BACK!

By | |

Ok, Looks like we are back. My eternal thanks to ASE who has been doing everything possible to get the site functioning again.  I’m declaring this a Friday Open Thread and praying that all remains stable.

Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to BACK!

  1. beness says:
    April 13, 2012 at 8:49 am

    Ahh. Just left a comment on the thread below about problems logging in sometimes.

       0 likes

    • Millie Tant says:
      April 14, 2012 at 10:55 am

      beness, I’d be interested to know about the logging-in problem as I cannot always get in, or get the site to respond. What is the name of the thread below?

         0 likes

  2. Demon says:
    April 13, 2012 at 9:05 am

    Well done to the fixers. Glad to get my daily fix of common-sense again.

       6 likes

  3. George R says:
    April 13, 2012 at 9:24 am

    “Farewell, Grand National: why BBC Sport is a disgrace.”

    Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/sport/46289/farewell-grand-national-why-bbc-sport-disgrace#ixzz1ruWCic2r

       0 likes

  4. Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:
    April 13, 2012 at 9:52 am

    Croeso ‘n ol ! Dw i wedi bod ar goll hebddoch chi!

    Welcome back, I have been lost without you !

       2 likes

  5. Deborah says:
    April 13, 2012 at 9:55 am

    So pleased to have you back – without bBBB I would feel like the man in the Munch painting. Thank you

       5 likes

  6. George R says:
    April 13, 2012 at 10:11 am

    Labour-Mass Immigration-Islamisation-INBBC-Bradford.

    Labour Party’s deliberate policy of over a decade, of mass immigration, so as to enforce the colonisation of Britain under the guise of ‘multiculturalism’, has had INBBC political support.

    Now, Ed Miliband, pondering the political defeat of Labour in Islamising Bradford, is now planning to implement more Islam-compliant policies than Galloway.

    INBBC-

    “Miliband says Labour ‘will not forget’ Bradford loss.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17694224

       6 likes

  7. james says:
    April 13, 2012 at 10:31 am

    Good to be back, suffering withdrawal symptoms.

       4 likes

  8. George R says:
    April 13, 2012 at 11:30 am

    INBBC’s Ms Y. KNELL, still politically touting for Muslim Brotherhood (MB)
    in Egypt.

    All Ms Knell’s uncritical political propaganda for MB today:-

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17356253

    Compare with B. RUBIN’s recent critical analysis of MB, etc:

    http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/rubin-reports/rubin-reports-an-islamist-president-for-egypt/2012/02/23/0/?print

       1 likes

  9. Merlin says:
    April 13, 2012 at 11:34 am

    Well done folks good to see you all back! Let’s hope Jim got lost in that worm hole lol!

       4 likes

  10. As I See It says:
    April 13, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    US reflections and a couple of small examples of bias.

    It is my contention that the BBC are deeply biased, not so much in favour of the Democrats, as they are anti-Republican.

    And it is for a purpose.

    Attitudes to US politics are something of a cypher for domestic UK politics where the BBC has to tread much more warily, because it might be more likely to be held to account than is the case with the US (not much, but a little more likely). Therefore it is safer for a campaigning left-winger to remain apparently balanced but to lampoon Americans and get barbs into, eg George Bush, and by so doing by implication attack and denegrate conservative values at home.

    This has been a very successful strategy for the left.

    The Cameroons have been so chastened by this kind of cultural political attack led by the BBC that they have been almost completely cowered into submission on certain core conservative issues.

    There is now a powerful prevailing attitude of anti-American/anti-conservatism in this country.

    I may have already shared with this site a ‘joke’ which my teenage daughter informed me that her class had been told by their science teacher: What did the Christian say to the dinosaur? Nothing they don’t believe in dinosaurs.

    I could hardly contain the contempt and anger when I heard this – it was certainly an Edvard Munch ‘Scream’ moment! But I am very aware that this sort of attitude is the new British cultural norm – and I am aware of where these new norms have originated, where they have been propagated and where they are now enforced.

    There was a small example of the enforcement of such attitudes yesterday morning when Nicky Campbell spoke to a Republican supporter about Mitt Romney. This short interview will of course go down in a BBC box ticking excercise as a balancing item. Romney was heard saying that America was the world’s best/greatest (I don’t recall which) nation.

    Campbell’s PC alert went off. In the BBC’s eyes all countries are equal (well, some may be more equal that others). Now I would hazard a guess that the incumbent President would probably make a similar comment but let that go. I reckon 99% of the world’s population would think their own country is best – and why the hell shouldn’t they? More to the point they would think it odd that their politicians were not saying so. So why the sudden reaction on the part of the Beeboid as though this were such an edgy comment? Campbell regarded it as so out of place that you might have thought Lady Bracknell had just farted in an Oscar Wilde play. PC enforcement that is what it was and he knows it.

    Another enlightening and very small example.

