Monday morning and a new OPEN thread for y’all! Off you go….bias, surely not?
Open Thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- MarkyMark Nov 15, 17:20
Midweek 13th November 2024
‘No-one deserves to be shot’ – [img]https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/5/23/1369313591037/This-suspect-in-the-killi-010.jpg?width=300&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=640495598e891cd33c541a473ff801c6[/img] - pugnazious Nov 15, 17:15
Midweek 13th November 2024
I thought the BBC had finally caught up with the news and noted the furore around Allison Pearson and NCHIs… - moggiemoo Nov 15, 17:12
Midweek 13th November 2024
I suspect no thcweaming is required, they’re thick enough already. - Zephir Nov 15, 17:04
Midweek 13th November 2024
Monty Python and the Holy Grail: “Run away, run away” Cue the Benny Hill music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuVjhRT3ybs - Zephir Nov 15, 17:03
Midweek 13th November 2024
“Or I’ll thcweam and thwceam until I’m thick” Courtesy of Richmal Crompton. - Fedup2 Nov 15, 16:55
Midweek 13th November 2024
Zephir Thanks for the ‘translation ‘ … im getting lazy so a bit economical with the background …. - Lefty Wright Nov 15, 16:54
Midweek 13th November 2024
vlad White Conservative women are SO beautiful. Even the black males prefer them. - Lefty Wright Nov 15, 16:47
Midweek 13th November 2024
Zephir I think today’s coppers would probably say something like “You’re under arretht thunshine tho you mutht accompany me to… - Zephir Nov 15, 16:39
Midweek 13th November 2024
[img]https://i.postimg.cc/Nj2mB6yJ/e4lfts32xm731.jpg[/img]
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
8:15 am, there was a report from Stirling. We had basically a program about cuts. With small sections on the personal impact, we had someone who was affected/worried about tuition fees, someone who was unemployed, farmers asking for more subsidies (hard to read it any other way). ie. All in effect saying cuts were bad, more spending is required, particularly for me. This is Labour’s agenda. So where was the balance? Any spending, and even the deficit too needs funding, and that either means putting future generations in debt, or raising taxes. So why for example was there not a personal story about, say, someone on minimum wage where there is 2,500 pounds of tax and NI paid, and the impact that has, in order to pay for this? Where was the interview with someone who’s children are going to have to pay for all this largess? The BBC has a statutory duty for impartiality, and here is a clear example of the BBC pushing one view, that cuts = bad, ignoring the huge damage that taxes do to people on minimum wage. This program is a clear example of the BBC breaking their charter.
That would be a big no no for the BBC, they cannot afford to show or air or present the case for why the cuts are required nor can they do the usual beeboid trick of ‘personalizing’ the issue where they invite special guests who can attest to the impacts and consequences of political decisions on a purely personal level.
The individualisation that the BBC specialises in is a favourite of theirs and it has been expertly refined oer the years and they use it to renforce the BBC narrative, support BBC allies and attack and smear and misrepresent BBC political enemies.
To expect the BBC to use one of their most effective propaganda tools to help and assist their mortal enemies would to expect the impossible.
Not on the Beeb yet that I can see, but I bet it won’t be long. The CEO of the Met Office has claimed he has received death threats from, um ‘Climate Change Sceptics’…
Very (Michael) Fishy.
Please please please promote this tool. If it’s not immediately clear how this can be used to directly challenge the BBC then please read my blog post on it here.
It’s good, isn’t it?
Ironically I came across it when being used by so-called ‘qualities’ being snooty/snotty about tabloids (with, to be fair, some reason on churnalistic grounds), but what soon amused was when it soon started biting them back on agenda-driven cut and pasting from ‘approved’ sources.
If, like me, you are a fan of the concept of ‘BBC English’ – a way of speaking that is accent-free and dialect-free, designed as a ‘language’ that everyone understands without having to resort to interpretation – then you might want to stay away from this video report.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/13103173.stm
The BBC, both on line and on my local news, are constantly asking how ‘the cuts will affect you- please get in touch’. Well surprise, surprise, it is unlikely for anybody to contact the BBC and say ‘well without the cuts in the medium term I am going to be in deep financial difficulty because the government has run out of money and I won’t have a pension, NHS or new school books for my child’. Hence all the bad stories without any balance.
If the Guardian is here, can Beeboids be far behind?
The Guardian = Socialist Worker
In seeing who is reporting on the ‘Martyr Tomlinson for the lefties”; I noticed that the socialist worker had joined the Guardian along with the beeb, with reporting on the inquest.
Apologies if somebody has already pointed this out.
Israeli boy Daniel Viflic dies after rocket hits bus
An Israeli teenager wounded when a Palestinian rocket hit a bus has died of his injuries. Daniel Viflic, 16, was on a school bus in southern Israel on 7 April when it was hit by an anti-tank missile fired from the Gaza Strip. The driver was slightly hurt in the attack, which happened just after the other children had been dropped off. Nineteen Palestinians died in the ensuing wave of Israeli air strikes and Palestinian counter-attacks. It was the most serious violence since Israel’s conflict with Hamas in Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009.About 1,400 Palestinians, more than half of them civilians, and 13 Israelis, including 10 soldiers, were killed.
So the bBC reports that a child has been murdered by their eternal victims ‘Hamas’. Have another look at the story in which to see how the bBC whitewashes the whole story:
For a start the bBC describes a guided sophisticated missile as a rocket. Why? Could it be because when somebody mentions a rocket we automatically think of something that you purchase prior to Bonfire night. Small, unguided and not that dangerous.
The bBC then mentions that the bus was struck after other children had been dropped off, but that 19 Palestinians have died in the Israeli response. So how many children were dropped off,1,10,20? Actually it was 50. But hey don’t worry as the driver was only slightly wounded , not wounded, slightly wounded. However 19 Pals have died, Pals, no mention of the 14 terrorist and 5 civilians, 19 pals.
