the BBC lawyers will have given an opinion). On Tuesday night it followed two libel cases, but in each case only from the perspective of the prospective plaintiffs, this allowed that party to spin the process.
One case followed the trustees of the North London Mosque (Abu Hamza’s old parish) in a libel case against the “conservative” ( I guess we had to hear the small “c”) Policy Exchange. We saw the PE getting the full Paxman scorn treatment undermining their evidence. We got the plaintiffs claiming that the PE were running scared in using a legal technicality to deny them the right to sue ( several judges agreed with the PE!). When a compromise was reached out of court the plaintiffs were allowed to suggest that the PE would be seen by the public to have been in the wrong.
The Policy Exchange’s view of the conclusion of the action is here
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/news/news.cgi?id=1603
I wonder whether the BBC programme will reopen matters
BBC HARDTALK goes to Australia to support the ALP/Green regime, why would a British broadcaster spend time and money in the never ending quest to attack and smear the Australian right, attack mining industries while pimping green policies?
What is it with the BBC? Stephen Sackur claims a warming planet as fact, he travels to Queensland and blames the floods entirely on CAGW when the facts point to a dam opperators gross stupidity in conjunction of course with ecotard water conservation policies. Sackur travels to WA to blame the drought on CAGW when the facts prove WA has suffered cyclic droughts as far back as the records go, all natural and no CAGW.
Stephen Sackur fills his show trial with speculation as fact and facts that contradict his prejudice are hidden, in one show trial he attacks a mining ‘baron’ as though he was a Nazi war criminal and then interviews some CAGW cultist as though they carried the wisdom of God.
The question and the charge against the BBC is clear isnt it?
What on earth is the BBC doing promoting the partisan political views of a foreign country while smearing and attacking their political enemies? What Sackur is doing is nothing less than interfering in the affairs of a foreign country in order to help and assist one side against the other.
The BBC has no moral justification for promoting the left and attacking the right, promoting ecofascist ideology and attacking sceptics, promoting the policies of the greens while attacking any side that shows caution in approaching the CAGW fraud. You want to see bias? The BBC HARDTALK show trials has it all, hatred base spite and prejudice just barely concealed along side fawning dishonest promotion of BBC political values.
For the record, the floods in Queensland were NOT casued by CAGW, there is NO proof for that claim and hiding evidence that the regimes green policies and incompetance were the main driving factors causing the disaster and the BBC are commiting nothing short of assisting a criminal cover up.
The BBCs fanatical desire to peddle ecofascist theology has just taken them from bias and over the line into criminal conspiracy to pervert the internal affairs of a froeign country. The wild fires that killed hundreds were caused by green fascist policies that denied communities the right to clear wild fire fuel build up, people died solely due to green fascism, no wonder the BBC is silent.
THE BBC: WE HAVE THE MONEY AND THE MEANS TO SUBVERT ENTIRE NATIONS, NOTHING WILL STAND IN OUR WAY AS WE HELP OUR FRIENDS AND DESTROY OUR ENEMIES!
Hi, is there any link available to this?
I just saw this on BBC World. You are 100% correct, it was a complete and utter disgrace. As soon as Sackur talked about ‘rising temperatures’ in the preamble I knew how it was going to go. The fact that temperatures haven’t risen for 10+ years simply doesn’t matter to these people.
Bu there is hope – the Gillard govt is in deep dwang over the carbon tax (and other things, granted). The Aussies are far too canny for the AGW scam, and a lot of the fraud has been exposed in their national media.
Like you I was at a complete loss, it was like a kick in the teeth. Now I have seen bias that would make a cynics toes curl but I have never ever seen the BBC go so far across the line as they did in BBC hardtalk.
As I say they went from bias to criminal conspiracy in one giant leap! I would urge all to see this show trial of a programme, its quite simply the most stunning bias I have ever seen.
Well said, Cassandra. In fact, the BBC censored the information that the flooding was made worse by greenie policies which prevented the building of a dam that would have prevented the worst effects and saved perhaps dozens of lives. Bias in favor of a specific agenda, driven by emotion.
Its not that the Australians are “more canny” than us – its because they live in a democracy and have more free speech than we.
