Midweek and time for a new open thread for you!
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:41
Weekend 21st December 2024
If we change “Christmas Markets” to “Festival Events” we can end the attack by upset Islamists and save lives. -… - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:23
Weekend 21st December 2024
Cosy, green & cost effective heat pumps Installation from £500 including a £7,500 government grant with Britain’s favourite heat pump… - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:22
Weekend 21st December 2024
“Rishi has proved to be a diligent constituency MP and it was no surprise to see him re-elected in 2017,… - pugnazious Dec 22, 11:14
Weekend 21st December 2024
Same with EV cars which might be more polluting than normal ones…not forgetting we have to scrap all those cars… - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:08
Weekend 21st December 2024
Assisted Dying on the NHS – free POD for those who want to save the planet. - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:08
Weekend 21st December 2024
[img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThzT6qzemJKeCSKC5IWA1GlSv96j37liloUw&s[/img] - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:06
Weekend 21st December 2024
German 2016 … HA HA HA HAHA ! Gay Islamist spies for ISIS! ……………………….. Berlin, Germany 2016 Arrested German spy… - pugnazious Dec 22, 11:04
Weekend 21st December 2024
Jeez…haven’t seen a BBC TV news report on Magdeburg….just as well might put a brick though the TV as [is… - MarkyMark Dec 22, 11:03
Weekend 21st December 2024
Panels – inverters – reinforce ceilings – lifespan 20 years – need cleaning – maintenance – interest on loan for…
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
There is an incomprehensible sentence in a report on the BBC webpage about actor Alec Baldwin who was kicked off an American Airlines plane for not switching off his smart phone during preparations for take-off.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16063586
In the story, which is about bad behavior by a celeb, the last sentence reads: “The airline filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last week.” (???)
What is the point of this? Is it saying, “You see, you little people, if you mess with celebrities, you can expect your business to fail?” Someone please explain.
I don’t think there’s anything sinister in this. It’s the usual lazy journalism (not confined to the BBC I should add) of sticking in anything vaguely newsy when another story concerning the same personality or institution crops up. It’s the same as writing that Baldwin has recently moved into the house of his nonentity girlfriend (which, unaccountably was missed by the BBC staff writer and I retrieved from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Baldwin)
I guess if the girlfriend had recently travelled by American Airlines she’d have qualified for a mention. Yup. That’s journalism.
I agree. It’s just lazy context stuck in because that’s what they’re supposed to do, whether it’s relevant or not.
Yes, its completely off topic and has nothing to do with the story…nor does it bring anything new or relevant to the topic being covered.
Mailman
It’s the same as newspapers telling you that someone who is in a news story because they have died or committed a crime or whatever, lived in a £300, 000 house. Such helpful detail. I love it! It’s so thoughtful of them to let us know.
Jeremy Vine whored himself for the cause yesterday, and whored himself shamelessly.
‘Next up… is it time to bring Gordon back?’
‘Some commentators’ were asking this apparently because after all Brown had kept us out of the Euro and saved the world.
That would be the same ‘some commentators’ as, ‘many people’ and ‘loads of texts’. and the other proxies the BBC uses when it means, ‘We at the BBC believe…’
Vine’s useful idiot to further argue the cause was Jonathan Freedland, a Guardian hack with two, unconnected, brain-cells. Apparently, according to the hack, ‘Tony Blair was far less gung-ho about the Euro in private’. (Remember to point out next time you shout ‘heads’ and it’s ‘tails’ that in private you were far less gung-ho about heads.’.)
‘Many will recall the accolades heaped on Gordon Brown’…
‘This time last year his views were still being sought out…’
‘Everybody in Europe and beyond wanted Gordon Brown’s advice…’.
Should we now be saying “Thank you, Gord?”.
This works one of three ways.
1. A tired hack has an article he wants to plug or
2. Brown’s ‘people’ think, ‘Ah time to puff Gordon and get him a ‘real’ supranational quangocrat non-job, where’s the speed-dial’.
3. Ed Camelnose thinks ‘I’m getting tarnished by association here, Ed too, let’s get onto the BBC’.
Whichever. Their dead horse is pet food now I’m afraid.
Bringing Brown back would be like fishing out one of your turds from the drain and bringing it back into the house.
Why would you do it?
that’s an insuklt to turds, Martin
*insult
No, it’s not time to bring Gordon back.
A better question is whether it’s time to bring Maggie back.
There’s no way she’d roll over and let the EU tickle her tummy…
Jeff
Pounce – could you try re linking the President Katsav – I cannot get it to work.
thanks
Compare the bEEB Twat dot com
Nasty Jewish Pesident jailed for rape
Nice Syrian President (for life) allowed to play the victim card for mass murder.
pounce,
just out of interest, at the bottom of that assad int.
inching toward civil war, is that el beebs heroic paul woods
pic ( holding the Kalashnikov) … you think?
