Given BBC antipathy towards the current UK Government, one can almost understand it’s enthusiasm to move the debate on from yesterday’s better than forecast inflation figures and back onto the negative narrative so preferred. We got a double whammy of that this morning from the BBC. First was the “news” that government plans to reform the system of funding for elderly care could be delayed by 10 years to 2025. Andrew Dilnot, former chairman of the Independent Commission for Funding of Care and Support, says such a move would be a “betrayal of people’s trust”. Then, following up the meme, comes the item that the UK’s monthly unemployment figures are likely to bring more grim news after last month’s figures showed unemployment rose to more than 2.6 million in the three months to September. In summary – vote Labour!
NO NEWS LIKE BAD NEWS!
Bookmark the permalink.
The BBC is really short on numerical capacity. Quite possibly the number of people unemployed has gone up. So what? With 2m recently arrived immigrants taking up British jobs I would hazzard a guess the total numbers IN employment is also up. But Labour so corrupted the reporting of official statistics with their Sickness Benefit Fraud for party advantage I dare say it is impossible to know whether any figure is actually up or down. Not that the BBC will tell you that. To the BBC its Labour Labour Labour. We might as well save Fatty Pangs salary for a start. He performs no useful function.
The BBC will be delighted at any news to stick it to the Tories.
Yet they were more than happy not to go overboard at all the same kind of bad news that was regularly evidenced under Labour.
Mandelson used to say that they were talking Britain down, and so they shut up.
As ever the shroud waving traitors at Bush House have lots to be taken out and shot for…in front of significant and nominated others, for these people would not have families!
If Clarkson could arrange that for me, I would send him a generous slab of my licence geld!
I loved Cameron’s put down to Red Ed about Clegg and him not being brothers! That really did stick the knife in. Red Ed is just useless, another Michael Foot.
For days now the BBC have been banging on about the 26 V 1, yet finally the BBC have to own up that not only is the Euro going round the u-bend but other Countries are now having second thoughts.
As usual the BBC refused to report the FACTS of last week (it never was 26 V 1) and simply tried to harm Cameron to please Red Ed (I often wonder just how much of Red Ed’s sperm Toenails can get in his mouth at one sitting).
But as usual it backfired I think the BBC/Guardian were really shocked to see the Tories UP in the polls, they really do live on another planet.
Planet rent boy.
On Radio 4 8:00 news the BBC couldn’t wait to tell us that the “independent” Committee on Climate Change (+ soundbite from CEO David Kennedy) has reported that low carbon technology subsidies paid via household energy bills “will not mean big bill rises”. The subsidy currently is “only” £75/household/year. Any substantial rises are due, apparently, to increases in wholesale prices of gas. The “news” further informed us that this inconsequential figure was contrary to what “some others” claimed.
This is a clear example of both bias and incompetent journalism:
1. this committee is not “independent” (well, it’s independent of any disinterested thought or analysis but I don’t think that’s what was meant) and is one of the key upholders of the CAGW religion. The CCC on its home page http://www.theccc.org.uk/ sets out its role which is to “advise the UK Government on setting and meeting carbon budgets and on preparing for the impacts of climate change.” It is yet another example of the Chomskyan restriction on debate. The CCC is not there to advise whether or not all this demonisation of carbon (not apparently carbon dioxide which is the culprit according to all the consensual “scientists”) is necessary. The “given” which this “independent” collection of nodding heads takes as read is that the response to climate change resides in trying to affect “carbon” levels. It’s nonsense, even on its own terms, but don’t expect the BBC to open that discussion.
2. I have never heard on a BBC news bulletin (or anywhere else on the BBC mainstream for that matter) an item announcing that a non-warmist outfit has claimed that the subsidy is in the region of £100+ currently and is sure to increase http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/3181-benny-peiser-green-taxes-should-no-longer-be-hidden-on-energy-bills.html
3. There is no reference on the BBC website (AFAIAA at 11:45) to the CCC’s supporting statistics/calculations. This story http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16191900 repeats the CCC “estimate” with no backing figures (although the figures and full report can be accessed direct on the CCC website)
For all I know the CCC may be right and Benny Peiser wrong. However, in the absence of the BBC demonstrating that it has analysed the report + back-up figures from the CCC, the same applies to the BBC. I suspect that this is the BBC default position of churnalistic transmission of narrative-friendly news: ie no analysis, no examination of the underlying figures – just bunged straight into the headlines and “if you don’t believe us, here’s the CEO of the CCC to confirm his opinion”.
Accordingly, in a display of what the BBC would assert as genetic impartiality
(a) it chooses to trumpet the CCC assertions and dismiss other estimates which AFAIAA the BBC has never reported or named in its major news offerings.
(b) on Today it offered the CCC CEO a soapboxto repeat his conclusions
(c) also on Today – in the post 08:30 dead zone – it offered a brief, largely inchoate non-discussion between Matthew Sinclair and George Monbiot. OTOH it did establish 2 points: (i) this issue is nothing to do with “climate change” and all to do with income/wealth redistribution and (ii) Monbiot is prepared to lie for the “cause” concerning “agreement” reached in Durban
Thus the (non-Narrative) idea that £200+ billion of taxpayers money is being misdirected (read “wasted”) to tackle what is a non-problem or the wrong problem or 1.6% of a world problem (ie the £200+ billion wasted won’t have any global affect anyway even if it were “successful”) is not worthy of genuine debate on the BBC.