Russia TV picked up on this article in the BBC in the Daily Mail. They then got in contact with me and I’ll be doing an interview with them on Monday on the topic of BBC bias. Will let you know how it goes.
RUSSIA TV ON THE BBC
Bookmark the permalink.
No article link?
Is there now, thanks, but that article seems rather off beam to me. Pro government bias on austerity etc.
NotaSheep, links appears in the post when you go to it, not in the preamble short bit that appears on the home page.
Interesting article. The winds of opinion are definitely beginning to shift away from and unsettle the unchallenged Narrative from the BBC agitprop corp. The BBC Newspeak and groupthink mind-police control is legendary even to those in the former communist federation! The Russians must be so envious of Il Duce Dave Cameron and our Bolshevik Werbung Corporation.
Is this some kind of joke? The BBC favors the Government stance on austerity and has no time to show you the horrors of how the Tory policies hit the poorest and most vulnerable hardest?
Exactly my reaction, unless it’s meant to be satirical (which doesn’t fit with the Mail’s house style). BBC coverage of the ‘cuts’ has been almost completely biased towards the ‘carry on spending’ policy of Labour. I have yet to hear any challenge from any of their interviewers that has got any right-wing bite to it e.g. ‘You claim the government are closing libraries. Isn’t it actually the councils who decide to do that? Have you bothered to look at what these councils AREN’T cutting, and then decide if you think they’ve got their priorities right?’
David
I think the following extract from your Daily Mail link page shows BBC bias up perfectly. There’s been a lack of coverage of these deaths because they don’t sit well with the corporation’s expensive green energy agenda –
“Over the past decade, 27,000 people a year in the UK have died from hypothermia and cold weather-related illnesses. The reason? They can’t afford to stay warm according to the Government’s own Hills Fuel Poverty Review.”
Tragic if true, but I would like to know how many deaths from hypothermia have been due to pensioners not claiming their pension credits i.e. the extra benefits they are entitled to when their income is too low. I’m pretty sure I’ve read somewhere that these unclaimed benefits run into the hundreds of millions, if not more.
I remember commenting on this article at the time
When I read this article I wonder if the author is living in some kind of parallel universe. The BBC only backs the government when Labour is in power. Otherwise it does its best to vilify whatever other party is in power and does its best to get Labour back in power. This is what most websites monitoring BBC bias have found. Sounds like the journalist needs to do some homework, starting with this article in the Daily Mail today: I won’t treat you to a Good Friday sermon but I do have a story about an avenging angel and BBC hypocrisy
Sorry, but this blog will not be successful at it’s aim to show BBC bias any longer if one of the main people behind it appears on Russia Today. Russia Today follows a close second behind Press TV as being the most ruthlessly bias “independent” news networks broadcasting today. If you go ahead with this interview you will be losing all credibility. I implore you to think again
Well that’s exactly what RT.com will say about us so you need evidence to consolidate those sweeping opinions old chap; some of the reporting on RT is of a very high standard especially its financial/economic coverage, which, as far as I can see (as someone who works in finance) is fairly accurate if somewhat gleaned from a completely different model of economic thought. What I will say is that RT.com is definitely anti-Western political correctness and definitely anti-Western collusion in Eastern affairs which has a definite bearing on its reporters not being afraid to be critical of European hypocrisy once in a while. Another political perspective is what I regard it as, nothing more, nothing less.
PS You don’t know what david is going to do or say on the program yet so I would say give him a chance, he’s a very articulate speaker and a voice we could do with hearing a little more often in the MSM vacuum.
Anyone with half a brain can see the bias on RT. The difference is it obviously knows it is biased in that it looks at our world from the Russian perspective.
Max Keyser is often off the planet but very entertaining and what you see is what you get.
The BBC poses as an independent voice. Measured and pseudo authoritative. It also has a global reach. It perfectly epitomises that peculiarly English hypocritical attitude that so annoys the rest of the world and many of us.
Another obvious difference between RT and the BBC is that at one place a high-profile talent will get fired for flipping the bird on air while reading the name of a leader of a foreign country, while at the other, a high-profile talent can make a lewd pun on one of their own government minister’s name, fall about laughing over it on air, and then see other top talent do the same thing, all of them with impunity.
Both the BBC and Russia Today are biased, but on different issues. As for Climate Change, Russia Today is the least biased television station on Freeview, they even interview scientists on both sides of the argument without taking sides, unlike the BBC. So he should at least talk about the BBCs bias on the science of Climate Change.
RT? Seriously? RT is a joke. They are obsessed with the USA and the West in general and gleefully latch on to anyone in America critical of their own government. If RT wants to talk to you about BBC bias you can bet that its only to find another example of Western moral hypocrisy they can gloat over; they really don’t give a toss about you concerns. Be careful – the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.
There was an article yesterday highlighting BBC bias as far as Stalinist Russia was concerned.
