I thought this was an excellent tour de force on the BBC and wanted to end August by sharing it. My sincere thanks to the contributor;
“Watching any BBC
programme whether drama, comedy, science or nature you soon become aware you
are not merely learning about the history of the Roman Empire for example but
are also being subtly lectured on the evil done under the British Empire, a
programme about hedgehogs might, will, end up with the message that we need
more wind turbines, a programme about a town’s history will be a lesson on
immigration and so on and on and on.
Whilst commercial product placement is banned on the BBC no such restrictions
seem to exist or be recognised when it comes to political ‘product placement’.
Ideas are the most powerful ‘weapon’ and the ability to broadcast your own
ideas is therefore extraordinarily valuable and possibly dangerous and open to
abuse.
Most writers seem to be of the left wing persuasion and the BBC seems
unconcerned about what favourite hobby horses they flog in their scripts.
‘New Tricks’ is a deservedly popular programme but is often used as a vehicle
to peddle ideas on feminism, the evil of Israel, capitalism and now government
cuts in the police service. Similarly in ‘Doctors’…..a story about a mix up with handbags and frog spawn
ended up with a political comment on NHS cuts. On the ‘Conspiracy Files’ we are told that the public believe more in such
conspiracies because of the lies told to us by politicians…roll out Nixon,
Clinton then a clip of George Bush talking about WMD in Iraq. Now this is purely the BBC’s take on history…and of course is part of its
effort to defend itself after the Kelly Affair and Hutton by rewriting history
in its favour.
The default position must be that both Blair and Bush had an honest belief that
the intelligence was correct (and Kelly himself believed the intelligence was
right….see Hutton….’I had no doubt about the veracity of it (the Dossier)
wasabsolute.’…’It is an accurate document, I think it is a fair reflection of
the intelligence that was available and it’s presented in a very sober and
factual way….it is well written.’ “I was personally sympathetic to the
war because I recognised from a decade’s work the menace of Iraq’s ability to
further develop it’s non-conventional weapons programmes…..We were 100%
certain that Saddam had a biological weapons programme.”)
For the BBC to state otherwise is mere propaganda on its own behalf.
The BBC uses its everyday programmes to quietly and surreptitiously insert its
propaganda, its own ideas about the world into your mind.
It is attempting to manipulate what you think and how you act…it is an exercise
in thought control.
Does it work? Yes it does. After 13 years of Labour corruption and incompetence
the BBC manages to avoid talking about those lost years….they talk more about
the Thatcher years than the unlucky 13.
Discussions on immigration, Europe, Islam and the economy are either non-
existent or strictly controlled….and the majority population views of these
things are suppressed.
As Chomsky said:
‘The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the
spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that
spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives
people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the
presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the
range of the debate.’
And Tony Blair’s view on the media’s power to corrupt the nation…..
‘Blair’s conclusion was a bleak one. “I do believe that this relationship
between public life and media is now damaged in a manner that requires repair.
The damage saps the country’s confidence and self-belief; it undermines its
assessment of itself, its institutions; and above all, it reduces our capacity
to take the right decisions, in the right spirit for our future….it is intrinsically
unsatisfactory and unhealthy for a significant proportion of the population to
have a distorted view of reality.”
This is the BBC’s open declaration of its intent to manufacture your consent to
its ideas……
‘Drama can be a powerful mechanism for development. It can build an emotional
connection with target audiences over a period of time, while modelling
situations or behaviours.
Viewers or listeners become attached to characters and share in their
experiences.
The process of designing a mass media programme or campaign begins with a
‘messaging workshop’, where the results of formative research are analysed to
produce a ‘messaging brief’. The brief describes which messages need to be
communicated to achieve key behaviour change.’
All endorsed by the wonderfully bonkers Polly Toynbee declaring that “left-wing
people are more intelligent, and just generally better people”.
We can all learn a lot from the left wingers in the corridors of power at the
BBC
The Great British Bake-Off last night took time out from bread-making to indict the English for the Irish Potato Famine.