Then in order for you to see Hamas as only victim and Israel as evil. The bBC trots out the 1400 were killed by the Jews of which more than half were civilians. Really because the lat I looked Hamas has admitted that over 800 of those folks were…Hamas gunmen., But that doesn’t explain the other 600 civilians. I mean we have all heard stories from the bBC about children who were killed while playing outside during a full scale invasion of Gaza. Err excuse me, children playing outside while there is a war on? What the bBC isn’t telling you is that Hamas have children playing on the roofs of their arms depots, operation centres etc in which to stop Israel from striking them, problem for Hamas is until 2008/9 the IDF played that game. Since then Israel has stopped hitting targets due to Hamas penchant for child shields. You’d think a so called world class news org would mention that little snippet, just as you’d think they would mention that that dead Italian Aid worker. (You really should have a look on his face book page) was killed for corrupting the locals. Something about him being gay and living with his boyfriend in Gaza?
Of the 1400 deaths, I would be surprised if more than 100 were innocent. And most of them should have acted on the explicit and repeated warnings given by the Israelis.
Anyway – live by the sword, die by the sword.
BBC News 24
2pm
After a report on AV (in which Ed Miliband’s pro-AV speech was covered before David Cameron’s anti-AV speech), there was an interview with an academic speaking from Oxford. Emily Maitlis opened the interview with “let’s challenge some of the myths here”, and then asked a series of leading questions (which were more like statements) about various anti-AV arguments. Each anti-AV argument was then criticised by the academic as being untrue or “complete nonsense”. At no point were any of the academic’s anti-No2AV arguments challenged in any way, nor were any of the pro-AV arguments ubjected to any scrutiny whatsoever. It was entirely one-sided, and sounded like a rehearsed Yes2AV ‘rebuttal’ session.
So only the anti-AV views were “myths”?
Only the anti-AV views ARE myths. Tchah ! Pah !
It’s off to the Bill Ayers Re-Education Camp for Recalcitrant Conservatives with you, sir.
Indeed: from the start of the interview, the arguments against AV were presented as ‘myths’. None of the pro-AV arguments were even questioned.
Like so many beeboids Maitlas confuses license payers money with Daddy’s Trust Fund.
Personally, I favour electoral reform, but not what’s being proposed. AV at constituency level only? So (although at the moment not so likely) the Lib Dems could end up winning seats far in excess of their percentage of the popular vote nationwide and be kingmakers in perpetuity. No, if we’re going to have ‘AV’, let’s have a run off system to let the people decide who governs. Noone votes for a hung Parliament.
Very unenlightening esponse from BBC:
Thank you for contacting us regarding our coverage on BBC News on 18 April.
“Firstly I’d like to apologise for the delay in our reply. We appreciate that our correspondents expect a quick response and we’re sorry that you’ve had to wait on this occasion.
Please be assured your concerns were raised with editors at BBC News.
We disagree that the interview conducted by Emily Maitlis with Dr Alan Renwick, was one sided. Dr Renwick was interviewed as an academic and political analyst and as you say, we had shown two clips of campaign speeches from both sides of the debate in advance of the interview. Dr Renwick was asked to analyse the arguments. We had several items on the News Channel throughout the day which further examined and demonstrated all sides of the argument, including further clips from both campaigns ( for example Vince Cable and Lord Reid ) .
In all of our coverage on BBC News we strive to uphold the highest standards of impartiality, and take great care that balance and fairness are maintained. The coverage of the AV Referendum was no exception to this.
Please be assured your complaint will be added to our audience log, a daily report of audience feedback that’s made available to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.”
Dr Renwick only ‘analysed’ (ie. criticised) the arguments from the anti-AV side. And the interviewer even described the anti-AV arguments as ‘myths’ which Dr Renwick could ‘challenge’.
Female Beeboid Caroline something reporting from the NY Stock Exchange about Standard and Poors reducing the US long-term debt rating to “negative”. Caroline first explains what it means: financial analysts know we’re screwed and that the Republicans aren’t able at the moment to get enough spending cuts to fix things. So cuts are necessary, no matter what.
But since this is the BBC, they must get in a White House defense, so Caroline then says that the Obamessiah Administration says this decision by Standard and Poors is “political”. In this way, the BBC tells you that there is no real problem and that The Obamessiah is still doing well, and any negative opinions are just noise from political opponents.
It’s a bit of BS, really. S&P is owned by McGraw-Hill, which is a known Republican donor, but is considered one of the most trusted business information sources out there. When they make a ratings decision, it’s because they know what they’re talking about, not to score political points. But the BBC will pass along the smear unquestioningly anyway.
They simply can’t help themselves but be servants of the White House. This is unsurprising, of course, as they were all devoted to Him even before the arrival of the new White House spokesman, who is a personal friend of Katty Kay’s and husband of her business partner. But it’s been getting worse.
On its present course under Obama the US is going to hell in a handbasket.
Who knew ? Has the BBC ever once, just once, explained the US debt crisis and how much the debt is being increased under Obama ?
I did see a good explanation of what has been happening today on an economics blog I follow. Unlike the BBC it is genuinely impartial and explained how Obama’s policies have been a gamble that looks like it is going wrong..
http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/wp/author/shaun-richards/
The “Yes to AV” voices sure are getting the lion’s share of air time today. Red Ed and St. Vince on more than twice as much as Cameron saying he feels “in my gut” that AV is wrong. Each time the BBC introduces the story from the Yes perspective, that it will be more “fair”. They show the Yes voices, then Cameron, then another Yes voice. This is followed by the Ross Hawkins’s voice-over explaining how it works, so that the public knows just how “fair” it is.
The BBC is openly advocating for AV.
This really needs to be used to hammer home the message that the BBC is anything but balanced. The simple totting up of the air minutes or the number of guests given to each side should easily show the Yes camp getting some 2.5 times as much coverage as the No camp.