Don’t be too sure of that, Mr Hooke…
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/28/bolts-day-in-court-as-racial-villification-case-kicks-off/
I come from the Northern plains
Where the girls and grass are scanty
Where the creeks run dry or ten feet high
And it’s either drought or plenty.
The Overlander was published as early as 1865 in The Queenslanders’ New Colonial Fire Song Book.
Curse that Global Climate Change! 😉
The Today programme this morning allowed Danny Blanchflower full flow that the unemployment figures (not out yet but he knows what they will show) unlike the unexpected inflation figures yesterday – that everything the Coalition is doing is wrong and he knows how they will have to change their policy. He was not remined that the Party he supports is the one that got us into this mess and his advice contributed to that.
Is he the only ex member of the MPC? He certainly is the only one that the BBC gets to speak. He was allowed something like 5 minutes of government attack – who was there for balance?
From the running order it appears none.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/default.stm
Pity the BBC now unemployment is down when we were assured by the Labour/BBC nexus that it would rise and rise. The rise in inflation was apparently a clear sign that the economy was slowing and that we were heading for a ‘double dip’ recession. What will the Labour/BBC line be now?
Danny – while you were a member of the MPC the UK banking system imploded.
We should listen to you because…
What did you do about the housing boom Mr. Blanchflower? Oh yes nothing….
INBBC report; Islam not mentioned:
“Maria Bashir: Afghanistan’s fearless female prosecutor”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13048968
Though not mutually exclusive, I am as interested in professional media standards of competence and professionalism as I am with overt agenda-driven bias.
On the basis of what it says on the tin, I hence frequent this site mainly for how the compromises in these areas pertain to the uniquely-funded national broadcaster I am compelled to pay for, and who too often seems to be working against the interests of my family and country. Which is insult and injury.
But I do weigh media coverage in comparative terms, and while the BBC does feature highly by virtue of my being an unwilling stakeholder, it can often be striking where others are as in the mire.
Nothing highlights this more than the ‘guests’ chosen on subjects, either to feature or as vox pops or ‘expert’ commentators.
Is it really the case that, out of a country of near 70M, and a not thinly populated political or media estate, only a few dozen usual suspects get rounded up to order, over and over again?
Fair enough that specific areas of news will throw up key protagonists in that field, but these days if you flip between channels there are some talking heads almost on a station to station rota. Even down to ‘victims’ like single muvvas, ‘innit.
I am wondering if it can be explained by the paucity of actual talent amongst the market rates behind and above the cameras, and the fact that they can only keep the false values high by moving all the time.
Hence the iPhone speed dials within SKY were probably not long ago calling in a gob for hire at the BBC, and in 6 months will be doing the same at Ch 4.
Whatever it is, the net effect of surfing news stations at breakfast or lunch or evening is to reach for the off button more than channel selection.
eg:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100083687/the-royal-college-of-nursing-is-a-trade-union-why-on-earth-would-it-support-a-politician-like-andrew-lansley/
‘Opponents of the Government have worked out that if they can appear to be above the political fray then their criticisms will be taken more seriously and receive more air-time on the BBC and elsewhere. We saw this earlier this year when Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, the head of the Community Service Volunteers, criticised the Government’s deficit reduction programme, claiming it would discourage volunteering and undermine the Prime Minister’s Big Society agenda. She was wheeled out on to the Today programme, the BBC News Channel and Sky and, on each occasion, presented as an impartial voice of reason.’
Which of course, the likes of the BBC has rather failed to accurately reflect.
Ban the Burqa.
Not for Islam Not BBC (INBBC) to report:
“Walthamstow: Police hunt woman in burka over knife attacks”http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/33854
I have a question, are the BBC making the cuts to the World Service because it allows them to moan and gurn about the government enforced cuts or are they making cuts in the most cost effective way.
I stumbled across the BBC3 listings for the next week. Have a look here http://grumbleshop.blogspot.com/
All thoughts appreciated.
The BBC is making cuts with the same political agenda as any Labour-led local council. The annual profits from BBC Worldwide alone could easily cover the entire budget of the World Service as it currently stands, no need to cut anything, really.
Instead, they’re doing the equivalent of closing a library while hiring another PR consultant and social media expert.