I kid you not.
If you remember that, to the Left, everything is political, it’s apparent why they’re such bloody tedious bores to be around.
You’re right there!
Devastating Chomsky quote in the middle of that post: the BBC bubble explained in a few words.
Never seen it before; but love the Chompsky quote. Seems to be an expansion of the mushroom theory; i.e. keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit.
While checking out the quote I came upon this, it is a small part of his ‘Democracy’ quote. ‘Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level’ I am no Chomsky but I cannot tell the difference between his definition of fascist and the way our last socialist government operated.
You don’t need to be anyone to notice the similarities; you also only have to look at history to know that any socialist/communist government EVER has several things in common: the main one is a need to control of the people. As someone else has said in wonderful understatement: ‘it usually doesn’t end well’.
All in all, this post illustrates perfectly why I never bother watching the BBC anymore.
Or pay the lisence fee.
LIBYA, and how the 1.)’Western left’ and 2.) Arab League:
– don’t even acknowledge their blatant political contradictions.
For years, 1.) and 2.) went along with the oppresive Gaddafi regime.
Now, they are behaving as though they didn’t.
And just as 1.) and 2.) made huge political errors over Gaddafi, they don’t come clean on it all now, and explain where they went wrong, and why they won’t make similar mistakes with any successor like Jalil and NTC .
Even now, many British universities (not just the London School of Economics, where the strangely quiet INBBC chum S. Chakrabarti is still a governor in post-Saif al-Islam Gaddafi times) solicit even more financial donations from undemocratic Islamic regimes to ideologically take over the Middle East ‘studies’ departments with compliant Islamic staff, Islamic students and criticism-free Islamic courses.
And what about Gerry Adams, the IRA and Gaddafi, where’s the INBBC critique of all that?
Chairman of Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) was in Libya praising Gaddafi, June 2011
Here’s a classic example of bBC double dealing:
WWII Arctic convoy veterans recall ‘dangerous journey’
In the centre of Arkhangelsk stands a curious monument: a Mark V British tank dating back to just after the Russian Revolution.
Many here see it as a symbol of foreign aggression and western interventionism. It was captured after British-led forces had landed in northern Russia to try to fight the Bolsheviks. A little more than 20 years later, British tanks were heading back to Arkhangelsk (the town which was better known in Britain as Archangel). This time though, the Russians were more than delighted to see them.
So straight away the bBC paints the UK as the aggressor, yet they fail to mention how Russia:
1) Helped train the Nazis
2) Invaded Poland 2 weeks after Hilter did
3) Bullied the Baltic states to roll over for Stalin and invaded the only country which said NO.-Finland.
And yet in the eyes of the bBC, the British are the bad guys.
And they divided Poland between themselves, hundreds of thousands died as a result.
That quote about drama comes from the BBC World Service Trust’s website, which has nothing to do with the BBC’s general output. But of course you won’t hear that from Dvid Vance – a man for whom truth is just an inconvenience.
Has Northern Ireland’s most incompetent political candidate yet apologised for the time when he berated a BBC comedy programme for broadcasting a joke about Margaret Thatcher that it had not ever aired? The daft idiot was so busy foaming at the mouth that he couldn’t even tell that he’d actually been watching Channel 4.
Naturally, it was all somebody else’s fault, and nothing at all to do with the fact that he’s more concerned with his own ego than he is with honesty and accuracy…
There’s a reason why nobody in Northern Ireland, save for a few on the lunatic fringe, thinks that David Vance is worth anything other than the time it takes to point and laugh. It’s called common sense.
‘from the BBC World Service Trust’s website, which has nothing to do with the BBC‘s general output.’
It may be seen as an easy connection to make.
Next we’ll be told that tweets from folk littering their bio section with who they work for and URLs of bbc.co.uk, do not reflect the views of their employer.
Semantics are neat like that. If less than credible. Not sure what’s best to call such a unique mindset.