    Campbell was talking about ants the other day. An expert informed him there were 50 kinds. Dame Nicky’s female palymate had imagined there were only the usual black type and some red ones. Ah, chuckled Gameshow, diversity you see, diversity.

    You see how he is taking the piss?

       6 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:
      April 13, 2012 at 2:18 pm

      Well said. I do remember how the Beeboids were so pleased when The Obamessiah was anointed….sorry…elected because they knew He didn’t really believe in what Justin Webb refers to as American Exceptionalism. The President’s apology tour went down well in White City, but nowhere else.

         1 likes

  11. james says:
    April 13, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    I heard the Humphrys Liberia report the other day. The BBC have changed their script for Africa. When talking to students about what they want to be, instead of the old fashioned ‘I want to be a doctor’, this was replaced by ‘I want to own a business in internet micro management’.

    But surely learning to be a farmer, a sanitation engineer or a hundred and one occupations would be more useful. God help that country.

    It was one of those good news in Africa reports that the BBC have been pumping out for the last 40 yrs. Why doesn’t the BBC just admit Africa is a bit crap.

       6 likes

    • TigerOC says:
      April 13, 2012 at 2:48 pm

      And do you know why he wants to run internet micro management business?

      Because he’ll then be sending you an email advising that he knows somebody rich that has just died and if you give him your bank details you too will be a millionaire. Then once you answer he will micro manage you out of your money. :=)

         6 likes

  12. Span Ows says:
    April 13, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    hooray!

       4 likes

  15. Guest Who says:
    April 13, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    The dance macabre continues…

    Thank you for your email of 30 March regarding the edition of Dateline London which was
    broadcast on the BBC News Channel on 11 February 2012.

    You are, as always, welcome.

    As you know, the remit of the Editorial Complaints Unit is to investigate cases where there
    may have been a serious breach of the standards expressed in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines
    (http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/).

    And I would not write in to insist on an escalation from the initial attempted initial interference running otherwise; though any breach, whether ‘serious’ (definition unclear, and on whose say-so to get to you even) or not, is surely a concern?

    In this case, I have understood your
    complaint to be that the panel members were “united in a view…on the Falklands almost
    totally at odds with the British public”.

    A reasonable summary, yes, given the BBC’s claimed remit to speak for the British public. While counter views are valuable to learn, if all that is broadcast and only such, especially egged on by the chairperson, that seems more propaganda and, oddly, in service of those not seeking the best interests of Great Britain and its population at home and abroad. That has poor historical precedent.

    I should explain at this stage that the choice of
    panellists is a matter of editorial judgement and discretion for programme-makers and the
    selection of particular individuals does not, of itself, raise a potential breach of editorial
    standards.

    I’m a little intrigued by that. Especially as you seem to be washing your hands of this aspect. If not you on such selection, then, who?

    What can’t be done is something of a meme throughout the corporation, especially associated with little advice in complement at what can be…

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2012/03/bbc_news_mobile_site_refresh.html?postId=112223613#comment_112223613

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2012/03/news_mobile_responsive_design.html?postId=112223347#comment_112223347

    I can, however, consider whether what was said by those on the panel led to a
    lack of due impartiality during the brief discussion about the latest British response to the
    situation over the Falkland Islands.

    Further to my last question, how on earth is it possible to consider only what was said by outside panellists not employed by the BBC, when the key and related issue is clearly the fact that they were assembled by the BBC for what they have, do and will say? I have great concerns as to this spurious one degree of separation proxy guest selection technique now pervading, when ‘guests’ seem invited in more to utter what the BBC wants to but dare not directly, yet gets what it wants broadcast anyway. All with a ‘it wasn’t us gov, it was them’ excuse ready to hand.

    I therefore propose to consider whether the programme met the requirements for due
    impartiality as set out in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. In particular, I will consider the
    following sections:

    4.1 Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC’s
    commitment to its audiences. It applies to all our output and services – television, radio,
    online, and in our international services and commercial magazines. We must be
    inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of
    views is appropriately reflected.

    The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure
    controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output
    dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. But we go
    further than that, applying due impartiality to all subjects. However, its requirements
    will vary.

    The term “due” means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the
    output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience
    expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.

    Due impartiality is often more than a simple matter of “balance” between opposing
    viewpoints. Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or
    detachment from fundamental democratic principles.

    I merely note out of that screed; “more than a simple matter of “balance” between opposing viewpoints.’

    Whilst ‘balance’ offers a world of excuses based on interpretations and semantics, in this case I was hard pressed to identify any ‘opposing’ viewpoints. There appeared to be a couple of rabid anti-Falklands sovereignty Anglophobes, plus some journalists from overseas media.

    There is also a section on Breadth and Diversity of Opinion:

    4.4.1 Across our output as a whole, we must be inclusive, reflecting a breadth and
    diversity of opinion. We must be fair and open-minded when examining the evidence
    and weighing material facts. We must give due weight to the many and diverse areas of
    an argument.