😀 a journo/militant perhaps … or maybe posing for his burkha
passport pic
That woudl be the Israeli (Jewish) President sentenced by the Israeli (Muslim) judge. Remind me how many Jewish judges sit in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Indonesia etc. etc. And they call Israel the Apartheid State!
David Cameron’s Science Lesson – http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/07/david-cameron-science-lesson?CMP=twt_fd
Allegra Stratton tells it like it is…
Jeff
In case not mentioned elsewhere…
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/713/bbc_misrepresents_national_social_survey
‘the BBC at its very worst. It has completely misrepresented the survey to promote its own political worldview’
Not sure, but isn’t that a bit more than its supposed impartial educate and infrom’ remit?
Newsnight seems geared up to weigh in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2011/12/wednesday_7_december_2011.html
I wonder who they’ll call up for their expert views tonight?
Me:
Your implication that my complaints of left-wing bias had no substance is patronising and incorrect. It is clear to anyone with any critical thinking skills that the BBC propagates Guardian values. For example, there have been plenty of opinion pieces on the BBC news website advocating thing such as green energy and extolling the virtues of feminism. Why have I never seen any opinion pieces advocating right-wing views?
Does the BBC have any stats on the proportion of left vs right wing bias complaints it receives?
The BBC:
Mr Waters, The purpose of applying the expedited complaints procedure was to prevent the BBC having to deal with complaints that essentially had no merit; we gave clear examples of those. You had the option to appeal to the BBC Trust about that decision. We are not prepared to continue to discuss the issue. If you have specific compaints, please make them and they will be assessed according to the expedited complaints handling procedure which was outlined to you. Otherwise, we cannot continue a discussion such as this on theoretical issues. Regards, BBC News
Me:
I asked whether the BBC collates figures relating to the number of left vs right wing bias complaints. That is not a theoretical question, and I would appreciate an answer…
Jeff
The BBC:
No
—–
Is it just me being paranoid, or have the BBC been adopting a rather surly and patronising tone towards me?
Jeff
“they got it about right”
the evasive wankers
Quite.
As I pointed out in my reply to them, they wouldn’t reply to an email from Mark Thompson with just the word ‘No’.
It’s not very professional…
Jeff
Yup. I’m afraid you’re on the “bloody nusiance” pile. I’m there too.
‘have the BBC been adopting a rather surly and patronising tone’
Tonality is sibjective.
However, objectively, you asked a simple question, and it was totally avoided, and when corned they refuse to answer.
As a precedent, would they be happy for interviewees to respond in this way?
No.
The hypocrisy is therefore…unique.
I’ve seen it all now.
The BBC news channel of all people, at 5.00pm ran a piece on TV censorship in Russia.
I for one, have learned more about the unfolding story of the Euro implosion that is imminent; from Russia Today, than anything the MSM, and the BBC in particular have reported.
The BBC has been reporting the Euro crisis along the lines of ‘There’s nothing to see, now move along’; Whereas, RT had a very informative report at lunch time today in ‘Cross Talk’ about the crisis, with what appeared to me, to be better informed experts than anything the BBC rustles up, who had a balanced discussion, and backed up their arguements with (frightening) facts and figures. Furthermore, RT reports it how it is, not how they would like it to be, something the BBC is incapable of; and RT HAVE reported on their own election disturbances.
How the BBC has got the bare faced cheek to accuse the Russians of censorship over their elections, when it is widely acknowledged that our ‘Bananna Republic’ election system is open to massive abuse, such as the Muslim block vote, postal voting scams, Common Purpose riddled election commission which runs out of ballot papers etc. to the advantage of a party that the BBC favours (No names, no pack drill), and to then try and divert attention away from the reality of the forthcoming cataclysmic Euro disaster from their beloved EU beggars belief. Not once have the BBC reorted on any of these malpractices in anything other than a cursory comment.
If it wasn’t so serious, it would be a hilarious plot for ‘Drop the Dead Donkey’.
The BBC has been making a big deal out of spinning the new Social Attitudes Survey – making us out to be meanies.
But I have heard nothing from the BBC about the findings of the survey on attitudes to Global Warming claptrap and the policies that follow. It appears that there is a distinct chill, we are fed up with the alarmism, we have more important things to worry about :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2071053/Growth-climate-change-sceptics-37-think-claims-exaggerated.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/07/public-support-for-tackling-climate-change-declines-dramatically-in-uk/
Where is Richard Black’s report on this ? He seems to be suffering from literary diarrhoea this month, frantically recycling all the Durban/NGO garbage. Maybe he is to busy to report what REAL people think.
Being a BBC brainwashed twat, he (and they) don’t CARE what real people think, they’ll push the ideology, whatever.
Simon Mayo’s drivetime this evening illustrates just how bad the Global propaganda has got.
He was talking to his sidekick about the ‘Good news that the Global Warming episode of Attenborough’s Frozen Planet is now going to be shown in the USA’
Why wouldn’t it be? asked the sidekick.