When it suits the BBC, the World Service is excluded from consideration; at other times. it includes the World service, as on ‘cuts’. World Service items appear on BBC News website daily.
Currently, BBC uses World Service (UK taxpayer funded) in all sorts of ways, not least in its ‘news’ output, on e.g. Africa and Asia.
It seems that not all Beeboids are up to date on the nature of the interlocking of the global BBC propaganda empire. ‘Wikipedia’ has this:
“The World Service is funded by grant-in-aid through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by the British Government.[5] From 2014, it will be funded by the compulsory BBC licence fee levied on every household in the United Kingdom using a television to watch broadcast programmes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_World_Service
Already, the BBC, with an eye to expanding its World Service global broadcasting empire from 2014, is now cutting some domestic programmes to pay for that expansion overseas.
Obviously, for example, the BBC Arabic TV service, based in the Mecca-facing East Wing of Broadcasting House, London, will put out its Islamic propaganda for the Middle East, broadcasting what the Muslim Arabs there want to hear, (and in coordination with Islamic Al Jazeera).
BBC-NUJ and IMPERIALISM:
– the only imperialisms it admires are Islamic Imperialism, and BBC Imperialism.
“That quote about drama comes from the BBC World Service Trust’s website, which has nothing to do with the BBC’s general output”
Don’t care! they have no right to push their version of cultural colonialism on peoples of the world that would be hypocritical bit like you and your demand for a apology from David over one tiny instance that only you Mr BBC’s comedy protector give one about but it still don’t get you round the Tosvicks?joke does it? yet you constantly blank the many posts on here that prove you and your puppet masters are lying two faced labour members which makes you a “man for whom truth is just an inconvenience!”
Did you wish to comment on the rest of the article? Or were you just trying to divert the topic onto something else?
Scott/Dez, as ever, its very gracious of you to remind everyone what a disturbed, bitter individual you are. If you’re looking for pity, you have it.
Excellent analysis. But a little too kind.
BBC writers do not just happen to be on the Left. There is nothing intrinsically Leftist about being a writer. The reason why BBC writers are on the Left these days is because you have to have “appropriate” views to be commissioned by the BBC.
You can write what you like, just so long as it accords with (whatever happens to be) the current Leftist orthodoxy. The old idea (advocated by people such as Hugh Wheldon) that the function of the BBC is to nurture independent talent has long gone.
By this I do not simply mean that the BBC has become a (lucrative) source of employment for Party members, I mean that the BBC seeks to politically re-educate the serfs upon which the Party relies.
A correct political view (crudely speaking) is any view which arrives at the conclusion that a Leftist government is a good thing.
An incorrect view (crudely speaking) is any view which leads you to the conclusion that any government which is not on the Left is a bad thing.
If we judge the BBC by its current output, and how else are we to judge it, if you support a free society, you are the enemy.
You think I am going to give up my inheritance – which my father fought for (expecting to die for his country) in the Second World – so easily?
The BBC may hope that the Democrat kissing lardarse Mark Mardell, the Jew hater Jeremy Bowen, or dim eco-propagandists such as Richard Black, will successfully eliminate from my consciousness any other reality than the one supplied by BBC Central they are in for a shock.
What is the point of being alive if I simply parrot the self-serving lies of Big Brother. They underestimate what it is to be an Englishman. We cut the head off our king for less.
You the BBC are next.
Excellent post, Wild. The BBC’s bias pervades all its output even including childrens’ TV, which is really a form of child abuse. The BBC is disgusting.
Super post – I could hear the music growing to a crescendo as I read it!
Ah…and the lovely Polly Toynbee is on Radio 4 today in her totally unbiased take on class. I shall listen avidly at 9am with the sick bag handy.
Taken from the bBC article on the same subject:
In making our series The Class Ceiling, we asked everyone from vox pops in the street to experts, politicians and academics the same question:
“A welder told of sitting in work clothes with his kids in a first class carriage when a posh passenger summoned the conductor to check his ticket.”
