The choice of words used by the BBC in the heading is instructive; “Murdoch defends hacking handling”. Click through to the story and read about the audacity of Murdoch as he defends how his company has handled the charges leveled against it. None of this has any meaning to the BBC however since it has long since determined the guilt of all involved. Guity until proven innocent if one works for NewsCorp, as opposed to innocent until proven guilty if one is, for example, a Gitmo inmate. The bigger theme for the BBC is how this is “developing” in the USA with all those heavyweight politicians weighing in (Assorted Democrat loons + Peter “I heart Gerry Adams” King) to get a full investigation on Murdoch’s empire aka Smash Fox.
WORDS
Bookmark the permalink.
BBC guilty of bias again!!!
Wouldn’t it be nice if Rupert Murdock and News International turned its guns on the BBC for its blatant barefaced unconceiled bias and noncompliance with its charter.
I’ve been watching this emerge all day. Smash Fox is a huge part of the liberal agenda in the states.
Newsnight were slobbering all over the democrats tonight.
Can you imagine the MSM TV broadcast news landscape in the USA if FOX were sabotaged?
The left would have almost a clear field in which to spread their wicked filth without contradiction or challenge.
That is the left-wing wet dream that looks like it may become a reality; scary huh?!
Great point about Gitmo DV. However appalling the conduct of certain NotW journalists, the obscentiy of the BBC aiding and abetting the enemy at time of war is beyond description. So powerful is the BBC and so afraid of it is Government, it can commit Treason with impunity.
Mark my words: If Uncle Rupert goes into the stripey hole over this, Fox News will not shut down and will not change one iota. Nor will the Wall Street Journal or the New York Post or Caribbean Life. Nor will Rush Limbaugh or Neal Boortz or any of the denizens at Pajamas Media or Hot Air, none of whom have anything to do with Murdoch and won’t be silenced if anything happens to his empire. And they’ve collectively had as much influence on public awareness than anything Uncle Rupert ever touched.
It will be a scalp, trebles all round, but will change nothing. So let ’em do their worst. I could care less.
¿En qué estás pensando…?
Ooops…pressed the wrong button!
Span,
Maybe you were distracted by your avatar ?
I see the Guardian have apologised to the Sun about their lies over the hacking of Gordon Brown’s son’s medical info.
But don’t expect the BBC to bother reporting it.
Remember, the BBC bigged that story up so now everyone is convinced the Sun stole the medical info even though they didn’t.
No 9/11 victim no 7/7 victim and no family of a dead soldier has had their phone hacked, everything is an allegation made by the Guardian with not one shred of evidence.
Only the Police and the mobile company can be sure of who was hacked or not.
Isn’t is ironic that the BBC should get on their high horse about victims of terrorism. How can the BBC recognise a victime of terror when they don’t seem to know what terrorism is.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/dec/16/terrorism.broadcasting
This is what the BBC think of victims of terroism.
http://michellemalkin.com/2006/08/03/when-did-911-become-a-laughing-matter/
The BBC News website has just reported it. It’s appeared on its home page at the bottom of a list of six Murdoch-related stories, under the headline Paper sorry over Brown son story. Yes, “Paper sorry over Brown son story“!!
It should obviously have been headlined ‘Guardian sorry over Brown son error‘, otherwise those large number of readers who will probably read the headline without bothering to click into the story might take it to be an admission of guilt by the Sun.
I’d say that was (a) sneaky and (b) clearly deliberate on the part of some BBC Online reporter/editor. What possible good reason has the BBC website team got for hiding the name of the ‘Guardian’ in its homepage headline?
As the story is already at the bottom of the list of NI stories on the home page, how long will it be before it drops off the page altogeter? Not long, I’d bet.
The Guardian apology isn’t on the BBC’s Politics page yet, but other Brown stories remain on there, nor on their UK page. I’m off to work now, so please could someone keep on eye on what happens to Paper sorry over Brown son story throughout the course of the day? Will it make a fleeting appearance on the BBC home page then vanish forever into the ether, as if it never existed? Will the misleading headline change?
Still there as of now. It was also reported en passant in the Today 8:00 news headlines.
Everyone’s on strike, so the Today website is currently featuring yesterday’s ‘Today’, but I thought I heard Sarah Montague saying this morning that the Guardian has reported that it made a mistake and has printed an apology, but Justin added, with a distinct snigger: “The Sun has it on their front page!”. Did anyone else hear this?
Still I did hear that bitchy bit behind the water cooler at the Beeb.
Apparently, they used the word vulpine when describing a NI employee-as opposed to the word lupine.
Still to hear Sarah and Justin carp about the boys upstairs that gave them the wrong word-and whose fault it would be-but “we`ll not use any names!” was clsssic snaffling in the dorm stuff befitting these prep school scabs.
First time that The Toady Show have apologised for anything-give it another twenty years and thay might say sorry for being the Guardians glove puppet of choice!
One can dream!