‘Global warming is contentiuos in the states, not everywhere else just there.’
the bbc is hopelessly in thrall to the cult of gaia
It also shows how detached they are from the views of a large proportion of their viewers here in the UK – the ones who actually pay their wages and fund the programmes.
Just had a random thought.
Let’s say a bunch of us were to start camping outside Broadcasting House and called ourselves Occupy The BBC.
Would the BBC give us the same level of coverage as they gave the people who put up tents outside St Paul’s?
Jeff
Another random thought. I wonder how much effort has gone into trying to encourage pregnant women, due around 25th December, to waddle along to various Occupy camps in the hope of the ultimate photo op. We’ve already seen Occupiers putting their toddlers in harm’s way as human shields in violent situations, so I’m sure risking an unborn child’s health for the sake of the cause wouldn’t be beyond some of them.
In fact, I will be amazed if there isn’t an Occupy “baby Jesus” reported on with total credulity by the MSM on Xmas day.
Born in a manger? Oh, the sign was half covered, it’s pret a manger
…yeah but it most certainly wouldn’t be a virgin birth and the only angel would be the ‘dust’. Mind you they’d be a few smelling of farm animals.
LOL
Love to see how the Beeb reports THIS – if at all:
“Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as ‘workplace violence’ and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home”
.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/06/military-growing-terrorist-target-lawmakers-warn/#ixzz1ft4kY4I6
i was surprised that tonight’s Frozen Planet global warming frightfest didn’t mention how it will effect the gays and muslims, i wouldn’t expect Chariots saunas or mosques will be changed by the melting of the poles
Don t worry all ……looks like the el beeb history re-writers have been busy.
author and historian Simon Sebag Montefiore presents a three-part series illuminating the history of Jerusalem the erm 3??? abrahamic faiths, 3rd most holy site in Islam etc etc, the trailer full of shots of er muslims, muslims gazing at the al aqsa, muslims praying etc.
wonder how these johnny come latelys will fare? in THIS el beeb history doc
…any guesses?
tomorrow el beeb 4
Pass the sick bag… barf… barf…
That’s better…
Christopher BOOKER on BBC’s betrayal on Climate.
“CHRISTOPHER BOOKER’S devastating report shows the bias on global warming”
[Excerpt]:-
.”..I am far from alone in concluding that the BBC’s coverage has, on this key issue of our time, gone hopelessly off the rails. The Corporation has been guilty of three separate betrayals.
“By making its coverage so flagrantly one-sided on the environment issue, it has betrayed its statutory duty to report on world events impartially.
“Second, it has betrayed the basic principles of science by giving such unquestioning support to a theory which the evidence has increasingly called into doubt.
“Above all, however, the BBC has betrayed the trust of its audience, by failing to give a fair and balanced picture.
“This has become a national scandal. It is time we called this pampered, self-important organisation to account for having misinformed us for too long. “
Christopher Booker’s report, The BBC And Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal, is available online today from the Global Warming Policy Foundation at http://www.thegwpf.org.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2071358/BBCs-bias-global-warming-An-inconvenient-truth-climate-change.html#ixzz1ftlM12yk
Reprise: BOOKER recently on HARRABIN/BLACK, etc and
BBC’s climate betrayal:
“The BBC’s hidden ‘warmist’ agenda is rapidly unravelling.
“Since 2006, the BBC has relentlessly promoted the global warming orthodoxy as a pressure group in its own right.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8901365/The-BBCs-hidden-warmist-agenda-is-rapidly-unravelling.html
A judge in Boston agrees with me about the Occupiers’ – and the BBC’s – failure to understand the nature of rights:
Mayor Menino to Occupy campers: Take a hike
They Mayor was speaking after a Superior Court judge lifted and injunction on the city clearing out the violence and filth-infested encampment. One line of attack the Judge McIntyre used was the usual “health and safety” cliché. Which works for me only if he means the health and safety of everyone else. But then he said this:
The judge ruled today: “… while Occupy Boston protesters may be exercising their expressive rights during their protest, they have no privilege under the First Amendment to seize and hold the land on which they sit.”
The judge goes on to say: “ ‘Occupation’ speaks of boldness, outrage, and a willingness to take personal risk but it does not carry the plaintiffs’ professed message. Essentially, it is viewed as a hostile act, an assertion of possession against the rights of another. The act of occupation, this court has determined as a matter of law, is not speech. Nor is it immune from criminal prosecution for trespass or other crimes.”
Like I keep saying: your rights end where mine begin. Unfortunately, the Occupiers believe that their rights supercede those of others, and too many Beeboids support that.
Excellent! If only we had such a ruling here to clear out the St. Paul’s filth. Thankfully, it’s another sign that there is finally some sort of push back, to assert the EQUAL rights of everyone else.