    As various reports show, from the FoI-excluded Balen to Prof. Jones’ interesting views on climate reporting, the giving of due weight at the BBC can vary a bit, ranging from active promotion to the point of propaganda, to something even more sinister in omission at the other end, with ‘watertight oversight’ when called for. Of course, in some cases, the public is not allowed any right to know, or the ability to hold to account.

    I found this of interest coincidentally:

    BBC Newsnight ‏ @BBCNewsnight Newsnight understands the body that represents PR industry will tomorrow clear Bell Pottinger of breaking its own voluntary code of conduct

    One of the BBC’s premier news programmes seems to have a problem with an industry or entity investigating itself, somewhat ironically, given where we are here and now. I did raise that with them, but now the Newsnight blog thread interactivity has been consigned to twitter and FaceBook, this avenue of shared public discourse on media hypocrisies has of course been effectively shut down, along with much else, sadly.

    Breadth and diversity of opinion may require not just a political and cultural range, but,
    on occasions, reflection of the variations between urban and rural, older and younger,
    poorer and wealthier, the innovative and the status quo, etc. It may involve exploration
    of perspectives in different communities, interest groups and geographic areas.

    Noting the word ‘between’, as it was all pretty one-sided, as set up.

    4.4.2 Impartiality does not necessarily require the range of perspectives or opinions to
    be covered in equal proportions either across our output as a whole, or within a single
    programme, web page or item. Instead, we should seek to achieve “due weight”. For
    example, minority views should not necessarily be given equal weight to the prevailing
    consensus.

    Equally, ‘equal proportions’ is a semantic weasel’s dream, and doubtless the main basis for the number of complaints to ones deemed worthy of going to Trust percent figure. Only 110 from 240,000 last year I am told. Impressive if true. Amazing even. If one was of a cynical nature, one might almost wonder if the folk selected to judge had an iron in that fire. I appreciate you, and others supportive of BBC systems, are sensitive to such notions, but were any other organisation to offer such stats, I’d hazard the airwaves would be alive with the phrase ‘questions are being asked’.

    Nevertheless, the omission of an important perspective, in a particular context, may
    jeopardise perceptions of the BBC’s impartiality. Decisions over whether to include or
    omit perspectives should be reasonable and carefully reached, with consistently applied
    editorial judgement across an appropriate range of output.

    I’d say the total absence of at least one Falklands-supportive viewpoint, even including the BBC chairman, rather falls under this.

    Otherwise it is simply an echo chamber. Bad enough. One touting solely contra-UK, dependency, armed forces and population interests is worse.

    Controversial Subjects:

    4.4.5 We must apply due impartiality to all our subject matter. However, there are
    particular requirements for ‘controversial subjects’, whenever they occur in any output,
    including drama, entertainment and sport.

    A ‘controversial subject’ may be a matter of public policy or political or industrial
    controversy. It may also be a controversy within religion, science, finance, culture,
    ethics and other matters entirely.

    The bellicose sabre-rattling threats of a foreign power, that lead to a shooting, killing war before a few decades ago, IS controversial enough. Making it more so by skewing in that power’s favour by a national broadcaster of the target nation is even more controversial.

    4.4.6 In determining whether subjects are controversial, we should take account of:

    • the level of public and political contention and debate

    The public seems pretty unified here. The contention and debate seems more amongst select (and self-selecting) London (now Salford too) media classes. And they seem keen to ensure their level of noise out-broadcasts any other, simply by having access to the volume dial, edit suite and means to transmit.

    • how topical the subjects are

    I’d say.

    • sensitivity in terms of relevant audiences’ beliefs and culture

    Now who is this ‘relevant audience’? Friends, relatives and national empathisers with our armed forces and those sharing our values in other lands co-dependent? Or… who, please?

    • whether the subjects are matters of intense debate or importance in a
    particular nation, region or discrete area likely to comprise at least a
    significant part of the audience

    Bless.

    • a reasonable view on whether the subjects are serious

    War and death is serious. As are motivations and morale. Skew the national mood on the former to undermine the latter is dark territory.

    • the distinction between matters grounded in fact and those which are a matter
    of opinion.

    As I recall (is it now off iPlayer now? And behind the FoI wall for any but those who can access at will to skew any further exchange in their favour?) Mr. Esler let slide a bunch of muttered ‘facts’ that needed challenge. A common issue when the host is surrounded only by folk he selected and agrees with.

    4.4.7 When dealing with ‘controversial subjects’, we must ensure a wide range of
    significant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence, particularly
    when the controversy is active. Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact.

    It clearly wasn’t.

    If you have any comments on this summary of your complaint and the relevant guidelines,
    please let me have them by 24 April, so that I can take them into consideration in the course
    of my investigation.