INBBC on Somali murderous pirates (without Islamic jihad, of course):
BBC radio documentary is informative about this growing Somali crisis, and provides a range of experiences and opinion, but not 1.) and 2.) below:
BBC i-Player (40 min audio)
“The Sea Gangsters”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01095mf/The_Sea_Gangsters
For INBBC:
1.)
“From Barbary Wars to Somali Piracy
The ‘Water’ Jihad has a Long Lineage”
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/7356/barbary-wars-somali-piracy-water-jihad
2.)
“More Catch-and-Release Madness: Pirates Given Nicotine Patches! Then Released…”
http://bigpeace.com/dwest/2011/04/13/more-catch-and-release-madness-pirates-given-nicotine-patches/
I suspect some in the media are starting to recognise their own tautology, as in starting such as this…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100083694/can-we-ever-know-how-any-war-will-end/
…with…
‘I am mystified by the line of questioning which BBC broadcasters seem to think constitutes…’
It is obvious to most that ‘reporting’ from some quarters these days is no such thing, rather such events are purely being used as excuses to push opinion and/or agenda, and hardly impartial ones at that.
The level of idiocy (at best) in such lines of ‘questioning’ to piggyback negatives is being highlighted across the MSM now (plus high profile blogs). It may even, eventually, sink in to those in charge the damage it does… to their careers and, more importantly, the country.
The pols we now have probably deserve the BBC they get. The voting public (who don’t of course get a vote on the BBC as they do with folk who set taxes and start wars, etc)… less so.
Great post. But nothing will change under Patten.
BBC-Greenie’s terrible twins: HARRABIN and BLACK propaganda against shale gas-
Two weeks ago we had the Harrabin propaganda:
http://biasedbbc.tv/2011/04/extracting-michael.html
Now, it’s political BBC-Greenie twin Black propaganda:
“Shale gas ‘worse than coal’ for climate”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13053040
So now, for Black and the usual suspects, Britain’s shale gas is even worse than what makes Black/Harrabin shudder: the dreaded coal. (Don’t be guilty, and destroy the planet by warming yourself with coal, be a martyr and die of hypothermia.)
Black propaganda only quotes the usual suspects. He misses out:
[Only intro is available here]-
“The Good News About Gas”
“Summary:
Thanks to technological advances, in the past few years, vast amounts of natural gas — particularly shale gas — have become economically viable. This development is an unmitigated boon for consumers interested in affordable energy and for governments hoping to reduce their countries’ dependency on foreign oil.
JOHN DEUTCH is Institute Professor of Chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and former U.S. Undersecretary of Energy, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Director of Central Intelligence. He is a present and past adviser to several energy companies and was a participant in the 2010 MIT study “The Future of Natural Gas.”
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67039/john-deutch/the-good-news-about-gas
“Labour shrinks from shale gas good news”
http://thepurplescorpion.blogspot.com/2011/01/labour-shrinks-from-shale-gas-good-news.html
Harrabin and Black and other ecoloons are scared witless by shale gas. The enormous reserves in the US, China, South America, Australia etc means we are NOT running out of non-renewable fuels. So they will “report” any unscientific crap that attacks shale oil.
“Taxpayers are funding the Yes2AV campaign to the tune of £15million
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/04/taxpayers-are-funding-yes2av-campaign.html
‘Yeah, I’ve got a story about corporate greed’, said the industrial? reporter to the newscaster on the handover, as she went on to talk about the Persil/ Surf/ Ariel cartel.
I’m certainly not going to defend price collusion but ‘greed’, you see – quite an emotive word.
Are we ever likely to hear a handover where the droid says, ‘Yeah, I’ve got a story about public sector greed’.
Nah.
BBCC telling you what you should be thinking.
It’s what we do.
The BBC website is leading now with Cameron promises immigration cut. The two headlines they put underneath it are Immigration cap ‘might not work’ from November last year and Mayor’s concerns over migrant cap from September last year. It looks like the BBC editor has decided to try and undermine David Cameron’s speech before he even makes it.
What do you mean ‘It looks like’; I thonk we know it’s more than just appearances.