This issue cannot be clouded with distortions such as giving one side more (less!) coverage because they are the Government in power, or combining Tory & Lib Dem air time because they “are on the same side in coalition” or having union leader after union leader getting airtime. It’s a clear cut simple Yes/No debate, and it can be easily proven that the BBC is giving more coverage to one side.
Craig are you on it?
But Vince Cable is still a blithering idiot.
“But Vince Cable is still a blithering idiot”.
Well with Lord Lardarse of Kingston-upon-Hull having left the Commons there was a vacancy to be filled.
Really ? He says he is an economist.
His out-of-order outburst against Cameron’s immigration statement must have cost the Libs a lot of local votes. But maybe not in leafy outer South West London where his seat is.
How many more times can Clegg persuade Cameron not to sack Cable ?
(Anyone Cable’s age who calls himself Vince is either childish or geriatric. Or both.
Just because the BBC is pushing for it doesn’t automatically make AV wrong.
No, just more suspect.
‘Just because the BBC is pushing for it doesn’t automatically make AV wrong.’
Rationally, I have to agree.
However, as anything the BBC pushes for tends to be what the BBC sees as in its interests, and therefore anything everyone else needs to swing behind, it makes it rather hard not to react poorly to it. Especially considering the glee club wheeled out so far in support. Plus the very dubious inclusion on one Miliband, E.
http://order-order.com/2011/04/19/state-of-the-race-double-poll-boost-for-no/
Have to say, the attitude to their perceived lowers that the BBC usually embodies does make it hard to get onside such a bandwagon.
One presumes that from the Breakfast sofa to Newsnight, there will be many a ‘guest’ to offer their ‘opinion’ on the ‘correct’ way to vote as days go by.
I simply hark back to Clark County and the Graun’s invaluable contribution to democracy there. With a wry smile.
It doesn’t matter if AV is right or wrong. The problem is that the BBC is slanting their coverage to support it.
NIGERIA.
More cuts needed.
-Stop forcing British taxpayers to fund BBC Muslim Hausa Service.
In this typical politically obscuring report, the one central fact which INBBC don’t want us to know is that the north in mainly Muslim, and the south is mainly Christian.
Now, in the INBBC report below this fact is only mentioned in the sidebar by INBBC reporter, one Mohammed Jameel Yushau.
There’ve been election in Nigeria, and which of the two main religious groups appears to have won? The Christians, reading between the INBBC lines. And what, reading betweeen the lines again, do some of the northern Muslims do?:-
INBBC report:
“Nigeria election: Riots over Goodluck Jonathan win”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13107867
But it is what Muslims do, innit? That is why any attempt to persuade Muslim countries to embrace democracy as we know it is doomed to failure. You may as well try to plait fog.
Abolish the Licence Fee
I’ve not posted for a while but I’ve certainly been reading the forum and listening to the Radio 4 Today program in its full glory(!).
Just over a month ago I removed the tuner from my TV set so I am unable to watch any live TV (I wouldn’t recommend this unless you know what you are doing). I have stopped paying my TV licence because I no longer wish to support the dumbed down, biased, and financially wasteful organisation called the BBC. The main reason is the dumbed down programming – a quick comparison between news, science and documentary programming in the last 30 years on youtube shows what has happened. And people like Sissons and Buerk cannot both be wrong. The bias creeps in when the organisation assumes or give opinions without understanding or coveying the facts in an intelligent unpatronising matter.
I now use my PS3 to watch recorded movies, DVDs, and documentaries which I can choose and watch when I see fit. There are also internet radio stations that provide quality news. I have also found that respected organisations such as Reuters and The Associated Press have provided factual news during the crises in Japan. Needless to say I’m much happier I don’t pay for something I don’t want to feel I have to get personal value from!
I’m strongly in favour of public broadcasting and believe it can be aspirational for society, but what has happened to the BBC is an utter tragedy. I do believe now that it will be technology (such as on demand TV over the internet) that undermines the organisation as it stands, because sorting it out is such a controversial issue, especially when it has created its own ‘inner sanctum’. And its just not improving…
strange how the story about the downgrading of the USA credit rating has slipped into obscurity on the BBC website. Defend Obama at all costs. This story is huge yet you will struggle to find it.
The BBC already told us earlier that, while superficially worrying, it’s a politically motivated stunt by Standard & Poors. Or that’s what the White House says, and they repeated it unquestioningly. Oh, and any long-term difficulties will be mostly due to Republican intransigence, not because the Democrats and the President aren’t acting responsibly.
DP, totally agree. Deluded and totally up obamas arse.
S&P are a credit rating agency. They depend on their credibility for their livelihood. It is extremely unlikely they would risk their good name by trying to score points. They live and die on being seen as impartial arbiters. It just goes to show how desperate the left is when it has to try and shoot the messenger. Face it. Barry o is nothing but slick marketing hiding the usual spend spend spend policies of the neo-Coms.
BBC One News at Ten show their priorities: They headline with a soundbite from the leader of the opposition (Yes to AV) then secondly we get the Prime Minister (No to AV).
It makes me laff hearing Cameron saying it’s important we say NO. If it was that important why did he say YES to the referendum that no-one, not even the Lib-Dems want?
I thought that Radio 7/Radio 4 Extra is meant to be an archive of old stuff, some of it classic.
Today had the start of a Rumpole story, Bill Bryson, Round the Horne, episode 1 of Ben Hur,
……etc.
But 3 times today they have played that leftie drone Arthur Smith (who he) plus repeating the “memoirs” of some unknown guy from Southall.
Many of us have run away from the endless bias of Radio 4 to find solace in Radio 7. But the bastards are following us !
Just watched a World News article about MEPs and how a very few are fiddling their expenses. Apparently, many people are calling for MEPs to be full time, not then being allowed second jobs cos that’s bad and that MEPs are very important to the running of the EU.
As you would execpt, absolutely no counter voice saying they merely rubber stamp already agreed ‘directives’ or that there are many people calling for the disbandment of the EU Parliament.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13124591
Some claims made in the linked article:
A woman told the BBC by phone crowds were still large late on Monday.