    You have them.

    If there are any issues of concern which I have not covered I would be
    grateful if you could let me know within the above timeframe because we can only consider
    new points of complaint made at a later stage under exceptional circumstances. I will aim to
    let you know the outcome of my investigation by 9 May.

    Not new, but I notice the flippancy of Mr. Esler’s remark concerning ‘defending a few penguins’, after a deadly war that claimed many British lives, has not been included. Is there a reason for this? It seems germane to the overall complaint, and puts in context his views on the whole issue, and hence guest selection and moderation of ‘debate’. Not to mention his suitability as a UK-interest representative on the British Broadcasting Corporation. That first word suggests much. If what goes out is not something that is in my name, I have a big problem. And it does, too often. As a reminder:

    However, we forwarded your concerns to the programme’s Editor who explained in response that the object of the programme is to let the audience hear people’s views. He added that he’s sorry if you objected to Gavin’s throw-away line at the end of the programme and pointed to how it’s a live show.

    I viewed that equally seriously, if not more so, and took a dim view of the initial complaints system’s attempts to laugh that off too. The BBC does much live, and pays a lot to in-theory professional broadcasters to conduct matters, especially their own words, in an appropriate manner. What was provided was a poor apology even for a reason, much less excuse.

    I do trust this will not be attempted at this level?

    Further communication will signify your consent to this.- As always, no, it is not

       7 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:
      April 13, 2012 at 2:20 pm

      So the programme didn’t violate the remit for impartiality because any groupthink among the panel was due to editorial decisions by the producers? Didn’t the last complaints apparatchik tell you they don’t make editorial judgments about their panelists?

         5 likes

      • Guest Who says:
        April 13, 2012 at 3:20 pm

        ‘Didn’t the last complaints apparatchik tell you they don’t make editorial judgments about their panelists?’
        Well spotted. I am surprised the returning cherry vultures, alert as they are to things not adding up, missed this.
        Consistency not their strong suit… the BBC I mean.
        I think the purpose of all these folk churning out all this guff in response to my complaints (thanks to their systems, of necessity brief and to the point), is to grind me down.
        Thing is, it seems more they simply end up contradicting themselves and shooting each other in the feet.

           3 likes

        • Guest Who says:
          April 13, 2012 at 3:23 pm

          Frankly, get to court and a decent barrister could fillet them piece by piece.
          All I await is my eventual banning which, given the tone being adopted by a few of my new chums at complaints and ECU, may not be far off.

             3 likes

        • David Preiser (USA) says:
          April 13, 2012 at 4:10 pm

          These people need a good Sir Humphrey monologue writer.

             0 likes

  16. Guest Who says:
    April 13, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    @BBCNewsnight
    On #newsnight we ask an eclectic live studio audience to debate the issue of elected mayors and what they could mean for democracy in the UK
    In context, I wonder what Newsnight might define as ‘eclectic’? The composition might be interesting, especially where there are odd areas of memory loss on recent revelations.

       3 likes

  17. chrisH says:
    April 13, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Anyone able to tell me why we`re expecting the old and corrupt Kofi Annan to bring peace to Syria?
    Unless his family benefit, we`re wasting our time. Reckon he`s not wearing a tie because Hezbollah nicked it to hang another Jew or Christian, once the media have gone home.
    Now I know Blairs family are as venal and sorry as Annans…but surely our Peace Envoy to the Middle East might come to the BBCs rescue, and work those phones from a safe 5-star hotel, instead of sending Kofi rond in the heat and dust to no purpose-the old goat was 74 this week, and probably doesn`t need the hassle.
    Anybody here seen Tony then?…

       3 likes

  18. #88 says:
    April 13, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    Did anyone catch ‘Thought for the Day’ on the ‘Today’ programme to other morning – Wednesday -when B-BBC was off air?http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01fjt04/Today_11_04_2012/

    1:46:45 in, the Vicar of St James Picaddilly, Rev Lucy Winkett, after a brief meander through nothing much, gets to her main point; that people who do God do good.

    While she says that it would be wrong to go into detail about which party religious people would be likely to support, she gives it a damn good go, pointing us in the direction of a recent Demos report (linked below), which if you care to go to, gives us the answer; i.e. ‘people who belonged to a religious organisation were more likely to place themselves on the left side of the political spectrum.’

    This is straight out of the Polly Toynbee ‘Left wingers are nicer and more intelligent people’ school of thinking…and, BBC, the message is hardly politically impartial.

    Rev Winkett forgot to tell listeners that Demos is a left wing think-tank with strong links to the Labour Party (and with origins to the left of it).

    She forgets to tell us that in order to advise on the direction and content of the research for this report Demos convened an advisory committee of ‘faith leaders, academics and politicians’ chaired by Labour MP Stephen Timms and including other Labour and left wing members.