12:31 and still no sign on ‘UK News’ or ‘UK Politics’. Dont know how you managed to stumble across it when its hidden beneath goodness knows how many layers of blankets.
The BBC should also offer an appology for spreading a patently untrue smear, it was the BBC that interviewed Brown in soft focus and it was the BBC that spread the guardian smear far beyond its tiny incestuous circulation.
If the guardian invented the filthy smear it was the BBC that gave that filthy smear a worldwide coverage it did not deserve, it was the BBC megaphone that was the muscle behind this vile filth. If anyone should offer the Sun an appology it should be the BBC But they wont will they? They are the kind of MSM scum that spreads lying filth to attack its enemies in the sure and certain knowledge that nobody will be disciplined or called to account.
Martin: “No 9/11 victim no 7/7 victim and no family of a dead soldier has had their phone hacked, everything is an allegation made by the Guardian with not one shred of evidence”
According to reports there numbers were on the list of a NowT phone hacker.
You’re right though, haven’t heard a dickie bird about the Guardian’s apology to the Sun. Still, helped railroad Cameron into being Miliband’s poodle and serve the BBC’s interests as the nation’s propaganda avatar.
hippiepooter: According to reports there numbers were on the list of a NowT phone hacker.
That is the point, where did those reports come from? BBC/Guardian? Has any evidence emerged that they were on a list. Has any evidence emerged of actual hacking? Who knew about the list? How did the phone hacker get hold of the numbers of the dead of 9/11 or dead soldiers? Was the technology around to hack indiscriminately in 2001? (I genuinely do not know the answer to that question).
Look at the BBC programme saying that the Intelligence Services failed to live track the phones of the Omagh bombers in 1998. The technology to do this did not exist in 1998. (Yes I definitely know that).
If it went to court with the evidence that is in the public domain then it would be thrown out.
Prosecution: “M’lud, the accused stands here because he had a list of names on a list that he may or may not of intended to hack”
M’lud: “So did any hacking take place?”
Prosecution: “No evidence of that M’lud, but as the numbers were on his list he must have wanted to hack them as he worked on behalf of News International”
M’lud: “Case dismissed”.
If evidence emerges that he 1. He had the names of victims on a list and 2. Had them with the intention to, or had already, listened to voicemails then I am willing to concede. Until such a time then I will believe this is nothing more than a “Get Murdoch” campaign by stablemates BBC/Guardian (assisted by others).
Specialone, I think you’re being rather disingenuous.
To my knowledge NI or the Police have not disputed that the numbers were on a NowT hacker’s list.
Whether or not the Met will find the additional evidence to secure a conviction (or even bring the matter to Court) remains to be seen.
As it is the evidence that exists is more than sufficient to make a safe assumption that they were used to hack them. Just like the evidence exists is more than sufficient that all of the freed ‘British’ UK Gitmo inmates were up to their eyeballs in Al Qa’eda terrorism. For some reason the BBC considers their detention an unparalleled outrage in human history. But then, the BBC is at war with NI, it isn’t with Al Qa’eda.
HP that’s the point, the phone numbers may have been there, we don’t even know if some of the families gave out phone numbers to the press, as far as I’m aware no family member from a dead solider, 7/7 or 9/11 has actually complained of hacking.
There is no evidence of hacking yet but the BBC/Guardian are simply trying ot pretend that there is.
Did any military family member complain of the BBC and its staff giving lethal consequence intel to those in process of trying to kill their family members, from the Falklands to Libya?
Martin, if there is no evidence for the claims such as the Dowler case, what is Murdoch apologising for?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14168283
Have to agree as of yet there has been only one case proven in a court! and until the police find anything to take to court then no matter how much you want to believe it ! nothing is a ‘fact ‘ and should not be reported as such ! and as for the lurvies they will jump on this knowing full well they will not have to go to court and prove anything [not that you can ] just suck up the publicity !.
Working for the BBC means never having to say that you’re sorry!
Mmmmmm…
Peace and quiet (if only).
http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2011/07/14/23625-nuj-queries-if-bbc-management-wants-strike-action-tomorrow/
Another story that will go unreported by the BBC because it’s not in the paper of their choice.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014935/Alastair-Campbell-like-unguided-missile-Iraq-dossier-claims-MI6-officer.html
Martin, better I than another:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14159483
BBC Online had it yesterday, but of course its radio and especially tv that truly counts.
Anyone?
Yes, they did report it, but it sure seems like it was in aid of shifting blame to MI6.
I’m still working on the theory that the feelling in BBC corridors is “Campbell rules OK, Blair Lied Us Into Bush’s War”. Not sure this challenges that theory. The Mail, on the other hand, seems to place blame more squarely on Campbell.
theguardian apology is anyway of little consequence, the impression left by the original accusation is never removed.
Last Sunday that stand in fat man on R5, Adrian Goldberg, was enjoying a hysterical NOTW bashing sesion with a couple of bien pensant guests. One of these, keen to shoe his contempt of the NOTW & the British working class, criticised whe NOTW over the Sara’s Law campaign because of the reaction it had produced from the great unwashed. He cited theguardian story of the attack on the paediatician by the ignorant mob. No attack ever took place, it was probably a lark by youths thinking scrawling graffiti on the house of the paediatician would be funny.