While the article below credits one of the historians, presenting a programme for the BBC about Stalin, as being fair, accurate and balanced, the other ‘historian’ sounds like a shameful excuse for a human being, but one can see why the BBC favours him. Since the first historian was calling his documentary Man of Steel’, it could be how he first managed to get BBC approval to use it, them thinking it would present things differently.
The second shows the real socialist agenda prevalent in the BBC mindset, that they can overlook the dire consequences of their political bent to follow something that to them – sounds good.
Stalin, mass murder, and a tale of two very different historians that shows the best and worst of the BBC
Stalin was just as ruthless a dictator and killed just as many if not more people than Hitler but because he was from a communist/socialist background he has posthumously received a much more favorable picture of posterity from the likes of leftist organisations such as the British Werbung Corp. I recently also recall the BBC failing to highlight (in a BBC 3 documentary about Fascism) that, the ill-understood and poorly defined term, Fascism was first applied to left wing socialists like the young radical Il Duce Mussolini; the BBC completely ignored the fact that the West openly adored Mussolini’s Fascist ways and that he was the ‘darling boy’ of the left wing American and British press in the early 20th century. Typical selective reporting from the biased Bollocks Corp. Fascism, the evidence strongly suggests, was originally a left wing socialist construct but is nowadays hurled about willy nilly by the same ilk of upper class rabble rousers who originally coined the little understood term.
Stalin and Mao each killed far more people, than Hitler ever dreamed of, including unimaginable numbers of their own kind.
As for Fascism, there’s a somewhat amusing, if poorly written, book by Jonah Goldberg (the court jester of the National Review) called “Liberal Fascism” about its origins in the Left. The Leftoids in the US absolutely hated it and refused to accept any of the facts laid out. Just like Nazism, the dopey Beeboids think it’s something from the Right.
Yes but Hitler was uniquely evil. Not something to measure by bodycount.
Very true Jim.
I beg to differ. Hitler’s evilness may have been unique, but what Stalin and Mao did to their own people is surely no less evil. Hitler of course had better uniforms and cartoon characteristics. If the Russian mindset and culture was half as efficient and pragmatic as the Germans, and less mystical, Stalin would have made the Nazis’ 12 years look like the minor leagues.
‘Yes but Hitler was uniquely evil. Not something to measure by bodycount.’
Of all possible contributions that could help, that is… extraordinary.
Is there a BBC/JD ‘evil’ measuring device, like litmus paper? I can only imagine how caustic or acid the relative directions of evil would be interpreted depending on the colour going blue vs. red.
Actually, GW, I’d say the BBC only uses body count as a metric for evil where a certain Zionist Entity is concerned. Otherwise, their priorities vary according to mood.
Well, JD did manage to get ‘uniquely’ and ‘evil’ together which, given his remit, perhaps wasn’t the best association to spin up on a blog about the BBC as they rather see themselves as unique in a bunch of less than stellar ways already..
How so? Hitler killed for many reasons, including trying to exterminate all Jews, Stalin killed for many reasons including killing many Jews, Mao killed many more people for mostly ideological reasons.
Hitler was evil beyond doubt, of that I would hope there is no argument on here. He was unique, as we all are, so ‘uniquely evil’ is a bit, well, meh.
Stalin however had a penchant for raping young gymnasts. For all his faults, I don’t think Hitler was partial to such personal pecadillos. In fact outside of politics Hitler was rather dull, with bourgois tastes.
Stalin certainly killed for different reasons to Hitler. The slaughter was often more along the lines of expediancy and ‘pour encourage les autres’ than pure hate. Jews were murdered in their millions because they put God before the State and not because Stalin hated them. I’m not sure if that makes it any less evil though.
To some extent, though, you are right, after a certain point the bodycount becomes meaningless. To kill one person for political gain is bad enough after all, eh Mr Blair?
David, from my exposure to RT, at least you will be given the opportunity to answer any questions put to you, without constant hectoring, interruptions and false outrage; the bbc’s stock in trade. I hope we get to see your segment. The best thing is that RT has quite frequently made disparaging comments about the bbc, so that’s good in my book.
Can only conclude having looked at her other articles that she once applied for a job at the BBC and was cruelly rebuffed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=Sonia+Poulton
Oh Hang on….
She is regularly interviewed about her newspaper articles for the BBC and ITV.
She regularly contributes to the Jeremy Vine Show (Radio 2) and has discussed subjects as far-ranging as mass murder, anti-semitism, racism in schools and the global Occupy movement. She recently played ‘Mum’ on the show for the duration of Parent Week, talking about her own experiences and taking calls to the show. The highlight of the week was when her 13-year-old daughter, Shaye, joined the show to tell six million people what it was like to have this woman as her mum!
She has contributed to numerous programmes. Among other subjects, she has discussed sex and relationships (Woman’s Hour, Radio 4) and profanity and censorship in the media (Newsbeat, Radio 1). She revealed a fascination in ‘The Afterlife’ for Irish Radio, RTE and investigated sex addiction for a series of BBC radio programmes across the UK network.
She also is a regular contributor on Radio Five Live, morning and evening shows, discussing subjects from Godparents to Bisexuality.