Here’s another good sign that the so-called 99% are struggling to throw their vastly over-estimated weight around. The Governor of Colorado was invited to speak at an event and, as his turn came to address the audience, a small number of Occuprats started their usual childish footstamping to drown him out.
Then the REAL 99% decided to push back. It’s a short clip, but really worth a look :
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=34545
THIS is what democracy looks like!
(also, have a look at the link at this post that details the attempts of an Occupy supporter to prevent the airing of the video – another sign that they’re on the back foot, and they know it)
The problem here is that the City Corporation has the collective backbone of a worm and the church authorities are unwilling to do anything unless the Guardian and the BBC give their permission. This is just another species of the authorities favouring the parasites (eg in Meriden http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2011/12/07/fury-as-meriden-protest-camp-face-the-boot-before-gipsies-92746-29907918/ ) over the generally law-abiding and certainly tax-paying majority
A taste of their own medicine. I like it!
The BBC are making quite a song and dance over TV presenter Matthew Wright having joked about a murder case on a remote Scottish Island.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-16068297
‘There’s been another murder….’ He quipped.
And the Beeb are keen that we all get to know about this because their radio news bulletines are still repeating this minor story.
Has the BBC shifted its stance on ‘edgy humour‘?
Is this simply the Beeb reflex to stick up for the Celts against a Cockney wise-arse?
Perhaps a bit of schadenfreude over a Channel 5 presenter’s slip up?
Maybe its just the BBC’s beloved PC Twiterati lefty linch mob (with an SNP twist) coming into play? All that outrage and oh the offence taken!
Or could this be something a little more sinister? Might the Beeboids have a bit a grudge against this guy? But surely not….he has worked for the Beeb – on a regional news show called Inside Out….
Afraid I will have to quote Wright in a report from the Gruan last month….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/14/matthew-wright-bbc-inside-out-cuts?newsfeed=true
‘I have yet to find anybody who can explain why the BBC is making 40% cuts to Inside Out. The most Mark Thompson was asked to deliver was around 20%. No one wilfully in the modern age gives up twice as much savings as they’ve been asked to.’
BBC News director Helen Boaden said the priority in regional television had to be the 6.30pm and 10.30pm bulletins, so she “reluctantly” looked for greater savings from Inside Out.
Oh I see, our Matthew has upset the top floor at the Beeb.
But wait I hear you cry we all want the Beeb cut back.
Well frankly I think I agree with Matthew on this….I would like to see more honest independently minded local reporting and less of centralised and indeed now compromised on-message national news.
And Wright also scored this direct hit….
‘On the day I was hearing messages that 40% cuts were coming to Inside Out I read in the papers that the BBC was in talks with Kylie Minogue to do The Voice, with a salary not unadjacent to £1m,” he added. “The BBC is not supposed to be competing commercially yet it’s pretty clear that big money negotiations are going on still. A fraction of that wage would keep on running some regional programmes for a year’.
I defy the stoutest defenders of the BBC, even the radical Envy-of-the-World-Radio-4-Worth-the-License-Fee-Alone Martyrs Brigade, to explain why a million quid of public money should be paid to Kylie Minogue to sit with her back to stage-school-plankton and/or the mentally subnormal and tell us whether they’ve ‘nailed it’ or not.
Mind you, Kylie’s million quid makes Mark Thompson’s 900 grand a year look utterly miserly.
Wonder if I’m onto something there.
On Today the revelations in the Telegraph that there has been cheating and collusion between schools and the examination boards on questions and topics set in GCSEs and A levels comes as a complete shock to us all – especially the BBC. However, to “respond to the allegations” we get the educational establishment (which is responsible for the dire state of the present educational system) in the persons of John Bangs, former head of education at the National Union of Teachers and now a member of the Faculty of Education at Cambridge and Glenys Stacey, chief executive of the exams regulator Ofqual.
Bangs claims he told everybody about this last year and, natch, blames competition between the various examination outfits (ie it’s another attack on competition – noted by Webb to his credit – and the private sector albeit the simulacrum of private sector competion represented here). Bangs calls for there to be one national exam board which, on the face of it, looks sensible but granting a 100% monopoly to a quango (a quango which will be made up largely of members of institutes of education and similar parasites) is no guarantee of quality of outcome: more likely the reverse. Bangs also seemed to claim that although this was cheating, in some way the exam results were reliable. Then Glenys – who had difficulty speaking in an English that I recognised – denied everything and, anyway, apparently it’s not the fault of the institution she heads despite the fact that the main task of that institution is to maintain standards in this sector of education.
Of course, we have no intelligent or impartial comment or analysis on Today – just a blame, shame and denial game. No-one – least of all Webb – asked who is really damaged by this tat because it suits everybody concerned very well indeed: the schools look good because they can game the exams; the teachers (and their unions) look good because grade inflation is locked into the system so that the pass record is constantly improving; the boards maintain their income; Ofqual and the Ministry of Education look good because – as grade inflation continues – the children taking the exams look better “educated” (which bounces back to the credit of the schools). Who loses? The major victims are the children who are not educated but nevertheless receive higher grade but increasingly worthless paper qualifications; the universities who rely on some objective measure of the ability of the candidates for university places; the taxpayer (of course) who is paying for all this nonsense.