    Rev Winkett, also forgets to mention that another member of the advisory committee is: herself.

    So ‘Thought for the Day’s’ message is a barely disguised, if you want to be seen to be a good person -VOTE LABOUR. No wonder I don’t go to church any more – but then again perhaps I’m not as intelligent or as nice as Rev Lucy. I think I might have more integrity, though.

    http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Faithful_citizens_-_web.pdf?1333839181

       7 likes

    • Reed says:
      April 15, 2012 at 1:09 am

      Of course, if they were to do a similar piece about the USA, they’d reverse all of their assumptions. All those nasty Christian Red States and all.

         0 likes

  19. David Preiser (USA) says:
    April 13, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    Thanks to The Eye for getting the site back up. I felt a little silly going through withdrawal, but there’s been so much for the BBC to censor or spin.

    Mob rule now makes the law in Florida, every poll shows the President in trouble – except the one the BBC decided to tell you about with the President out-polling Romney among women, of course – EditGate just keeps on going, Palestinian supporters harassing and threatening Jewish students because it’s okay for all Jews everywhere to suffer for Israel’s sins, an idiot Democrat strategist (and head of the draconian RIAA who is partially responsible for Master O’Dwyer getting arrested and extradited for “merely” linking to pirated content) has said that Mrs. Romney is less worthy than Mrs. Obama because women who stay home to raise their children are inferior, a Democrat Congressmen has said that he hopes Dick Cheney is executed, Rep. Alan West said that he’s heard that 80 Congressmen are Marxists, women in the Obamessiah Administration are paid much less than their male counterparts, the President doesn’t believe many people are concerned about His lavish vacations, and some NASA scientists got fed up with the agency’s Warmist.

    Need to make a digest or something.

       5 likes

  20. Louis Robinson says:
    April 13, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    I learn from the BBC website that “Newark Mayor Cory Booker saves woman from fire:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17700783

    Of course the BBC also points out that “Mr. Booker is considered a rising star in the Democratic Party.” Another Democratic hero is being manufactured.

    In the interests of balance I’m sure they’ll now report on how some years ago CEO Mitt Romney closed down his operation at Bain Capital when he discovered his partner’s daughter had been missing for three days in New York. He shipped everyone in the firm to the Big Apple and organized a 24-hour a day operation searching for her. All the execs and workers were involved. Romney himself visited raves and spoke to addicts and street gang members looking for information. The local TV station was co-opted into the operation and their tip line led to the discovery of the girl, her safe release and the arrest of the man who was holding her.

    But you won’t hear that story. You see, Romney is a REPUBLICAN candidate for his party’s nomination for President.

       4 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:
      April 13, 2012 at 4:15 pm

      I’ve heard good things about Mayor Booker. He’s not perfect, but he’s done well with the public face aspect of the job, and gotten some infrastructure things accomplished. I admit I could be proven wrong by some revelation of typical New Jersey corruption or something.

         1 likes

  21. Guest Who says:
    April 13, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    Currently doing battle (and losing… it is his ball after all) with this charmer…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2012/03/homepage_update_design_museum.html?postId=112223566#comment_112223566
    The question getting begged being.. what… in Mr. McDonald’s little world, can ever be ON topic?
    Seems I am not the only one to note the activities of the BBC’s very own ‘Moderator sayz no’…
    B51. At 13:28 27th Mar 2012, masterville wrote:
    #49 …watch out that ian mcdonald doesn’t read it.
    The previous exchanges are interesting too.
    He’d best be careful. Not a reputation to cultivate as the BBC’s cred as anything other than a censorious propagandist spirals downwards.

       0 likes

  22. hippiepooter says:
    April 13, 2012 at 8:18 pm

    A tale of two lefties:-

    Maher – Coulter

    Paxman – Coulter

       1 likes

    • picky20 says:
      April 15, 2012 at 5:58 am

      How refreshing – she held her own beautifully, and called the ‘liberal hegemony’ in his intro – I believe he even had the decency to blush because it was so true. And it turned out that in his intro about the 9-11 widows was shockingly tainted and exaggerated – well done that woman, tell it like it is.

         0 likes

  23. jonuk says:
    April 13, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    30 minutes of Tory bashing on HIGNFY….tiresome BBC

       2 likes

  24. Guest Who says:
    April 14, 2012 at 7:01 am

    I’ll be interested in how the BBC handles the issue of ‘nasty’ shops blighting our high streets, citing bookies, strip clubs and kebab shops. SKY has been all over it,
    What I found odd (about SKY at least) was that they are also all over the nasty councils looking at banning chuggers, and indeed the SKY anchor threw the fact that people already were put off on the pavement by such folk at a hapless bookie rep.
    Now I can’t say I find bookies of interest, and kebab shops do not often invest in stylish frontages (plus litter issues), but it was truly funny how, after giving endless airtime to squads of charity gobs, there was no mention of the infestation of charity shops (not a strip club in sight), which the public DO talk about… a lot. In our market town they are about 1 in 3, and thanks to their unique status often compete on very unfair terms with other shops.
    How about looking at that MSM?
    Or is that an aspect of the narrative not really working with the current meme?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17701637

       2 likes

  25. Guest Who says:
    April 14, 2012 at 9:27 am

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9200191/If-you-run-the-BBC-youll-never-sleep-a-wink.html

    Already shared, but the tireless ‘You are all wrong! The BBC gets it about right!’ efforts of apologist poster JimknowsFall are to be appreciated.