Really, because one thing I noticed over the past few years is you can never judge somebody by their appearance, then there’s the little matter of travelling first class. You see, not only do you get your ticket checked on entry into the cabin, but because they usually offer free refreshments you have more cabin staff who check your ticket, Christ they check your ticket on standard class. The person who made that story up, hasn’t travelled by rail in a good few years.
“A politician at Cambridge was embarrassed by thinking a dinner engagement meant lunchtime.”
Well funny enough, up north (All classes) refer to dinner as Lunch and tea as dinner. That isn’t a class thing that’s a regional language thing.
“An academic from a working class family keeps the letter inviting him to an Oxford interview to check “you are appropriate in dress, manners and writing”.
This is all about standards and not about class. Anybody can have class, not every has manners and standards.
The funny thing is, the one thing I have noticed on my journey through life, is the only picky people who mention class and try to look down on others, are people who have moved up through the social classes by dint of money. You know somebody like Polly Toynbee, who went to a comprehensive after failing her 11 plus, who won a place at Oxford, dropped out and then got a job in a burger van. However, lucky she landed on her feet and has moved up the social ladder. People like her are the ones who look down at others. All I see here is somebody trying to project their failings onto others in the hope that nobody will notice what a f-ing bigot she is.
“Anybody can have class, not every has manners and standards.”
Indeed pounce, or put another way, “Money makes the rich, manners make the gentleman”.
Such examples of apparent “class divides” are not uniquely British anyway. They are parts of the human condition and are genetically encoded by our evolution and the way in-groups and out-groups react to and interact with each other.
I read a very good sales book some years ago which warned of this sort of pre-judging people from their appearance. It tells of the case of a top-class auto dealership and how the sales manager reacted to two different customers. The first was a scruffy looking man who the sales manager had assumed was some sort of a tramp. The sales manager sent his most junior salesman to deal with him. The second customer wasa young man in his late 20’s in what looked to be a very expensive suit and was groomed immaculately. The sales manager saw to this customer himself.
It turned out that the tramp was in fact a man who owned and ran several scrap-metal yards and was a millionniare, He thought it ammusing that he was fobbed off with a junior salesman, and so bought 3 top of the range cars. One for himself, one for his wife and one for his daughter. The junior made decent commission.
The sales manager however, discovered that the well dressed man had recently been made redundant and was using his meagre redundancy payout to buy a cheap run-a-round in which to travel to job interviews in. He made almost no commission.
This sort of prejudice does exist everywhere. It is an idividual problem of people who generally have a big chip on their shoulder about wealth. It is not uniquely a right wing attribute either. I have known many left wing ‘snobs’ in my time. The worst sort are the left wing reverse snobs who look down on anyone who has done well for themselves.
Erm, I think you’ll find Mary (aka Polly) Toynbee is the daughter of a Rugby educated communist and was sent to Holland Park Comp – Labour’s own tax-payer paid private school.
Her father was the son of a nineteenth century historian – hardly working class . Just because she slummed it for a bit means nothing. She may have been short of cash for a bit but she always knew she’d be bailed out if she wanted it. That’s the difference between these lefty ‘workers’ and the real poor – the real poor have no escape root except hard work and ambition, not exactly the surest way to success.
It always get my goat when I hear middle class lefties saying they understand the working classes just because they lived in a back-to-back when they were students. Fuckwits.
Scott, using 75% of your comment to discredit the messenger does not, in this case, discredit the message. There are no-go zones that the BBC will not, dare not, venture into with the intention of giving their audience the truth. They no longer know how to. Instead they generate an iCloud of carefully doctored news & pathologically leftist interpretation, & dramas whose sole purpose is to push the BBC’s ‘narrative’. Impartiality has been removed from the BBC’s genome. Andrew Marr has said as much. And this systemic bias will continue because recruits to the BBC have to possess the correct, implanted opinions. I have seen some of this processing for myself.