So here is another framing of the debate by the BBC which avoids the real issues (ie the general standard of education, the preposterous grade inflation, the taken-for-granted crapola that 50% of school-leavers should be pushed through “uni”, the uselessness of quangos like Ofqual which are captured by producer interests within minutes of being set up) and instead panders to a faux-outrage concerning this species of corruption (ie boards selling themselves to the schools) which has been known for ages but kept quiet by the institues of education and the school unions. While highlighting corruption it’s a pity the BBC doesn’t deal with its own institutional corruption (eg concerning CAGW) but that really is too much to expect.
Interesting to read the whole piece for other snippets..
pressgazette Press Gazette BBC insider: Starting salary for a journalist on BBC local radio is around £20,000, broadcast assistant is £15,000 bit.ly/rtcgYN
With a rural-based wife in a mid-managerial position earning just over that £20k after 6 years driving company profits, I’d suggest a public sector employee sniping at starting salaries for BBC ‘journalists’ vs. othger public sector worthies is not a smart basis to moan from.
http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/jeremy-hunt-supports-bbc-orwell-statue/548
And some might suggest that statues are n-n-n-not all folks!
“Obama’s man comes up with the default BBC line”
(by Robin Shepherd)
http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/59850/obamas-man-comes-default-bbc-line
Radio4Extra, 2.30am today, Personality Test, Esther Ranzen in the chair, with three of the most unfunny bbc sychophants on the panel. It was cringingly bad. Esther came out quite normal compared to the other three. But what really made me feel angry, at sometime around 2.45am today, was the attempt at humour, again, at Margaret Thatcher’s expense. The gratuitious insults are something to behold. I suspect that the three vitriolic comedians weren’t even spatially aware when the glorious Margaret was in her prime. What is it about socialists in general and the bbc species in particular that harbours such hatred for this poor woman. I have never heard a personal attack by a bbc comedian, on any socialist politician; not even the one eyed idiot, who was aptly described by Mr Clarkson. It puzzles me why socialist comedians are so full of hate; they must be truly unhappy people. Having said that, Mr Clarkson’s views about the public sector strikers would apply quite well to these comedians.
People become Socialists because of negative emotions. It’s only natural that they’ll appear to be full of hate like this.
No its because Margaret Thatcher was responsible for the Black Death . She enjoyed watching gladiators die in Roman times , she introduced slavery, personnally sent children up chimneys even when lit , messed about with gravity so people fall over , deflected a comet into the earth that killed dinosaurs , shot Martin Luther king , sold Japanese Knotweed surreptiously at garden centres and allowed Herod to massacre the innocents .
To be fair to the BBC , they dont say she made global warming . Thats caused by 4×4 drivers and those who dont pay the telly tax .
Apologies, I also meant to ask if anyone had seen the Storyville programme last night, 7.12.11, on bbc2? It was a gripping account of the nefarious deeds of such behemoths as Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Lehman Brothers et al, and how they conspired to effectively steal our money. I wondered why it was shown on the bbc, of course, but concluded that because it is attacking bankers, it is a subject of which the socialists approve. That said, it was well worth a watch; it’s on iplayer at the moment.
I went to watch it online last night, when up popped a message saying I couldn’t but that it was available on my tv!
Yes I saw it John…well nearly all of it anyway.
Great programme and I don`t believe that the BBC know how much of a mirror the crisis and ensuing shambles is to themselves.
The best bit for me was the last twenty minutes or so when the interviewer trawled around Harvard, Columbia or the Beltway in order to remind the goons of what they said before the bubble burst and to ask who was paying them for their Icelandic sagas etc.
The chill and sheer malice shown by these sons and daughters of the entitlement was much as can be found at the BBC etc regarding their calling everything wrong from the Euro to Global Warming.
The mindset of these smug fat cats of pedded liberal platitudes is worldwide and borne of privilege, unaccountability and perpetual tenure….thank God for the archives and You Tube etc to remind us of these self-regarding fools.
It`s as if we`d take economic lessons from Balls, Miliband or Darling…or social policy advice from Harman, Cooper and their tawdry ilk.
I`m assumimg the Internet came to remind us all of the arseholes who caused all this…yet still get invited to hold forth on “what next to do” by the crazy hall of mirrors and echo boxes that comprise the liberal elite….the BBC being first among weasels!