The BBC just can’t help themselves, local South Today news bulletin carrying a piece about a new theatre being opened in Eastleigh. It seems like good news to most people, maybe not not the local council tax payers who have stumped up most of the 5 million though. But in the report they just had to bring up the cuts and remind us that the Arts council has had its budget slashed. Lets not miss a chance to lever in another reminder about evil Tory cuts.
A news story on a British Subject being beaten to death in Dubai Police custody here.
A non-news story on the same here.
It’s comforting to know that if you are a British Subject suffering a violent death in police custody abroad, the BBC cannot give a flying tinker’s cuss about it. If, however, you are a foreign terrorist who passed through Britain once before ending up in Guantanamo, the BBC will not rest in waging propaganda jihad on your behalf.
“If, however, you are a foreign terrorist who passed through Britain once before ending up in Guantanamo,…..”
Or a British subject beaten to death in Israeli custody.
Can you imagine the reaction?
However a British citizen blown up by Palestinian terrorists receives rather less coverge on the BBC; someone like Mary Jean Gardener for example – http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2011/03/bbc-and-mary-jean-gardner.html
Immigration…. After watching the 1pm news, I think I heard more about dissent in the cabinet, Vince Cable isn’t happy and Labour think its a mixed message and wrong far more than I heard about David Cameron’s actual plans.
Now the most swivel-eyed BNP rep possible – Andrew Bronze (sp?), MEP, last seen declaring himself a Nationalist Socialist on EU election night – is on the News Channel complaining about Cameron’s speech because the Tories aren’t in favor of closing down immigration altogether. Brilliant job of providing alternate opinions on the issue, BBC.
It’s also amusing watching the News Channel gradually work this immigration issue into a story about a Coalition Split™.
VP Joe Biden fell asleep during yesterdays Obamessiah speech about the deficit.
BBC: Zzzzzzzzzz
So many opportunities for puns there…..but imagine if Cheney had fallen asleep during a key Bush policy speech. Would the BBC censor the news?
Or the fuss over Ken Clarke falling asleep during Osborne’s Budget speech. The double standards are so blatant and yet the BBC happily say they are unbiased.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-13079935
Funny isn’t it, if this was Mohammed the bBC would be saying how it was quite all right and understandable for sundry muslims to murder a lot of innocent people in response, whereas here its just a merry wheeze and they can’t understand why anyone would have a problem with it. His very active membership of the British Humanist Society strangely goes unmentioned.
That said any publicity will probably just sell more tickets, but given Herring is a beeboid “comedian” about as funny as a heavy dose of the clap I pity those that fall for the publicity trick and part with good money and time in their life they will never get back to witness in person his “humour”.
It’s always difficult in art and entertaintment to distinguish reporting from free publicity. I think a clear line has been crossed by linking to Herring’s personal blog and I’m not sure about calling it news or publishing the performance date (just in case the reader may not have been aware and wants to buy tickets).
It’s quite clear that is the show had been called Mohammed on a bike the BBC would either have ignored it (denied it the oxygen of free publicity) or treated it as an unreasonable provocation that might endanger our troops. Muslim ‘activists’ would not restrain themselves to handing out a simple tract about Mo, either.
However that wasn’t the bit that most annoyed me. The subeditor can choose what to quote. So why this? “Some of the more backward people of East Anglia (and imagine how backward that must make them) are planning on protesting, which is probably great news, as that is the one that is selling about the worse so far.”
With the exception of Israel would the BBC tolerate such a gratuitous sluragainst another ethnic, national or regional group? See BBC offers apology for Top Gear comments on Mexico or is the policy now that gratuitous ethnic offence (unless directed against the English – they are fair game) while prohibited in private conversation is OK if protected by “quote marks”?
Not bias, and how luvvies maul each other is pretty much fine be me, however could not help but stumble over this current bit of front page news:
‘Actress reveals mental health disorder’
Or… Mrs. Douglas gets depressed (with good reason) because hubby is/was sick, then actually does seem bonkers enough to ‘issue a statement’, and the BBC’s finest spin that into the ridiculous OTT headline above.
And I have to co-fund this sh*t?
Yep best bit of celeb OTT this week from the Beeb!! I thought they would have been a bit more reserved give the total depression they cause across the whole country everyday at 40 or so pence per head !!!