       0 likes

  26. Deborah says:
    April 14, 2012 at 9:58 am

    I switched on late to Newsnight last night to see a discussion about elected mayors. In the studio was a group of about 20 people including Esther Rantzen and Nigel Farage. But the group inlcuded about 4 young Asians, an older Asian and a young man of African descent. Set me thinking is this a true reflection of Britain today?

    But there was a woman ‘mother of two’ said the strap line who was ‘disenfranchised’ – I assume she was a Liberal Democrat; a Green councillor; ‘Lowkey’, the name of the mouthy Asian was not obviously on the right of politics. As I watched it appeared that this group of 20 included only Nigel F and an older Conservative coucillor from Birmingham who appeared to be on the right of politics. This was a group that the BBC, I would assume had balance, ie 18 to the Left (or 17 if Esther says she is centre) and 2 to the right.

       3 likes

    • Guest Who says:
      April 14, 2012 at 10:44 am

      “This was a group that the BBC, I would assume thought had balance, ie 18 to the Left (or 17 if Esther says she is centre) and 2 to the right.”
      —
      @BBCNewsnight
      On #newsnight we ask an eclectic live studio audience to debate the issue of elected mayors and what they could mean for democracy in the UK
      —
      Eclectic is as eclectic does.
      When the national broadcaster stacks decks like that, I wonder what that could mean for democracy in the UK.
      Lucky they shut down the blog post so ‘questions could not be asked’.
      Allegra must be well pleased.

         2 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:
      April 14, 2012 at 1:45 pm

      Just a true reflection of London, then? Subtle signs for Livingstone over Boris?

         0 likes

  27. George R says:
    April 14, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    Islam Not BBC (INBBC) censors Denmark cartoon case:

    INBBC’s first words-

    ” Four deny”…

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17698436

    The ‘Daily Mail’, in contrast, indicates what the case is about from the outset with its headline-

    “Four Muslims ‘planned to kill Danish Crown Prince in Mumbai-style terror attack in revenge for newspaper printing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed'”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129309/Four-men-targeted-Danish-Crown-Prince-Frederik-terror-plot-revenge-newspaper-printing-cartoons-Prophet-Mohammed.html#ixzz1s1Kadlu6

       1 likes

  28. David Preiser (USA) says:
    April 14, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    Something the BBC will never report:

    Did the President pay a lower effective tax rate than His secretary?

    Yes.

    Mark Mardell will not be blogging about this.

       2 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:
      April 14, 2012 at 4:13 pm

      UPDATE: I am totally wrong. The BBC did report it, because the White House is spinning it as proof that the tax code needs to be fixed so that wealthy people pay more than ever. In other words, He happily earned loads of cash and didn’t pay His fair share until He was caught.

      I’m wrong about the BBC censoring it, but cleverly still find bias. Or at least, that’s what I’m telling myself. 🙂

      Still, I’m glad the BBC is making the effort to report the most minor of stories which make the President look bad.

         1 likes

      • Teddy Bear says:
        April 14, 2012 at 4:42 pm

        This hasn’t been covered yet by the BBC. I can only wonder whether it will be, or will it be one that they ‘determine’ not worthy of making public.
        For sure they’d prefer the latter.
        Barack Obama’s bodyguards sent home from Colombia summit amid prostitution allegations
        A dozen Secret Service agents sent to Colombia to provide security for President Barack Obama at an international summit have been relieved of duty over alleged misconduct.

           0 likes

        • Jim Dandy says:
          April 14, 2012 at 4:44 pm

          I heard this on either r5 or r4 this morning. Doesn’t reflect On Obama either way.

             0 likes

          • Teddy Bear says:
            April 14, 2012 at 4:50 pm

            Thanks for confirming that the BBC are aware of this story Jim, though I doubt you realised the import.
            But since the UK doesn’t vote for Obama, what is reported on the radio has no significance to the BBC agenda. The fact that it hasn’t yet been put on the website, even after they deemed it newsworthy enough to report, shows something fishy.

               0 likes

        • David Preiser (USA) says:
          April 14, 2012 at 5:03 pm

          It’s currently the top story on the BBC US & Some Country Which May As Well Not Exist, Judging By BBC Reporting page.