I wait in vain for factual, not censored, news, that is then debated in an even-handed manner, that allows the audience to hear both sides; not the BBC’s – it shouldn’t have one. I await a gritty drama that exposes the scale of the ‘grooming’ of white girls by Muslim men. Let’s call it ‘White Meat’. Instead we are given ‘White Girl’. A production of such blatant, clumsy prejudice, so lacking in ‘nuance’, that I could only conclude that it was an Yvonne Ridley/Lauren Booth joint production.
Inside the BBC biodome, where the air is growing increasingly hallucinogenic, there exists another country, a figment of a collective imagination that can’t, or won’t, come down to street-level & take a long, hard look at the reality of this country, the seething quagmire that the ‘unenlightened’ millions have to face up to every day. It’s ugly, Scott. And no amount of Wood Lane spin & distraction can mask it for much longer.
i’ve come to the conclusion that leftards are masochists
they keep coming back to get sniffily offended and get their metaphorical bollocks kicked in for them
of course
scott m would know all about masochism 😉
Classic Radio 5 lefty wank fest this morning. Dame Nicky had Peter Oborne on with some black bird representing called “efniks rioting against the cuts” or something similar. She kept calling the riots and “uprising”.
Now hang on, the BBC keep telling us that the rioters were not all blacks nor poor but many were white middle class and not poor.
So which is it BBC?
Tim Westwood’s fan club?
Martin,
I posted some time ago that a Beeboid on R4 described them as “disturbances”.
But, “uprising ” takes the ticket. These rebels are rising up against the evil dictator, Colonel Cameron and his police state, torture chambers, detention without trial etc. Why don’t they go and live in Libya ?
So Martin, one of two guests was spousing this left wing bilge, Peter Oborne wasn’t. How does this amount to bias?
I meant of course…
“An incorrect view (crudely speaking) is any view which is sympathetic to a government which pursues conservative Christian or classical liberal policies.”
Now I have no objection to people attacking conservatice christian or classical liberal views, the trouble is that on the BBC you will never know what they are, except that they are bad. Ask a Leftist to explain their objections to the policies of Ronald Regan or Margaret Thatcher, or pick out what Edmund Burke or Adam Smith got right, and you will be amazed at their ignorance. All they have been taught (all the BBC for example will teach them) is kneejerk slogans. Tories are ***** are about as sophisticated as it gets. You could replace Newsnight with Tories are ***** and there would be no discernable change in the factual or intellectual content of the programme.
The object of Newsnight is not to get you to think, nor does it try to supply you with raw data. It seeks only to supply correct opinions.
At its crudest these opinions all reduce to “Vote Labour”. That is all that is required of you.
Nor do the BBC care that you feel short changed. If you are going to think things out for yourself you are a lost cause anyway.
Leftists try to reinforce the message that other Leftists have taught you in State schools, and State universities, and if you go to work in the Public Sector, your jobs. Reality does not count. All that matters is having the correct bullshit.
Of course in the long run reality intrudes, but the Leftist mantra is, in the long run we are all dead and so we do not give a ****. A variation on this is trying to sell a book explaining why it is all crap to people who pointed out to you that you were talking crap right at the beginning.
I believe that you will never understand the Left until you appreciate that all that matters to them is themselves. It is sometimes pointed out that over 100 million people died of starvation or persecution in the C20th as a consequence of Socialism. You might has well tell then the cat next door has just died. They could not care less. To get them interested tell them about their State Sector pension. Money earned by others redistributed to me. Yum. It is my reward for following the Party line.
What do you mean they have run out of other peoples money! Time to big up a different lot of crooks who will promise you an even bigger share of somebody elses money. It is the politics of the kindergarten.
Excellent post Wild.