A human rights campaigner said security forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad had fired shots at the protesters, reports said.
A human rights campaigner, who is in contact with the protesters, told
I would have imagined that all these statements should have been prefixed with scare quotes as the claims are made by a source, to not use them means that the BBC has accepted these claims as factual without any evidence which is something they would never do if the claims had been made by an Israeli:
In finishing I also found on the JPost site that the young schoolchild who was injured by the tank rocket fired at the school bus has unfortunately died from his wounds, the BBC does mention his death, however, it then spends the rest of the article making its normal defence of the murdering terrorists.
The Cameroon was being “interviewed” by Evan “Um” Davis (The Prince Albert of the BBC…) this morning. There were so many interruptions and outbreaks of shouting down, it was difficult to ascertain what the Cameroon was actually saying amongst the cacophony of the continual Davis interruptions – so much so, I turned it off in exasperation. Anyone know who won?
I don’t think Cameron was able to finish more than a couple of sentences. I have never heard so many interruptions in an interview.
Lese-majeste
I have!
Yes Evan was very persistent but, y’know, Cameron just sat there and took it. There’s little point criticising Today if the interviewees who can’t get three words in a row broadcast refuse to complain. The only time Dave did get his point across, albeit rather obliquely, was his implied intention not to support Brown’s appointment as head of the IMF. Mind you, a politician with a pair would have replied to Evan “over my dead body!” But, of course, such honesty and directness would scupper Dave’s appointment to some supranational body (by Ed?) when he in turn leaves the ruin he will have caused.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9462000/9462186.stm
I’ve heard worse. Especially when BBC bias was in its apogee on the TODAY programme when Tony Blair became Labour leader.
I don’t know if Evan Davis conducted the interview the way he did because he’s biased, a bad interviewer or both. The latter I imagine. Fortunately, I treat myself to the charms and delights of Shelagh Fogarty and Nicky Campbell on BBC Breakfast 5Live – TODAY just became too unbearable long ago – so it’s hard to form a considered opinion on Mr Davis.
I thought the Prime Minister came over well. It sounded like he was being interviewed by a petulant, argumentative sixth former and I think it was right that he rose above it. Humphrys and Naughtie do bias far better and yes, there’s plenty of times when they’ve interviewed conservatives that what Llew suggests below just begged to be heard.
With regard to the question on whether the Prime Minister would like to see Gordon Brown as head of the IMF, it seemed to me Cameron dealt with it in a statesmanlike manner that befits his Office.
Sorry – I thought Cameron was mealy-mouthed on Brown. He clearly has no intention to let Brown get the IMF job – but never actually said so. Why not ? The main political fight right now is over the cuts – and Cameron should miss no opportunity of lambasting Brown for causing them, both by creating huge debt year after year, and for his folly now admitted publicly in changing the regulatory framework for the City.
“Some do it with a bitter look
Some with a flattering word
The cowardddoes it with a kiss
The brave man with a sword”
If any politician ever needed a good pig-sticking it is the oleagenous Brown.
And Cameron still doesn’t realise the Tories have a problem with the BBC’s bias. Don’t they have a media department? Are they honestly that blind to it?
It’s about time some of them start saying things like “what’s the point of asking me a question if you continually interrupt” or “please show me the same respect you gave to xxx Labour person earlier” etc. Otherwise this is just going to get worse until it reaches the point where the BBC do flash up banners saying “vote Labour”.
I thought Cameron handled himself rather well, for a change. He kept on message no matter how much Davis tried to draw him into criticizing Cable. Although, I didn’t really get the sense that Davis was trying to use Cable’s dissent to play up a Coalition Split narrative, but more trying to get him to say that, while the Coalition has stuck together on key economic and big-picture policies, there is disagreement between the parties on social-type issues. Cameron wisely didn’t even let it get that far.
But he still doesn’t seem to grasp how to explain the immigration policy properly. Davis had him on semantics, and he couldn’t get out of it. It should have been very simple to say that the problematic immigration numbers were due mostly to the fake students and whatnot and that cracking down on those would reduce the numbers to previous levels. He couldn’t do it, but still managed to stay on message anyway.
But Davis kept trying to nail him on anything possible. Nearly every statement was followed by and attempt to define the terms and score a point. “Let’s just be clear on that”, “another way of expressing it is…”, etc.
He also tried to twist around the localization plans into a Tory lie. He played up a couple of minor issues as putting the lie to the entire plan of giving power back to local councils, even calling Cameron “disingenuous” about the whole Localization position, simply because of one rule about taxation.
Yes, in theory it’s the interviewers job to take up a contrary position and point out holes in their guest’s arguments. But this was a series of pre-determined attempts at point-scoring and putting words in the guest’s mouth that I just don’t hear when Labourites are on.
There was a program on BBC news this morning about Cardiff and the cuts. Standard new Labour press release style of broadcasting. 1. Cuts in the public sector are bad. 2. Those cuts are bad for the private sector. Nice bit of reframing. Lots of personal stories. So where’s the bias? Again, no personal stories about the people who are going to pay the cost for not cutting. 1. Future generations. With government debts at the 300,000 per household, its a major problem [1] 2. Tax payers. We have people on minimum wage where the tax associated with their employment is 2,500 a year. Why no interview with someone on minimum wage about their tax bill to pay for it? It shows the BBC’s bias. We can attack the cuts by omitting the consequences of how the public sector is funded [1]. When you include all the off balance sheet debts that the BBC also ignores.
Lets see how the BBC respond to this complaint.
Standard approach at the BBC. Cuts = Bad. No consequences to spending like mad
1/3 of employment in Wales is in the public sector. The Beeboids believe this status quo is sustainable and must be maintained at all costs and will not permit a rational discussion about it.
‘DW’ (Germany) reports:
“Europe’s populists build on hostility to Brussels, immigration and Islam”
(BBC-NUJ’s non-populists build on friendship to Chris Patten, Vince Cable and Tariq Ramadan.)
