THE POVERTY SCAM

Taking a short break from endlessly repeating that the UK “is isolated” and that Nick Clegg “is unhappy”, the BBC was flogging that old favourite “child poverty” chestnut this morning. It brought on former Labour health secretary Alan Milburn  (Once a BBC hero) to pronounce on the alleged “rise” in what they call “child poverty”. What struck me was that although Milburn and the BBC are now forced to concede that it is “relative poverty” they are talking about (60% of median wage after housing costs) – they both agreed that poverty is rising even though median wages are falling. No explanation was given for this oddity. Nor is there any admission that “relative poverty” is a leftist invention engineered to ensure perpetual whingeing and a desire as Milburn put it “for higher wages.”  

ALWAYS GRATEFUL FOR THE WORK…

Ah, the Now Show, such a gem. A Biased BBC reader notes…

“Some of your hat-tippers may have already picked this up, but last Friday’s edition of The Now Show featured a comedian called Paul Sinha. Amusingly, and to much audience laughter, he said that in order to meet the BBC’s commitment to editorial balance a comedian from the Far Left was always balanced by one from the Centre Left. He added that ‘he was always grateful for the work’.”

REWRITING ALL THE TIME…

Looks like our pals at the BBC have been very busy boys today! A Biased BBC reader notes…

“There was an interesting article on the BBC website this morning about a report from the Adam Smith institute claiming that renewable energy is flawed. The article was quite a surprise as it seemed fairly balanced however it was clearly off message as it has now been completely re-written to say something different, the change of the headline alone is pretty damning. Full information is available here with a link to the article in question. http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/467718/diff/0/1


THE STERN GANG

The BBC is determined to present the outcome of the Climate Change debacle in Durban as some sort of triumph and this was all too evident with this interview with Lord Stern this morning. What struck me was the way in which he was allowed to waffle without interruption; the way in which he was allowed to present unsubstantiated claims as incontrovertible facts; the way in which any dissenting voices on Durban were ruthlessly expunged  from the debate. Also note the way in which the debate was framed…

“Lord Nicholas Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics analyses whether the deal goes far enough.”

Not a hint of bias there, right?

JUST ANOTHER BIASED MONDAY

Question to start the week. How often can you get the term “Bad for Britain” and the word “isolated” into a news programme? The answer is, lots, based on this morning’s Today programme. Did you catch it? Even by BBC standards, this was visceral hostility towards the Conservative Party. At one point, a trailer for a later story asked “Is the Coalition doomed?”. We had David Miliband on to offer us his wisdom here – lunatic as ever – meanwhile John Humphyrs got stuck into Danny Alexander here….and Nick Robinson joined in the fray. The BBC has rarely been as one-sided as it has been on the coverage of this story since Cameron refused to grovel to Merkozy. I suppose the Euromillions the BBC receives explains some of the visceral hatred towards Cameron and those evil “Eurosceptics.” I have to declare my bias now and say I would love to see this Coalition fall, for there to be an election right now, and for a Conservative/UKIP coalition to replace what we have. Can you IMAGINE the BBC response to that eventuality? The BBC is doing everything possible to triangulate Cameron to ensure he does NOTHING more to placate the “Eurosceptics” and instead embarks on a series of appeasements to the Lib-Dems. This is politics the BBC is playing, not impartially reporting the news. It is agenda setting, pro-Labour and slavishly pro EU.

Mardell Links to Conservative Publications, But Then Uses White House Propaganda to Defend the President

First, let’s celebrate the fact that Mark Mardell has actually linked to two conservative publications in one blog post!  Must be a new record, and probably takes care of his quota for the next six months.  In any case, as usual, Mardell is wrong about most of what he writes, and pushes White House propaganda instead of the truth.  Although, there’s actually one – very rare – criticism of the President from the US President editor.

Whatever happened to the reset button?

Mardell reminisces about the pathetic “Reset Button” incident where Hillary Clinton was sent to Russia as part of the President’s attempts to prove to everyone that He’s not George Bush. He actually pokes fun at the translation fiasco, calling the whole display “cheesy”. It’s nice to hear him actually criticize something about The Obamessiah Administration, even if it’s nearly three years after the fact. He was still Europe editor at the time, so no record of his opinion then, although curiously his predecessor, Justin Webb, didn’t bother to comment on his blog. Actually, the first BBC report about it, from Paul Reynolds, censored news of the error, and it was only later after Hillary caught some heat in the US media for it that the BBC dared discuss it.

Obviously things are not going well these days between the US and Russia, so the BBC US President editor has to explain why it’s not really the President’s fault.

The first excuse is actually valid: Sec. of State Hillary correctly criticized Russia for the rigged election. There’s a hint of disappointment from the US President editor as well, which is pretty rare, about how His Administration spoke out against Russia much faster than against Iran or Bahrain. This is where Mardell links to the non-Left Washington Times (I had to look out my window to check for airborne pigs) for a negative opinion on the President’s reluctance to speak out against those governments.