Don t worry all ……looks like the el beeb history re-writers have been busy.
author and historian Simon Sebag Montefiore presents a three-part series illuminating the history of Jerusalem the erm 3??? abrahamic faiths, 3rd most holy site in Islam etc etc, the trailer full of shots of er muslims, muslims gazing at the al aqsa, muslims praying etc.
wonder how these johnny come latelys will fare? in THIS el beeb history doc
…any guesses?
pt 1 today el beeb 4
just clicked on trailer 2 to see crusaders (ie BAD) and their vicious slaughter of the muslim faithful, (ie GOOD )…
hmm this is history, one can assume the FACTUAL reasons for the crusades in the first place, will be explained fully? ….
this is el beeb so er … maybe not,
“jerusalems erm…”holiest” most revered the al aqsa etc. ….
hmmmmm
‘The Bible offers very little detail about Jesus’s daily life when he wasn’t preaching or performing miracles. And what little it does tell us defies all expectations – hanging around with prostitutes and trashing the temple. Is that the kind of behaviour church youth leaders want to encourage?’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16068178
First of all, someone should tell the BBC that he is written ‘He’ when referring to Jesus. Even if you don’t believe that Jesus was the son of God, it’s good manners and correct from a punctuation perspective!
And secondly, the impression given is that Jesus was a dodgy character who spent his time ‘hanging around with prostitutes’ (I think we all know what was being implied!), and vandalising temples. Not only is that highly offensive to Christians, it’s grossly misleading!
Jeff
The article also tells us that ‘It seems paradoxical that this most popular question-slogan emerged from US evangelicalism, which critics and opponents would not necessarily connect with open-minded questioning.’
Paradoxical because the author regards Christian evangalists as closed-minded bigots, presumably…
Jeff
…and in part two…I await a similar ‘warts and all’ examination of the life of that other religion’s prophet…and his, ahem, proclivities…
The article also says:
‘Particularly in the US, but also elsewhere, [‘What would Jesus do?’ is] on wristbands, mugs, T-shirts, bumper stickers, necklaces and earrings, though most of those seem rather to defeat the purpose of reminding the owner about anything’.
I’ve read that sentence several times, but I can’t work out how the reminders defeat the purpose of ‘reminding the owner about anything’.
Can anyone enlighten me please?
Thanks
Jeff
I can’t help you there, Jeff – it makes no sense at all. It’s just a meaningless sneer. Piss poor ‘journalism’. I’ve seen better quality writing on graffiti covered walls.
Reed –
I agree.
They could have commissed a theologan to write a balanced article about how Jesus’s teachings apply to modern issues, instead of the tripe they served up…
Jeff
The BBC always says “the Prophet Mohammed”, so why can’t they say “the Lord Jesus Christ” or similar? The BBC style guide needs serious reform.
I wonder if David Gregory would be good enough to find out for us, since this isn’t anything about the work of a specific colleague and is more about general practices?
Stephen Tomkins, the author of the WWJD article, appears to be one of those lefty Christians of the TFTD variety that the BBC tolerates. He’s written other articles for the BBC and is clearly on their approved list (see also Michael Goldfarb, PJ Crowley, A Point of View etc). BBC online likes both kinds of opinion writers – centre-left and left-wing.
I can only presume that the BBC dont like Jesus because he never paid the telly tax .
With the new online complaints submission format, you’ve not given a confirmation of the full text of your complaint after you’ve submitted it.
This means you can’t save the complaint in HTML format (and you no longer get your complaint emailed to you as part of an automatically generated acknowledgement).
As a result, it’s harder to follow up complaints when you don’t receive a reply weeks later.
Whoever designed the new form is an evil genius! LOL!
Jeff
Heard some guff on Radio 4 after 4pm today.
That old bin digger Nick Broomfield has some film to slop out about Sarah Palin, who (sadly) let ole Nick down by not standing for President.
Still-he had time enough to sneer, to pass judgement on the Bible Bashing frostbitten fools of Alaska….he “befriended” Palins parents, and could have done a better hatchet job had she agreed to be interviewed by Broomfield.
Broomfield is obviously out of snooping around death row in search of vulnerable murderesses…and I`m guessing the sexual perversions he so bravely participated in in the cause of art are no longer bankable…so he goes stalking our darling Sarah!
Believe there`s now a clinic for Nick in London now. Expressly designed to deal with stalking…whether it is to do it better or stop him from doing it might yet make a good film for Nick…and no need to waste all those airmiles on the hunt!
Broomfiled is exactly what the BBC was designed to foist upon the rest of us…Pilger without the big words!
Hey, look: the BBC finally got around to mentioning that Corzine is a Democrat in their fourth news brief about the MF scandal. His political affiliation was curiously censored out of the previous three reports.
They left out that he was Governor of New Jersey and practically bankrupted the state in between his time as Senator and taking over MF, but never mind. They even refer to him as “ex-Senator”. Ah, well. Baby steps!