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14998932,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-eu-2092-rdf
Good clip from the UKIP conference 2009 on BBC bias:-
‘Even Sian Berry [Green Party campaigner, Norwich North by-election] … said “I can’t believe it, we were beaten by crappy UKIP … even though the BBC was with us all the way” .’
OK, listening now to Bowen interviewed by Victoria Derbyshire on 5Live. With regard to getting in humanitarian aid Bowen persistently refers to ‘Libya may allow this’, It all depends on what the Libyans allow’…
It turned out he was actually referring to Gaddafi’s side.
A few days previously I’d heard him refer to Gaddafi’s side as ‘Libya’, and he quickly corrected himself to let the listener know he was referring to Gaddafi’s side. Not now though. General Dannant a few days ago highlighted how Bowen was reporting in a way that gave succour to Gaddafi. It seems he’s getting worse by the day.
Victoria Derbyshire quoted to him what the Italian Frattini had been told by the Rebel Council with regard to casualties and Bowen was very quick to pour scorn on their claims.
As I’ve mentioned before, if true that Bowen is getting increasingly partisan in his reporting on Libya, as I now have no doubt is the case, I would venture it’s because he sees a very real danger that if Gaddafi is toppled it will result in a Libyan Government that isn’t anti-Semitic. This would be Bowen’s worst nightmare.
If it continues quiet at work today, I’ll post the show’s recording and when its on.
Can’t agree on two points. Conflating the government and the country is common practise. Gaddafi is still the government of Libya although challenged by a civil war and the might of NATO.
The second point is that with the probable al-Qaeda ties of the rebels the likelihood of a non antisemitic Libyan regime is approaching nil.
I see the logic of what you’re saying deegee as far as it goes, but when I heard Bowen a few days ago refer to Gaddafi’s regime as ‘Libya’ Bowen obviously knew he’d made a slip reporting from Gaddafi’s side or he wouldn’t have straight away corrected himself?
Who thinks a new regime in Libya, even a nominally democratic one, wouldn’t be anti-Jewish?
No-one?
Given the bias creeping into Bowen’s reporting, it appears he does. With Gaddafi he’s got a sure fire genocidaire bet, without him who knows. Anti-Semites get paranoid about these things. With Egypt seemingly poised to fall into MB hands, maybe he’s scared having Libya spoil the anti-Jew party?
Oh, 10 years after 9/11, and years after what ‘Jihadwatch’, ‘Religion of Peace’, etc have been analysing, INBBC gets a clue:
“American jihad: Facing up to homegrown militancy”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13068133
Oh, and on NIGERIA, 100 years late, INBBC’s Hausa (Muslim) Service – paid for by British taxpayers, has INBBC’s Muhammad Jameel Yushau most misleadingly saying:
“It is the first time in Nigeria’s recent history that the election result has exposed the huge division between the Muslim north and Christian south.”
Oh no it isn’t; it’s just that it is the first time INBBC hasn’t censored it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13126971
” That ‘Communal Violence’ In Nigeria, That ‘Civil War’ In the Sudan”
(by Hugh Fitzgerald, 2010)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/fitzgerald-that-communal-violence-in-nigeria-that-civil-war-in-the-sudan.html
I see the bBC is playing its usual game of obfuscation (or telling half the story) when it comes to ‘Islam:
Royal wedding: EDL and Muslim group apply to protest
The English Defence League and a group called Muslims Against Crusades have sought permission to protest outside Westminster Abbey on royal wedding day, Scotland Yard has said.
So reading the above do you get the impression that the EDL (Whom I find a stain on humanity) are going to protest against the royal wedding? Or could it be that they are applying in which to launch a counter protest against a bunch of rabble rousing Islamic idiots whose sole aim is to generate a backlash against Muslims in the Uk so as to fill their ranks with your average Muslim who don’t support their cause of biting the hand that feeds you (Metaphorically speaking that is) I mean we all know who the Muslims against crusades are (and their agenda) yet the bBC doesn’t have that information at hand so refers to them as a group calling itself.. Funny that?
Less than an hour after the bBC reported that two groups had applied for permission to protest outside the location of the Royal wedding. The Guardian is reporting that Scotland Yard has refused permission for Muslims against crusades to do so.
Lets see how long it takes for the bBC to do likewise.
Time now 14.08
Early evening and finally they admit that it was ‘muslims against crusades’ who were refused and therefore the EDL counter demo won’t take place.
No retraction of the earlier false story either.
And I concur with pounce’s views on the EDL, mac and bBC. On the ball as ever pounce.
Meanwhile four ‘acknowledged’ muslim (NOT “Asian”) killers get off for the Lozells riots killing, bound to kick off there again after these outrages, bBC seems happy they only killed someone, not as if they just burned a book or drew a cartoon or anything that ‘deserved’ punishment.
A story that has flown right under the BBC’s radar. Not sure is this is a policy decision – the BBC doesn’t like the Greens getting spanked nor a BDS effort defeated OR just plain laziness, the BBC has simply ignored national coverage in Ausrtralia OR just the odd attitude considering the deep ties between the UK and Australia, that what happens in Oz just isn’t news.
Fiona Byrne, the Green mayor of the Sydney municipality of Marrickville introduced a boycott of Israel resolution to the council and then ran for a State parliamentary seat. Her loss has been fairly universally attributed to her BDS stance. A report commissioned by the council showing the boycott would cost almost $AUS4 million put the final nail in the coffin and now she and the Green Party are being spanked just about everywhere except the BBC.
Greens’ wilting appealTruth, justice and the Marrickville way
Middle East shames inner west
Not being a money whizz, can anyone explain what this is all about?:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2011/04/usa_that_ratings_agency_downgr.html
I fully accept it may be totally impartial, but a few phrases seeded in there make me wonder.
Especially, as I understand it, the BBC is not keen on the on the way the US situation might reflect on their plans for their mate’s plans for the UK.