She is inspired by human kindness.
http://soniapoulton.co.uk/page2.htm
The journalist seems to have the wrong end of the stick-and RT are great at the mote and beam stuff( Putin?…Litvenenko?..and what of it?)…but , on the basis that ANY highlighting of the issue is needed…and that my enemies enemy may yet be a friend( RT,compared to the awful Beeb)…I am grateful nonetheless.
RT TV is as biased as the BBC when it comes to Israel!
We’re back in the USSR
Of course, ‘RT’ politically reflects Russian state policy in e.g. being (unfortunately) largely anti-Israel, and even pro-Islamic Republic of Iran regime.
http://rt.com/
Of course, if invited, ‘Biased-BBC.com’ has the right to appear on ‘RT’
or ‘Fox News’.
And, of course, David will have his wits about him and judge the
‘RT’ experience.
I am sure he will not be beguiled:-
The Russians would be most impressed at the BBCs ability to rewrite history as portrayed in “The World At Westminster”( 11am 14/4/12 Radio4).
The bit that I bothered to hear involved parallels between Bradford West and the likelihood of the same “Muslim” vote happening in Blackburn, over the Pennines.
Jack Straw the prophet(PBUH)…thick Tory councillors accepting the BBCs Year Zero view of Race Relations from the 60s….all good and all thanks to Labour…what else?
A ludicrous programme puff piece that saw no problem (not REALLY) with either postal votes(no wonder Muslims like Labour-multiple votes for Islam!), or with the fact that women dared not speak to the BBC…a cultural shyness and most becoming!
If the Muslim vote isn`t going to Labour, then it`ll not be Radio 4 s fault…despicable sly bluster dancing round the landmines in dress up saris.
I pine for those heady and more subtle programming methods of Tass and Isvestia…
Sorry for the length. Responding to that DM article:
Benefit withdrawal? Has that actually started yet? You didn’t see the BBC screaming about total benefit changes with housing benefit? Where were you?
Higher taxation? From 1988 up to near the end of the Brown government top rate income tax was 40% i.e. virtually the whole of Labour when it got raised to 50%. Coalition reduces it to 45% and people start screaming that the Cabinet are benefiting themselves and their rich chums? Maybe the only thing they can work on is the VAT change and that was always meant to be temporary afaik.
Corporate power? Element of truth there but she hasn’t heard the BBCs ‘Murdoch ruled successive governments’ line or their regular anti-corporate stance? Or the power of the unions who regularly get their press release in verbatim in the BBC.
Comparing the UK to Greece? Rightly or wrongly we have a far bigger welfare system and our private citizens actually pay taxes. Do we have significantly increased numbers of people committing suicide? Asking everyone, can someone source it.
Manifesto? Whose manifesto? There are two. Of course some of the policies are going to breach them. And manifestos should be taken with a pinch of salt anyway. I personally don’t believe Ken Livingstone’s anyway.
Fuel poverty? OVER THE PAST DECADE! Not coalition bias at all. If anything coalition favour.
Police with machineguns. Have a point there. Ask Boris! However, I can find no mention in the Guardian of it and if its not in the Guardian it’s not lefty enough to care about.
Here’s an example of the BBC actually failing. It posted an article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17701182) in which it was totally non-analytical of what he said. BBC quote sourcing Oxford University VC “The leading university raised more than £1.25bn over the past eight years, with many of the gifts topping what would be the yearly £50,000 limit.” Very, very questionable. Why? Look down and it specifically states with my capitals for emphasis “The cap will be set at £50,000 in any one year, or at 25% of an individual’s income – WHICHEVER IS GREATER.” So instantly the BBC should have asked Oxford about whether their donors were claiming tax relief on more than 25% of their pre-tax income if they earnt over £200,000. But nooo…
Listen guys, I am quite content to hold my own in any argument on the issue of BBC bias. I have long passed the point where I place trust in ANY media so chill out those getting perplexed, I will do what needs to be done.
I suppose one could argue that the difference between the BBC and RT is that as respective national broadcasters the RT gives the Kremlin perspective of today and the BBC gives the Kremlin perspective of yesterday.
David V, I’m just curious as to the angle from which RT approached you. If the premise is that the BBC supports the Conservatives’ austerity policies (I can barely write that without laughing), are you meant to represent the opposing view?
David P
No – the angle is whether the BBC is biased. Or at least that is what they have said, of course cunning Ruskies could then change tack but I am very happy to deal with that should they try,
Thanks, DV. I was curious because that Mail article seemed to be saying that the BBC supports the Government austerity policies and ignores the plight of the victims.
What time on Monday will they use you?
Some of those RT interviewees are so transparently minor anti-American academic and agitators – Catherine Ashton clones – that it can be laughable but at least their bias is worn on the sleeve and you can see it coming a mile off.
The BBC is indeed the Kremlin of yesterday – statist and monopolistic and doesn’t know it.
The Daily Mail writer is so dire I wonder if they think you share her view? Her notions on hypothermia deaths are simply shroud waving. Read Newton Emerson on that lobby.