Yes;
“The President’s Wall Street”
[Opening extract]:-
“So far, Wall Street has raised $7.2 million in the current electoral cycle for President Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Obama’s 2012 Wall Street bundlers include people like Jon Corzine​, former Goldman Sachs CEO and former New Jersey governor;”
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/10/18/obama%e2%80%99s-wall-street/2/
Link to Jon CORZINE (at ‘Wikipedia’)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Corzine
“Corzine to Congress: I Don’t Know Where Missing MF Global Money Went”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/08/corzine-revisits-congress-in-uncomfortable-role-likely-to-invoke-fifth/#ixzz1fyELBoC7
Still no mention by the BBC of Corzine’s role as major bundler for Obama 2012. It’s almost as if they’d prefer people didn’t know!
Beck comments on Obama speech:
(7 min video clip)
http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=20024063&topic_id=24584158
Alec Baldwin leaves Twitter after American Airlines row – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16083828
Good to see the BBC focusing its limited resources on the really important stories of the day…
Jeff
PS They also tell us that:
‘Mr Baldwin’s final tweet was a link to a YouTube video of a classical concert’
Fascinating stuff!
Who needs the Daily Mail when you can get nuggets like that from the BBC?
Jeff
I’m starting to think that everyone should give up on the BBC US section. It’s clearly geared towards what BBC management believes to be lowbrow US tastes, in an attempt to attract US eyeballs. The BBC stretches its tentacles ever further, gaining more ad revenue and more audience share. That it comes at the cost of leaving the license fee-payer tragically uninformed or misled is a pity, but not one that bothers BBC management. Their goals are different.
David, this morning’s Radio 4 Today programme news haedlines at 7:00 AM had a brief mention the jailing of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (Democrat) for corruption
Only the (Democrat) was omitted.
As in the link below:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16081234
I’m sure the Beeboids believe that just because they mention that Blagojevich was busted in part for trying to sell the President’s former Senate seat, everyone assumes he’s a Democrat because he was trying to sell a Democrat seat. Not how it really works, of course, but the BBC will assume that everyone has enough information to fill in the blanks, and they don’t need to mention party affiliation. They got it about right, and delivered quality first.
Only the (Democrat) was omitted.
I noticed that too, Roy.
They did the same thing with Anthony Weiner (scroll down to the udpate). How unlike their coverage of the Republican presidential candidate Republican Herman Cain (Republican).
Given what a total asshole Baldwin clearly was/is, the BBC write-up is about as sympathetic to the actor as it’s possible to be. Of course, he’s one of the good guys – an outspoken limousine liberal on the correct side of American politics. Added BBC bonus – he stars in the Blessed Tina Fey’s 30 Rock.
I can’t find any mention of the Rhea Page case on the BBC. As you probably know this is the assault upon Miss Page by Somalian women and the subsequent lenient sentencing by the judge.
Without going into details of the issues raised by this case and they are substantial it is the failure of the BBC to report anything which is interesting.
Now there can be only two possible reasons.
1. The editors etc consider it to be a non story despite extensive media coverage elsewhere.
2. A deliberate decision was made to censor this story in the interests of promoting so called cultural harmony. Gravely mistaken as it may be.
There is no other answer.
First post guys.
This story makes the BBC England page headline
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/england/
However, you can’t find this story on the BBC news pages;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8939276/Mercy-for-the-drunk-Muslim-girl-gang-who-attacked-woman.html
unless you search the BBC news site using ‘muslim alcohol’ and you get this obscure page, which has a link to the Scottish Sun and refers only to ‘girl gang…’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=muslims%20alcohol
Pretty much convincing evidence of bias?
The BBC don’t even see fit to report the story. A mere link to another news article with no reference to the thugs as muslims.
The first link above refers to this story:
Two men are each jailed for 10 years after being found guilty of deliberately setting fire to a Stoke-on-Trent mosque.
Yes it is surprising that the case of the four Somali “ladies” who racially abused and physically attacked a lone white girl (using the charming phrase “kill the white slag”) hasn’t received much coverage by the Beeb. Normally they drag out any and every piece of perceived racism and highlight it. We have had the John Terry incident, the Lawrence case and the foul mouthed tram woman running concurrently for weeks. I just can’t imagine why the Beeb are being so coy about this brutal racist attack and clear miscarriage of justice…
Any ideas?
There is no such thing as a racially motivated assault upon a white person.
We all must learn this truth by heart and it is part ofthe BBC’s remit to make sure we do.
“You can’t be racist towards white people“
“THE TRUTH ABOUT OUR LIBERAL ELITE AND RACE CRIME”
(by Leo McKinstry)
http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/288539
For censoring INBBC:
Muslim Misogyny, Feminist Indifference
(by Paul Weston).
INBBC’s editors’ e.g. Ms LANDOR, have political priority to spend British taxpayers’ money on providing free TV programmes via INBBC Arabic TV from Broadcasting House, London for Muslims of Middle East, etc, so as to expand INBBC’s anti-Israel broadcasting empire!