“Polly Toynbee speaks like a duchess while raging against the privileged”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-2032449/Polly-Toynbee-speaks-like-duchess-raging-privileged.html#ixzz1WhGAcHvF
Kevin 1
I used to work at an Oxbridge college, as the token working class academic. One of the things that used to irritate me more than anything. Were the political beliefs of a number of students and members of staff most of whom were public school kids. They were all the same. Bien peasants with a very theoretical Marxist world view. The problem is that when ever they were challenged by anyone working class, they used to morph back into public schoolboys and become very unpleasant and rude to anybody who had to actually live with the consequences. They never did. One in particular gave me a wonderfull rhetorical rendition of how to public schools were a cancer and a curse on Britain. When I asked himwhere is own kids went to school he started shouting “I dont have to answer to people like you”. This was to cover the fact that his own kids went to the most expensive fee paying school in Cambridge.
They were also repelentely snobbish towards anyone who was working class. Its not an attitude confined to Polly. I still over 10 years do not understand it. I think really their problem is that money just insulates them from the real world and allows them to live like a bunch of teenagers. The way they think reminds me of the way I used to think when I was around 15.
Someone once gave me an explanation for this.
As children these people are lent to believe they are superior beyond all reach. When they leave their prep schools and head off to Eton, Rugby or wherever they suddenly find themselves amongst people with way more wealth than even they can imagine – the aristos. They learn to hate them, for whilst they are rich and oh so superior they don’t flash it around – it is a natural state for them. They too are bred to believe in themselves and have a few hundred years of ancestry to back up their preposterous egos.
So little Jeremy becomes a lefty, because it is the only way to place himself apart and still feel superior.
As to the poor, well they are infer dig doncha’ kno’.
Great article.
I cannot watch ANY BBC programme now without seeing left wing ‘mindbending’.
But what gets me most annoyed is that most other people I know cannot see it at all. Ver dangerous.
With the BBC recently pimping the ‘Evil Tory Cuts’ and ‘Hackgate’ for all they are worth, my mind turned to another scandal, that has been festering for years, but strangely has not interested them.
I refer, of course, to the missing £125,349.10 from the House of Lords petty cash tin.
This was the amount ‘baroness’ Uddin was ordered to repay for claiming expenses for staying in her flat in Kent, when in fact she was staying in her heavily subsidised house owned by Spitalfields Housing Assosiation (a stone’s throw from the house of Lords, and meant to be reserved for impovershed people). The same Spitalfields Housing Association that has two ‘Uddins’ as officials; Faruque Uddin, Housing Officer; and Abdus Uddin, Customer Services and Maintenance Officer. What a coincidence! http://www.spitalfieldsha.co.uk/Contact.html
Under a FOI request from a Captain Bryn Wayt, it has emerged that not a single penny has been repayed by ‘Lady’ Uddin, and the House appears powerless to make her.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lady_uddin_has_she_repaid_that_1
Dear FOI LORDS,
I am obliged to Mr Daybank for letting me know Mrs UDDIN has NOT
paid back one penny of the £125,349.10 she willfully and wrongly
procured from public funds.
Had such wanton pilfering of such a huge amount happened within a
company or other normal establishment subject to the common laws
dealing with theft, this woman would surely have been ‘charged’ by
now.
As a taxpayer from whom she has made a financial gain from, I
cannot bring myself to understand how “the recovery of this money
is not a disciplinary”.
I am ashamed that such slack Rules and Procedures exist within
hallowed walls that protect scoundrels.
I have written to the MET police asking them what they are going to
do about this scandal – but once again there seems to be paper-work
and other procedures that prevent the normal course of events, that
you and I would have been subjected to, preventing the magic words,
“you are nicked” from being said.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa…
57. We endorse the finding that Lady Uddin has wrongly claimed, and
has received, the sum of £125,349.10, to which she was not
entitled. The recovery of this money is not a disciplinary matter,
and so is not a matter for this Committee.
=========================
Should Mrs UDDIN somehow be persuaded to hand back the cash (with
interest) I shall be further in your debt if you could let me know.
I shall now go and watch hell freeze over whilst the wheels of
justice crank away.
Yours sincerely,
Captain Bryn Wayt
Like hackgate, a good juicy story like this would catch the eye of any aspiring BBC news editor – Wouldn’t it?