          There is evidence of editorial bias, though. Or, to be more precise, bias by omission. Curious how the Beeboids decided not to include the relevant context of how this story comes at a time when the President is getting flack for having an Administration which is rather hostile to women. The news in the last couple days has been about how women earn significantly less than their male counterparts, and with the exception of Valerie Jarrett is an old Chicago boys’ club. There’s also the background context (usually provided by the BBC for other topics) that women felt excluded in the early days of His Administration. The Left-wing HuffingtonPost (a daily Beeboid read) was talking about this in 2010. Yet no background context provided by the BBC.

             0 likes

          • Jim Dandy says:
            April 14, 2012 at 5:21 pm

            ‘curious’! It would be utterly bizarre and asinine had they made that link.

            Really.

               0 likes

            • David Preiser (USA) says:
              April 14, 2012 at 6:02 pm

              Utterly asinine? It’s relevant to the current media atmosphere of reporting on how the Administration is not so friendly to women. I don’t mean that the President Himself should be blamed for this, as I see no difference here from UN peacekeeping troops getting busted for this in certain African countries. This is the fault of the culture lower down in the hierarchy.

              But the BBC stretches the concept of context rather often, so there’s no excuse not to include real context here.

              For example, in this brand new article about the Nazi Party getting their first Washington lobbyist includes a contextual coda that Rep. Allen West just said that he’s heard that there are 80 Communists in Congress. What does that have to do with a Nazi lobbyist? F all. But they did it anyway.

                 2 likes

          • Teddy Bear says:
            April 14, 2012 at 5:23 pm

            I see why when I searched I found no story on it Dave, I used ‘bodyguards’, as related in the Telegraph article, in the search term and not Secret Service agents. I did notice though the BBC article doesn’t include Obama in the headline , which The Telegraph clearly thought made it more newsworthy.

               0 likes

            • Jim Dandy says:
              April 14, 2012 at 5:30 pm

              Ah well. I put ‘hard taciturn dudes’ in my first search and came up with nothing.

              The two articles currently running have ‘Obama’ in their introductory sentences.

                 1 likes

              • Guest Who says:
                April 15, 2012 at 6:22 am

                ‘‘hard taciturn dudes’
                Can’t speak for the last two, but the first word seems to have been a prominent part of the issue, as I watch a summary on SKY news.
                Can’t wait for the BBC spin once the President’s best interests vs. bashing the US military are resloved. Not easy to locate so far on the website (if it was there it seems to have moved on quickly), so maybe they agree with JD it is ‘not an issue’ and are searching for equally colourful words to describe the link, or not, being made, if only on how it would get played had another male been at the top as this plays out.

                   1 likes

            • Teddy Bear says:
              April 14, 2012 at 6:51 pm

              Nobody said that Obama’s name didn’t feature in the article, but THE HEADLINE is what makes the attention grabber OR NOT as is the agenda of the BBC.
              Here for example is how Yahoo ran the article
              Obama Secret Service agents sent home for ‘misconduct’

              See the difference?

              By the way Jim, just in case you’d thought I’d forgotten, about a week ago I put a question to you, which I predicted you’d try to avoid answering, and true to form, you did just that.

              Here it is again
              You wrote: I think the BBC do a decent job of being impartial in the round.

              As I’ve seen with you Jim, you are somebody who either has an agenda here, or is blind to truth. Either way you are brainwashed, but I don’t expect you to realise it.

              Here’s a question for you just to test yourself – Mark Thompson himself admitted to a MASSIVE LEFT WING BIAS by the BBC – Show me where you see that it has been addressed and in what way.

              My guess is you will find a way to avoid answering THE DIRECT QUESTION.

              Admitting that you can’t is the only honourable way to answer when you can’t, otherwise don’t think anything else is going to make you appear clever, just a dickhead.

                 1 likes

          • Teddy Bear says:
            April 14, 2012 at 5:28 pm

            If for no other reason, I can see why the BBC would want to be avoiding making anything of the Obama administration paying women at a lower rate than men:-
            Fresh BBC sexism row as Corporation pays top male employees 10% MORE than women

               2 likes

  29. Millie Tant says:
    April 14, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    Saturday evening music on Radio 3:
    5 00 – 6 00 pm: Jazz Record Requests
    6 00 – 9 30 pm: Opera
    Live From the Met is Verdi’s La Traviata.
    Consumptive courtesan Violetta Valery vows to give up her party life and settle down when she falls in love with Alfredo. But their countryside idyll is disrupted by Alfredo’s father who asks Violetta to leave him for the sake of his family’s reputation. Natalie Dessay makes her Met role debut as the doomed courtesan who sacrifices her own happiness, and Matthew Polenzani her lover.
    Violetta…..Natalie Dessay (Soprano)
    Alfredo…..Matthew Polenzani (Tenor)
    Giorgio Germont…..Dmitri Hvorostovsky (Baritone)
    Flora Bervoix…..Patricia Risley (Soprano)
    Annina…..Maria Zifchak (Soprano)
    Gastone…..Scott Scully (Tenor)
    Barone Douphol…..Jason Stearns (Tenor)
    Marchese D’obigny…..Kyle Pfortmiller (Bass)
    Dottore Grenvil…..Luigi Roni (Baritone)
    Giuseppe…..Juhwan Lee (Tenor)
    A Gentleman…..Peter Volpe (Bass)
    Messenger…..Joseph Turi (Bass)
    New York Metropolitan Opera Orchestra
    New York Metropolitan Opera Chorus
    Conductor…..Fabio Luisi.