What partisan drivel. Mason is saying the US can’t and won’t default on debt ever, because we print the planet’s reserve currency. He also thinks that S&P is a joke. The Obamessiah says it’s a political stunt, and the BBC falls in line because they share His ideology.
What is it with these neo-Marxists and their belief that debt is a doddle? It’s every single Beeboid. You’ll never get an honest discussion about the US from the BBC.
Thank you. I suspected it went beyond reporting.
The BBC News 24 business report has just told us that the gold price is approaching fifteen dollars.
It must have given quite a start to those who have been trading it today at a price one hundred times larger!!
Sadly the BBC continues to employ people who have no idea about their subject….
What does David Cameron, Roger Harrabin and Charles Manson have in common?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8460868/Charles-Manson-breaks-silence-to-warn-of-global-warming.html
And I don’t mean none are scientists.
INBBC’s Islamised propaganda in the pre-ROYAL WEDDING period.
In the following report, INBBC politically organises its propaganda so that the Muslims Against Crusades (Choudary) and their bid to have an anti-Royal Wedding demo, is pushed by INBBC as a criticism of the English Defence League (which INBBC and NUJ are diametrically opposed to, POLITICALLY, at all times).
The EDL had simply said they would demonstrate against Muslims Against Crusades if it came to it. (Similar to what INBBC approves of when UAF demonstrates against EDF.)
And to attempt to clinch its Islamic political argument in this pre-Royal Wedding period, to whom does INBBC turn, to decide on the rights and wrongs of the demonstrating issue? Why none other than INBBC’s Islamic chums at Quilliam.
INBBC’s stealth Islamisation of Britain. I feel a parody TV series coming on: Just Quilliam.
“Royal wedding: Muslim group’s Abbey protest blocked”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13125846
Still the cuts mantra goes on. Tv news at 6 went to Machynlleth and found – surprise surprise- that everyone was worried to the point of despair about the Cuts. A butcher blamed the Cuts for his poor trade. And so on and so on. It really is so obvious and becoming tiresome.
Do they really expect us to believe this garbage?
Brown: “outstanding” and “eminently qualified”
Cameron: “Vindictive” and “small minded”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13127225
Notice how at the beginning and end of this article Miliband and Blanchflower (of whom more later) get set the tone and the last word with the message
Brown: “outstanding” and “eminently qualified”
Cameron: “Vindictive” and “small minded”
No one could ever accuse Brown of being petty or vindictive could they?
Miliband and Blanchflower’s arequoted twice here – but who is Prof Blanchflower and how impartial is he? His CV on the net helps a bit, He is the economics editor of the New statesman for one
Click to access dgbcv2-11.pdf
http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/david_blanchflower
He writes articles such as, “Portugal is cutting its way deeper into crisis, could britain follow?” and “so who exactly supports Osbourne?”
I am guessing his sympathies may not be aligned with Mr Cameron.
Did the BBC seek the views of other past and present members of the MPC (I am guessing not) and if so what were they? Why did they feature Blanchflowers vitriolic personal opinion and not mine or anyone who agrees with David Cameron? I have an opinion about Gordon Brown and his economic competence. Suffice it to say I would not welcome him getting the chairmanship of the IMF (or indeed the tresurer position of a parish council).
remember readers,
Brown: “outstanding” and “eminently qualified”
Cameron: “Vindictive” and “small minded”
“David Cameron gets a word in edgeways on the BBC to stymie Gordon Brown’s IMF ambitions”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/100084353/david-cameron-gets-a-word-in-edgeways-on-the-bbc-to-stymie-gordon-browns-imf-ambitions/
Did anyone catch Nick Robinson’s brief exchange with Ed Milliband on how Labour “got it wrong” on immigration? Robinson put on the appearance of giving hard questions but it was obviously a set-up for Ed to explain away the mistakes before a local election. There was clearly a Labour script to read out, and Robinson let him stay on it. Not even remotely as challenging as what Evan Davis did to Cameron this morning. No attempt to reframe ideas, no putting words in Milliband’s mouth.
Worst of all, and in my opinion proof of the bias at the BBC, Robinson failed to ask the most important question of all about Labour’s failed immigration policies: Does Ed think they got it wrong on enforced multi-culturalism? That’s the whole basis for their policies, and is more important than whether or not they lied about how many immigrants they thought would come in. I realize part of the discussion was predicated on Glasman’s statement, but this is more important and there was plenty of time to ask, instead of gift-wrapping a question for Milliband to lay out a Labour platform about bashing the bankers and jobs-training for the locals. A very poor move by Robinson.
It either didn’t occur to Robinson to ask about multi-culturalism, in which case he’s failed at his job and is biased, or he was told by his superior not to bring it up, as BBC policy prevents questioning the very concept.
DP wrote:
“Did anyone catch Nick Robinson’s brief exchange with Ed Milliband on how Labour “got it wrong” on immigration? “
I did and I didn’t. I turned the TV on at the time the story was been aired, but as I needed to sort my shit out. (Something about getting some food down my neck) Anyway what I did see was a woman saying she would vote Labour next time. For the life in me I don’t think I have ever seen the bBC air such a view outside an election. They then showed Milliband popping into somebody’s house for a cup of tea and all I could think of was, if that was me, I would have poured a full (hot) kettle over him. I would also have shouted out ‘Allah Ackba’ at the time so as to really mess with the bBC?
Perhaps because they have become so mired in opinion and spin itself, the BBC’s finest also seems to be untroubled by what this ‘leader’ tries to avoid by claiming he ‘doesn’t think’ an awful lot, vs. being pinned down on what he actually stands behind.
Any junior exec attempting such waffle in a company would last 10 seconds on such a basis. In the Labour Party and the BBC it seems almost a guarantee to high office.
What is with the BBC and Cuba?
They make it sound so nice and reasonable, its gangster thug rulers ruling by the AK47 and their bully boy secret police are praised and made out to be wonderful people.