It’s not really His fault that relations are bad right now, you see, because both Russia and the US have been in the middle of an election cycle. So naturally the rhetoric spikes up on both sides, ruffling feathers everywhere. This, of course, excuses the President for not having His Administration speak up sooner about Iran and Bahrain. It also kind of gives the idea that Hillary’s criticism wasn’t that serious, in part just a bit of noise to please the home crowd in an election cycle. An unintentional error by Mardell there, I think.

Then Mardell tries to prove that the President really has had some successes in dealing with Russia.  First, he tells us that Dmitry Medvedev is the President’s best friend among world leaders. That’s a really, really bad sign of His priorities and diplomacy if true. What’s funny is that this apparent fact makes Mardell and his Beltway buddies utterly confused about why Russia is reacting so strongly to Hillary’s scolding. Maybe Medvedev is actually useless and has no real influence and does not speak for Russia except as a figurehead to sign treaties? Anyone ever thought of that?

Now the spin really starts. Sensing that there’s concern about the President’s apparent lack of success in negotiating with Russia, Mardell points out what he claims are three successes.

First is the START Treaty. Mardell shamelessly links to the White House’s own propaganda page on it. He must be hoping that nobody has any idea that in reality the President caved in to Russia and told our allies in Eastern Europe that we were going to ditch the plans for a missile defense system there in exchange for Russia signing on to…um…agreeing to think about considering not making more nuclear weapons for a while. When even the BBC’s favorite rent-a-Leftoid from the US, Michael Goldfarb, says it’s not cool, you know it’s pretty bad.

Basically, we got schooled. Yet the person the BBC tells you to trust for an insight into US issues denies it and shoves actual White House propaganda down your throats instead. Couldn’t he find a nice JournoLista article about how it was a triumph?

Next up is the trumpeting of a joint-military action against some Taliban heroin traders. Here Mardell links to the second conservative publication (miraculous), the Telegraph, except instead of an “important agreement”, it’s apparently one operation and not much else. Grasping at straws there.

Lastly, Mardell portrays Russia agreeing to let yet another NATO country move military equipment (really just a step-up of a pre-existing agreement) through its territory into Afghanistan (a country they have an interest in keeping to heel) as a special success for the President.

Assuming that nobody bothered to look any of this up and his readers believe the propaganda, Mardell continues to defend the President.  It’s also not His fault because He really is pushing that missile defense set-up in Europe against Iran. Russia feels threatened and is behaving badly.  Wait: isn’t this the missile defense system the President caved on already? Anybody think Russia is really scared this time?

Another sad effort from the BBC US President editor.

THAT ISOLATED FEELING

The BBC has one dominant running narrative since Cameron rightly vetoed the latest Merkozy plot. It’s all about the UK being “isolated”. It’s news bulletins have been loaded with this theme and even this Sunday morning, Nick Clegg is on the Marr show, chiming that isolation is bad news and being fed question after question which lays to the Europhilia of the Lib-Dems. We have even witnessed Michael Heseltine being brought back to our screens to warn us of the dangers of saying NO to the Eurocrats. Labour has been (rather pathetically, I must add) reinforcing the notion that Cameron has caused us unmitigated doom and gloom by…erm..standing up for our nation. The amusing aspect of this is that if one believes the polls, the British people overwhelmingly support Cameron, something one would never know from the biased BBC coverage. At moments like this, critical moments in our history, the BBC aligns itself with those who hate the idea of a free and sovereign Britain. When one reflects on that, it’s hard to conclude that the BBC is anything but the enemy within, using our money to undermine our Nation.

PS I note that Marr did not ask Clegg how he felt about UKIP going past the Lib Dems in the polls. Evidently some news is more equal than others.

DURBAN LIES

Richard Black is very happy this morning. The thousands of fatcat eco freaks at the Durban boondoggle have reached an “agreement” that will lead to £100bn being transferred from the urban poor in the developed world to the kleptocrats who run Africa’s developing economies. And he crows that this lunacy is now enforced by law. His reporting throughout the fortnight he has been in Durban has been a one-sided trumpeting of the BBC eco creed, laced with quotes from his cronies. It’s all summed up here.
But the horrendous reality of Durban is here:

“The fear of the negative consequences of the emission of CO2 is being used as a tool to bludgeon the developed world into economic and political suicide. We in the west are told that we must commit this suicide because we must commit to a “Fair and equitable allocation of the atmospheric space, taking into account the criteria of historic climate debt and population…”

CUT BY TWO THIRDS….

Over at the DT, James Delingpole brings these words of Sir Anthony Jay to our attention;

No, what really needs changing is the size of the BBC. All we need from it is one television channel and one speech radio station – Radio 4, in effect. All its other mass of activities – publishing, websites, orchestras, digital channels, music and local radio stations – could be disposed of without any noticeable loss to the cultural life of the country, and the licence fee could probably be cut by two-thirds.

For starters…