       0 likes

  30. Teddy Bear says:
    April 14, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    Raymond Ibrahim identifies a few of the tactics used by the media to blur the reality on how Muslims are persecuting Christians.
    We can see similar tactics on all areas of bias identified as being part of the BBC agenda. I’ve pasted below the specific mention to the BBC he’s given here, but it’s well worth reading the whole article.
    How the Media Whitewashes Muslim Persecution of Christians
    Now consider some MSM strategies. The first one is to frame the conflict between Muslims and Christians in a way that blurs the line between persecutor and victim, for example, this recent BBC report on one of Boko Haram’s many church attacks that left three Christians dead, including a toddler. After stating the bare-bone facts, the report goes on to describe how “the bombing sparked a riot by Christian youths, with reports that at least two Muslims were killed in the violence. The two men were dragged off their bikes after being stopped at a roadblock set up by the rioters, police said. A row of Muslim-owned shops was also burned…” The report goes on and on, with a special section about “very angry” Christians, till one all but confuses victims with persecutors, forgetting what the Christians are “very angry” about in the first place: unprovoked and nonstop terror attacks on their churches, and the murder of their women and children.

       3 likes

  31. George R says:
    April 14, 2012 at 4:41 pm

    A view of Obama’s America censored by BBC-Democrats:

    “Race-Baiting in the Era of Obama.”

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/race-baiting_in_the_era_of_obama.html

       1 likes

  32. George R says:
    April 14, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    LOCKERBIE – al MEGRAHI – INBBC – ISLAMIC JIHAD MASS MURDERS.

    Ah, at the 11th hour, INBBC accepts that al-Megrahi IS the Lockerbie bomber.

    Will INBBC ever describe him as the Islamic jihad mass murderer he is?
    INBBC ‘report’:-
    “Lockerbie bomber Megrahi ‘in hospital for blood transfusion'”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17713520

       1 likes

  33. Teddy Bear says:
    April 14, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    Humorous tongue in cheek article by Richard Littlejohn on the BBC move to Salford
    Coming up after the latest Salford news Corporation Street

       1 likes

  34. Lunchtime Loather says:
    April 14, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    While eating breakfast this morning we had the TV on and were watching Saturday Kitchen. James Martin and his guest chef were preparing a dish that included King Crab which, we were correctly told, was caught in the deep and very cold waters off Norway. A discussion then ensued in which we were told that King Crab were starting to be found closer to the UK, which the guest chef explained was due to “global warming”. So global warming now causes sea temperatures to plummet, does it? You learn something new…

    The BBC – Never missing an opportunity to ram it down our throats

       3 likes

  35. james says:
    April 14, 2012 at 11:18 pm

    Had to put this one in, it makes me laugh. From Harry’s Place. A sermon from the BBC’s favourite Question Time panellist Mehdi Hasan. Next time he is on QT try not to smile.

       3 likes

  36. Reed says:
    April 15, 2012 at 1:29 am

    BBC paints glowing portrait of French Socialist candidate shocker. Totally out of character.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17675980

    I’m guessing even the French will find him less ‘entertaining’ after a dose of his party’s miserable brand of politics, but the BBC seem to find his ‘Mr. Nice’ persona deeply appealing…didn’t do much to endear John Major to our national broadcaster, but he wasn’t a happy socialist.

       0 likes

  37. Guest Who says:
    April 15, 2012 at 6:35 am

    OT-ish, in that it is MSM-wide, but I have a question on this whole ‘charities that can do no wrong’ meme being played out at the moment.
    Having endured a few days of ‘butter wouldn’t melt’ sanctimony from various Directors of PR, my credulity and already low respect for media competence dropped lower just now as I watched a slot that claimed charity superstores ‘were good for jobs’, just two sentences before a talking head trotting out unchallenged that the proliferation of charity shops in the hight street meant they were now seeking many more volunteers.
    Sooooo…. the jobs then are at the top, on the backs of free labour competing with local shops in the high street who have to pay staff?
    Yet all I hear is how great this ‘industry’ is. Surely the issue is a lot more nuanced, and potentially less rosy than our single track media estate is portraying?

       0 likes