In fairness the BBC have sought to highlight this urban myth, but it will not stop its regurgitation by those who hold their fellow countrymen in contempt.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4719364.stm
The BBC NUJ strike today cut the Today programme – so I spent some time listening to Nick Ferrari on LBC. he seems to be taking the line that there are buckets of hypocrisy on all the Murdoch stuff, too many unsubstantiated rumours. He let at least 2 guests speak favourably of Murdoch’s achievements and one guest said he hopes the old buzzard gives the MP’s some stick next Tuesday.
Interesting that, in the BBC story on this highlighted by Craig, the Sun is quoted as stating that after the Sun revealed its knowledge of John’s illness to Brown and his colleagues “those colleagues provided quotes which were used in the published piece which indicated his [ie Brown’s] consent to it.” In other words, Brown knew the Sun knew and, absent any refutation of the Sun’s statement, Brown consented to the publication of his son’s illness and the way it was reported.
The news here is (1) the apology of the Guardian (which is reported straight by the BBC but with, as Craig writes, an ambiguous headline) and (2) the world-class hypocrisy and humbug of Brown which is AFAIAA apparently a non-event in BBC-world: another inconvenient fact which – effectively – the world’s greatest publicly funded news organisation has decided to ignore.
Certainly I have not heard any comment on Today lambasting Brown for his mendacity or any item discussing the nauseating, self-serving nature of the crapola served up by Brown in the Commons earlier this week. All we got was a report of his “righteous” anger. God forfend that the little people should be made immediately aware that Brown’s contribution to the debate was a signal indication of Brown’s moral vacuity, self-pity, spite and curious addiction to twisting or hiding inconvenient facts. No wonder the BBC loves him: he is a reflection made flesh of its own moral world.
Umbongo,
Well put. Brown is evil personified.
As always with these whining complainers who wallow in a combination of spite and self-pity, it makes for a very unedifying sight, not to mention an unconvincing argument.
As we know the the BBC and the Guardian are one entity in this, the Brown interview being a BBC-Guardian co-production, does the Guardian’s apology count as an apology on behalf of the BBC?
Regarding the Brown interview, I’ve just noticed this from special correspondents’ producer Dominic Hurst.
Negotiations over the interview had gone on for many weeks – and it was clear Mr Brown had some powerful things he was now willing to say.
Why did this require many weeks of negotiation? What was discussed? I hereby summons Beeboid Dominic to appear before B-BBC and explain.
Meanwhile, the Beeb have changed the headline to a much more acceptable ‘ Guardian apologises to the Sun over Gordon Brown story’. Google tells me that the story appeared in the politics section but it is not currently on the politics front page.
uardian Says Sorry to Sun
<img src=”http://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/guardian-sorry.png?w=477&h=311″ title=”Guardian Sorry Sun”/>
And obviously the BBC having spread this grauniad filth smear story with NO fact checking, no evidence, no editorial control will not be issuing any kind of retraction, any kind of investigation into just how a made up smear got the copy and paste treatment from a left wing rag famous for its smears.
The BBC and the grauniad, the left wing rag issues a mean minded pseudo appology and the BBC offers a smirk and a giggle because their role has become one of getting the nasty lying smear in fast just like their Israel coverage and then shrugging their grubby corporate shoulders, its the smear that people remember about a story and thats what the BBC is counting on.
Newsnight featured the BBC line on Brown’s commons rant. The only problem in their opinion seemed to be that he had detracted from Ed Miliband’s brilliant and morally impecable leadership.
It is very obvious in whose corner they stand.
When it come to politics the BBC should be forced to stand in the corner with the thicky hat on !!
I saw his rant. It was unbelievably full of nonsense with a bit of libel thrown in. Did they mention that the BBC also pushed his lie all day long about how his child’s medical info was stolen?
‘Cranmer’:” Cash for Confession? ”
[Extract]:
“As the trial-by-tabloid hounding of the Murdochs continues, there will doubtless be many at The Guardian and the BBC who will be rejoicing at (indeed, stoking) the assault on the world’s largest media empire inclined to the Republican/Conservative worldview. But the euphoria will also be felt in the cloisters of the Church of England: His Grace reported some time ago on the objections of the Bishop of Manchester to the BSkyB takeover, on the grounds of media plurality. His Grace agreed with His Lordship that the vitality and plurality of the media is ‘essential’ for a ‘well informed democracy’. And His Grace further agreed that there is a danger of the ‘exercise of subtle editorial influence’ should BSkyB be taken over completely by News Corp. But His Grace was dumbfounded as to why His Lordship, as the Church of England’s ‘lead media spokesman’, has expressed no such concerns about the BBC, especially when News Corp has just six per cent of news viewers while the BBC attracts 58 per cent.”
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/07/cash-for-confession.html