Thanks for highlighting this scandal, Manfred VR. Another bullet in our ammo clip.
Wonder how many plasma TV screens you could nick and still have stolen less than £125,349.10?
Absolutely fantastic analysis by your mystery contributor.
INBBC, Al JAZEERA, anti-ISRAEL.
Political propaganda lessons which INBBC, including World Service and its Arabic TV service, is adapting from Al Jazeera:
” The Qataris, meanwhile, have become the flagship of revolution through the influence of the television broadcaster Al Jazeera, privately owned by the Qatari Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani.”
[…]
“it’s true that AJE [Al Jazeera English] generally avoids the anti-Semitic, anti-American, and anti-Shia invective of Al Jazeera Arabic, but this is only because the entire purpose of AJE is to legitimize the Al Jazeera brand in the West, and therefore legitimize the goals of the emir and his country’s foreign policy, which included toppling regional rivals like Hosni Mubarak.”
http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/76635/broadcast-news/
The BBC seem to have developed a rather sinister habit of re-broadcasting selective soundbites from the Today programme during the hourly News segments at 7am and 8am. This morning it regurgitated comments from an interview with an educationist only minutes before, to the effect that ex-military personnel could not teach in our schools based on their military experience alone, because they are “unqualified”. The immediate rebuttal from the other interviewee, that these ex-soldiers would indeed have degrees in their chosen subject, was not re-broadcast.
The effect is that the purported thrust of the interview, as aired in the News, is entirely disingenuous and amounts to the manipulation of what was actually said. It is propaganda, nothing less.
‘..amounts to the manipulation of what was actually said..’
Agree.
The editorial by omission is getting to epidemic proportions and would be laughable if not so serious, as some will be persuaded by what they are fed rather than what happened.
Last night there was a repeat of a Simpsons, where Homer is accused of being a kiddy fiddler for peeling a Gummy Bear off the babysitter’s tush, and then ‘interviewed’ by the local ‘news’.
The ‘edit’ is especially funny for the the clock left in that bounces backwards and forwards as they select out of context phrases to make the narrative up. Maybe all interviewees should have a clock on their lapels to show when this technique is used?
Whatever it is, it is at best not legitimate, and at worst outright fraud. It makes theatre promo posters seem honest in comparison.
The BBC is excavating well below rock bottom now.
I think that Left-wing people are unable to understand the idea that someone you like can be thick or someone you hate can be intelligent. That is the situation they experience all the time in the left-wing environment. Their Left-wing emotions make them like thick people, they then call them intelligent. They hate intelligent people, so they call them thick. But it is a fact that the Labour party’s support is strongest in the Inner-city shit holes where people of low intelligence or of no merit in a meritocracy live. I with an IQ of 164 have an urge to vote UKIP and I don’t find that there are many Left-wing people in Mensa if any. They even debate race and intelligence with very politically incorrect conclusions in Mensa.
You might be interested to know that Noam Chomsy, mentioned above, is not only known for his outstanding work on linguistics & cognitive processes but is also a leading socialist figure in the US. Pretty well everyone who takes a serious interest in left-wing politics will have read his academic writing as well as his political & will be all too aware of the possibilities of manipulating thought processes by restricting the range of discourse. That’s essentially what Political Correctness is all about. Making certain subjects hard to discuss by restricting acceptable discussion areas to those favouring an outcome that it is wished to achieve. The attempt to impose a global warming ‘concensus’ whilst marginalising or if possible demonising scepticism is a good example of the technique.
“I wait in vain for factual, not censored, news, that is then debated in an even-handed manner, that allows the audience to hear both sides; not the BBC’s”
Suggest you try France24 English service available on sat & digital. Their evening discussion programs are a model of how a presenter can chair a program without inserting his views into the debate. Watching him get a French far right activist & a moslem immigrant to discuss their points of agreement was a masterful example of interviewing skill.
Programme’s starts around 6pm your time I think.