P.S for INBBC’s Ms Landor:
there’s no ‘Arab Spring’; it’s an ‘Islamic Winter’.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/12/arab_spring_helps_bbc_arabic_a.html
The BBC: less trustworthy, more dangerous than a cannibal polar bear – http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100122686/the-bbc-less-trustworthy-more-dangerous-than-a-cannibal-polar-bear/
<!– @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>
The Parrot
Has anyone noticed how often on BBC News bulletins there is a report of a Government announcement followed by a comment by a Labour spokesman: “Labour says…” Sounds as though they have someone from Labour HQ in the studio.
Ostensibly, this is political balance. In fact, it’s nothing of the sort: they are confusing Government and Party. If Labour make a political statement, in response to a Government announcement, the Conservative Party should be invited also to do so. Indeed, arguably, as it’s a Coalition Government, the Lib Dems should also be asked to do so.
Compare the bEEB Twat dot com
2 bomb strikes. 1 kills 1 the other kills 19, guess which one the bBC claims is the deadly one
‘New deadly Israeli strikes’ hit Gaza
Roadside bomb kills 19 civilians in south Afghanistan
Exciting news this morning for everyone who believes the EU is a blood-sucking monstrosity, but equally exciting in the Radio 4 newsroom.
At 8:15 this morning, William Hague spoke for about 10 minutes and was interrrupted about 25 times, or about once every 20 seconds – surely a record??
Yes, BBC-EU’s Justin WEBB interrupted William HAGUE on Hague’s every breath on ‘Today’!
Of course, WEBB sees his own political role as one of sabotage of the Tory enemy. WEBB is an anti-democratic disgrace, and should be sacked.
In contrast, immediately afterwards on ‘Today’, John HUMPHRYS treated ‘Today’s Labour rep with political subservience.
Not an INBBC TV interview on ISLAM.
Video clip of 15 min interview one doesn’t get on INBBC:
Robert Spencer on Michael Coren’s Sun TV show: selective law enforcement in UK, Islamic honor killings, and more
“A rose by any other name”
“Anti-Islamic Hyperventilation”
Time Magazine, Dec 8:
Exchange from hearing, Wed.
between Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., and
Paul Stockton, Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Defense:
Terrorist threat/Hasan/Ft Hood massacre
REPRESENTATIVE DANIEL LUNGREN (R-CA): Secretary Stockton, are we at war with violent Islamist extremism?
MR. STOCKTON: No, sir. We are at war with al-Qaida, its affiliates –
REP. LUNGREN: OK, I understand that. My question is, is violent Islamist extremism at war with us?
MR. STOCKTON: No, sir. We are being attacked by al-Qaida and its allies.
REP. LUNGREN: Is al-Qaida — can it be described as being an exponent of violent Islamist extremism?
MR. STOCKTON: They — al-Qaida are murderers with an ideological agenda –
REP. LUNGREN: No, I — that’s not my question. That wasn’t my question. My question was, is al-Qaida acting out violent Islamist extremism?
MR. STOCKTON: Al-Qaida is a violent organization dedicated to overthrowing the values that we intend to advance –
REP. LUNGREN: So is it yes or no?
MR. STOCKTON: Can I hear the question again? I’ll make it as clear as I can. We are not at war with Islam. And it is not –
REP. LUNGREN: I didn’t ask that — I did not ask that, sir. I asked whether we’re at war with violent Islamist extremism. That’s my question.
MR. STOCKTON: No, we’re at war with al-Qaida and its affiliates.
REP. LUNGREN: Well, al-Qaida — how does al-Qaida define itself? Are they dedicated to violent Islamist extremism?
MR. STOCKTON: Al-Qaida would love to convince Muslims around the world that the United States is at war with Islam.
REP. LUNGREN: I didn’t say that.
MR. STOCKTON: That’s a prime propaganda tool.
REP. LUNGREN: Sir –
MR. STOCKTON: And I’m not going to aid and abet that effort to advance their propaganda goal.
REP. LUNGREN: No, no, my question is, is there a difference between Islam and violent Islamist extremism?
MR. STOCKTON: Sir, with great respect, I don’t believe it’s helpful to frame our adversary as Islamic with any set of qualifiers that we might add, because we are not at war with Islam.
Uh Oh!
Obama looks like he s picked the right men for trenches eh !??!??!
and a little corker with john bolton on the bbc
http://youtu.be/tiPuqvO6qT8
“Islam is a collective psychosis seeking to become global, and any attempt to compromise with such madness is to become part of the madness oneself.”
Chinese 2,485 year tree ring study shows natural cycles control climate, temps may cool til 2068
But no mention on the Global warming lovin BBC
Jeremy Clarkson QI guest spot shelved in wake of One Show row – http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/09/jeremy-clarkson-qi-shelved-one-show?CMP=twt_gu
Mark Thompson: BBC does use private eyes, but no evidence of hacking | The Wire | Press Gazette – http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/wire/8437
‘No evidence of’, eh? Bill Clinton would be proud.