WTF is it with these beeboid scum? They heap scorn on dictators in Arab lands while praising Cuban dictators, I have never once yet inform the viewer of the true nature of the Cuban regime and how it clings to power, the people are just as downtrodden and whipped as any Libyan under Gadaffi.
The Castro brothers we are told are in politics as though they were elected, politicians they most certainly aint, they are bullying nasty dictators with their boots on the neck of those who cannot fight back.
The nature of politics is democracy, there is no democracy in Cuba just evil old killers holding onto power with their thug scum henchmen.
Most of them in the News Dept. believe that Cuba would have been a successful Communist paradise if only the nasty old US had stopped being an imperialist bully and allowed it to flourish.
How the bBC goes about whitewashing the vile evil nature of Hamas:
Vittorio Arrigoni killing: Suspects die in Gaza siege
Two suspects in the killing of Italian citizen Vittorio Arrigoni in Gaza have died during a siege by Hamas police, officials say.A third suspect was injured and three of the suspects’ associates were captured during the operation in the Nuseirat refugee camp, in central Gaza.One of the two dead men may have committed suicide. Mr Arrigoni, 36, was abducted last Thursday by Salafists and then hanged.Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that governs Gaza, condemned the killing of the pro-Palestinian activist in Gaza City as an attack on “the humanity… of the Palestinian people” and two arrests were made earlier. Salafists are radical Islamists who consider Hamas, itself an Islamist organisation, to be too moderate…. This is the first kidnapping of a foreigner since Hamas came to power in 2007. It is being seen as a challenge to the Hamas government’s authority, our Gaza correspondent says.
Yet again the bBC tells another story, a story which is devoid of any facts. For example while the bBC doesn’t know anything about who the guys who got slotted where, Reuters is reporting that one was a Jordanian and before he was shot he killed his mate by lobbing a grenade at him.
I also like how the bBC reports how Hamas sees the murder of Vittorio as an attack on humanity. Yup the same group which throws people of buildings, fires anti-tank rockets at school buses and launches mortar and rockets attacks in the direction of schools during school time is shown to have a nice warm cuddly side.
Then there’s the little misdirection of how this was the first kidnap since Hamas came to power, err No!. Hamas came to power in 2006, they took power (The battle for Gaza) during 2007 when they murdered a lot of Fatah people and became the only jihadists in the village. Which means (As everybody else is reporting ) that this was the first kidnap since the bBCs Alan Johnsons in..2007.
Nothing like whitewashing a homicidal religious bunch of bigots eh bBC!
Could be the start of a long list…
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2011/04/01/net-neutrality-what-the-bbc-says-and-what-the-bbc-does/
Some of the comments so far are… supportive (albeit in a familiar ‘it must be true because the BBC says it is’ manner)… mind.
New to me, but from the Telegraph back in January, so others may have seen this already.
James MacMillan, eminent Scottish composer, writes ..
“In my Labour Party days, during the 80s miners’ strike, my local branch was visited by a representative of Militant Tendency, who were on a recruitment drive. The Trotskyists have used entryism as an effective manouevre for a long time. It was not just the Labour Party they targeted, but many of our other institutions. Years after this Militant spoke to us (again in a VERY LOUD VOICE) I saw him cropping up as a senior news and current affairs reporter on BBC Scotland. Readers of this newspaper and these blogs already know the extent of Leftist infiltration of the media, but I remain shocked at how successful they have been in achieving this; a long and carefully prepared campaign.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/jmacmillan/100050656/are-brain-dead-scottish-trots-planning-to-desecrate-holocaust-memorial-day-again-this-year/
“BBC pension chairman takes hardline on £1.1bn deficit”
(- ‘Newsnight’-NUJ permitting?)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/apr/20/bbc-pension-chairman-deficit
The bBC , the Sound of Music in Gaza and half the story.
Audio slideshow: Gaza music school
The al-Qattan Music School in Gaza is a unique project. It is the only place for children to learn music in the Gaza Strip. The school specialises in Arabic instruments such as the Kanoun and the Oud. The academy was destroyed during the conflict with Israel in January 2009 – but under the leadership of its director, Ibrahim al-Najjar, it has now been rebuilt and the lessons have resumed.
Oh those poor Gazans, having nowhere to play music after the nasty Jews destroyed a music school. I mean how could they . Just so you have a little more background information on this establishment here is a snippet from its website:
The Gaza Music School (GMS) was established in response to growing demand for music education voiced by children and parents who attend the Qattan Center for the Child (QCC) in Gaza City, one of the A. M. Qattan Foundation’s main projects. Classes at the GMS commenced on 5 October 2008, offering the first structured musical teaching programme ever in Gaza. Training classes in oud, violin, piano, guitar and qanoun were held bi-weekly, with one weekly theoretical session involving all 31 students.
And here is a little news report from the bBC dated Aug 2007:
I lead a group of 26 musicians – we play traditional Palestinian music. But for the last two months we haven’t been able to work. This group, Hamas, believe they are the leaders of Islam. The violin, piano, flute, all these instruments are banned. Only the drum is allowed. They say any other instrument is not mentioned in the Koran.
And here’s another article from 2005 from the bBC over the banning of music from Hamas:
A Hamas-led town council in the West Bank has banned outdoor music and dance performances planned as part of a summertime Palestinian festival…. A Qalqilya council spokesman said it was partly to avoid damaging the grass.
So the bBC airs a story about the problems a music school in Gaza faces because of the Israel, yet fails to mention that under Hamas, making music with anything other than drums is forbidden. Funny that?
Yes, not to mention the youth orchestra they disbanded earlier.
“In the driving seat? Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp lines up Formula One takeover bid”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378746/Rupert-Murdochs-News-Corp-discussing-Formula-One-takeover-bid.html#ixzz1K4oT99vY
-That’ll be the end of BBC-NUJ coverage of F1 then.
There’s an article about a protest meeting against wind farms on the BBC website, ‘Protesters step up fight against Powys substation plan’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13139953, which seems to show clear bias.
This is how the reporter writes about opponents of wind farms:
“Campaigners claim the huge wind turbines and the pylons will blight the rural landscape.
Alison Davies, of the campaign group Conservation of Upland Montgomeryshire, claimed that more than 10 wind farms were in the pipeline, which she said could mean mid Wales has 800 turbines.
Mrs Davies claimed wind power was unreliable, that it did not produce enough energy, and that it was not a viable alternative power producer.”
But this is how the reporter writes about supporters of wind farms:
“But John Woodruff, chairman of Renewable UK Cymru which represents wind farm developers, said the farms were effective and reliable.
“Wales’ wind farms are designed to operate at 30% capacity,” he said.
He said there were always impacts of any development, but the planning application process was very stringent.
He added: “Wales has a better than average wind resource than England, and wind farms in Wales would be expected to be more productive.”
Mr Woodruff said that the wind power industry was worth £160m to Wales.”
Opponents of wind farms claim, supporters say and add. Funny that.
I happened to be in Powys during the cold snap at the end of last year. -20c and that is cold. No wind and the turbines were not working. The fools know this and simply ignore the reality. Very cold weather no wind. That is the way it is.
Good catch.
However, [who the BBC doesn’t approve of] claim, supporters say and add] as editorial techniques across the board is, I would submit, not funny at all.
It is a clear breach of professional impartiality.
Ms. Boaden may have a view?
The ‘claim’ versus ‘said’ in reports is widespread. I have heard it re Israel where the Israeli government and army ‘claim’ but Hamas/Fatah ‘say’. Very noticeable in reports on current government policy announcements; full of ‘claim’ whereas labour were announced as fact.
INBBC: forever globally censoring Islamic jihad:
-be it, as currently as in Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Ivory Coast, or, ITALY:
(‘Undhimmi’ who occasionally comments on ‘B-BBC’ has this):
“Media Cover Up? Tunisian Refugees Torch Church on Italian ‘Refugee Island’“
Burn churches, burn people, they were only Christians, they were only black, nothing to see here, in fact they brought it on themselves by winning an election and beating the the muslim former military dictator – summary of bBC coverage on Nigeria.
Burn churches, kill people, they were only Christians, they were only black, nothing to see here, in fact they brought it on themselves by not accepting a French/UN diktat that their in reality dead heat election was won by the muslim former military dictatorship – summary of bBC coverage on Ivory Coast.
Burn church on the island you are given refuge in, thats ok you are muslim we won’t report it – summary of bBC “coverage” of Lampedusa.
Burn churches kill people, after all what right have they to be there don’t you know the majority are muslim and there was a glorious revolution – summary of bBC “coverage” of Egypt.
Burn poppies at remembrance, get a small fine, and argue they shouldn’t have been punished at all.
Burn a koran and get 70 days in jail. Burn a koran and its quite all right and understandable to kill christians and burn churches in a totally unrelated place in a totally unrelated time.
Anyone would think the bBC have a burning agenda.
JUst noticed that we are up to 300 signed up followers.
A warm welcome to recent joiners. The more eyes and ears out there the fewere examples of bias will be missed.
BBC: Flotilla program overall was accurate and impartial
Panorama Gaza film had ‘due accuracy’ Intriguing the BBC has put this under entertainment.
‘Intriguing the BBC has put this under entertainment. ‘
Just the latest in the repertoire of editorial shenanigans out there, from ‘guest’ selection yo what vox pops and emails get through.
Hence, when it doesn’t suit the narrative, pop it somewhere… anywhere… so long as it can be logged as existing but then fails to resonate in the way it could.. or should.
Luckily, it simply backfires most of the time.
The BBC was doing some cheerleading for the housing/mortgage industry earlier with this headline.
UK mortgage lending rose 21% in March, CML says
Now let us see the same figures reported by the more analytical Notayesmanseconomics blog.
In spite of an rather obvious effort to spin the figures (which has worked with the BBC….) you only need to look at the second line of the report to get the truth.
Gross mortgage lending was an estimated £11.3 billion in March, a 21% rise from £9.3 billion in February and a 2% decline from £11.5 billion in March 2010.
If we think back levels of mortgage lending were a worry back in March 2010 and we can see that this March had a level of mortgage lending which is even lower.
Is the BBC spinning for the housing market?
Been an interesting week for BBC bias. I’ve had to get up earlier and that has meant Wake Up To Money on Five Live. I’d be interested in other peoples views, but I swear the presenters and producers on that show either don’t read the BBC meme handbook or don’t care because they are on too early for anyone to notice. It’s been a breath of fresh air compared to the usual Today show bias. A couple of mornings ago I nearly crashed the car as all the interviewees, including a chap representing the Pensecola tourist board, were positive about how BP is doing clearing up after the oil spill. Indeed the American chap even said tourist numbers were up compared to the years prior to the spill. I wish I had been able to hear if that message had carried on through the Today show and other BBC channels. I can’t imagine Harrabin and Black would sanction that.
“True Finns in the Crosshairs” (of INBBC)
Extract from above:
“Remember what the Beeb means by “xenophobia”: resistance to Multiculturalism, and the refusal to tolerate any more mass immigration from Third World countries.”
I wonder how much of licence payers money has been used to secure the latest “celebrity” super injunction barring mention of his affair and “love child” which actually turned out not to be his after a DNA test LOL
I’ll be “all ears” on al beeb 1 sunday morning between 9AM and 10 AM to see if it’s mentioned by the host
*cough cough*
‘Newsnight’s Comrade Mason on GOLD: (trying to catch up on such commentators of various parts of the the political spectrum, as Glenn Beck and Max Keiser).
Comrade Mason managed a financial juggle of talking about the rising price of gold, while saying little about how Obama’s financially wasteful bail outs to the U.S. banks, and his commitment to unsustainable levels of public spending has caused the U.S dollar’s fall.