Monthly Archives: May 2012

ABU QATADA MEANS NO WORRIES

By | |
21 Comments

Have a read of this piece published by the BBC concerning that lovable old Jihad preaching rogue Abu Qatada. Get the feeling that it is slightly unbalanced? It’s clear the BBC want Qatada to stay, whether out of mendacious delight in the humiliation this would bestow upon Theresa May or just because whoever is the enemy of the British people is the friend of the BBC.

THE SHAMBLES..

By | |
25 Comments

Interesting to read the BBC’s lead story in their UK news this morning – namely the Labour assertion that the Coalition “u-turn” on hot pasties and caravan tax proves what a “shambles” Government policy is. Labour’s Rachel Reeves is given some very impressive headlines which certainly must make Miliband happy and which will keep the momentum going that may help Labour return to power in 2015.

Now I do agree that the Coalition is showing complete ineptness, and Osborne in particular has left the Government wide open on these fronts, but let’s not do a BBC and forget that had Labour not plunged this country into massive Debt then there would not be such an urgent need to try and rebalance the National Budget.

Through the BBC prism, 2010 was year zero and what happened between 1997 and 2010 has now been erased. This contrasts with how the treated things in 1997 and the subsequent decades when “Thatcher” was still brought up at every opportunity to prove why things were less than perfect in the sunny uplands of New Labour. Cameron got the reverse treatment – and in a small degree, I feel a bit sorry for him. The revisionism that has taken place since 2010 is quite shocking. I fully accept that Labour want it to be that way – who can blame them for seeking to erase their toxic fingerprints from the scene of the economic crime but WHY would the State Broadcaster collude?

THAT EGYPTIAN RISING

By | |
14 Comments

It has become an article of faith at the BBC that the “Arab Spring” was an unambiguously  good thing, an assertion of democratic intent by the downtrodden masses as they spontaneously rise up against those who suppressed them. I remember being on a BBC programme at the time and saying that some people might dispute this analysis and indicated that it was Islam rising, to the obvious horror of the BBC presenter (Susannah Reid). Well, as you know, not a day passes without the Muslim Brotherhood getting a tighter grip on Egypt and one almost laughs at how the BBC now treats this story…

The Cairo campaign headquarters of Egyptian presidential candidate Ahmed Shafiq has been attacked. Egyptian TV broadcast footage of a fire at the building, in the Dokki district.  The attack came hours after it was announced that Mr Shafiq – The last PM of ex-President Hosni Mubarak – would compete in a run-off next month. He will face Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Mursi in the election. No-one knows who carried out the attack.

Right. It’s the jaw dropping inability of the BBC to comprehend what is happening in Egypt that is so impressive. As it moves towards becoming Iran by the Nile, the BBC comrades are struggling to keep their Arab Spring meme running and when the Muslim Brotherhood win the Presidency I wonder will the BBC even mention the stated intent of Mursi;

“Egypt’s Constitution should be based on the Koran and Sharia law, presidential candidate from the Muslim Brotherhood Islamist movement Mohamed Morsi said. “The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal,” Morsi said in his election speech before Cairo University students on Saturday night.

Clear enough, BBC? Why the lack of real analysis of what is happening here? Is it because they is Islam?

TRUST?

By | |
15 Comments

Just how influential might the BBC be compared to other media organisations? Biased BBC contributor Alan explains…

“59% of public trust the BBC for news. 5% Sky News. No other source gets a value above 2%…the Sun and the Times get a trust value of a mere 1% each.

So, lots of influence for Murdoch there.If Murdoch and his stable had been so influential with politicians who were ‘running scared’ of him how is it that he didn’t support Europe or immigration and Labour did?  Two major policy areas and yet Labour sailed on regardless of coverage in the Sun and Times.

However let’s not forget that Miliband’s present communications chief, Tom Baldwin, was placing stories favourable to Labour and anti-Tory in the Times…..funny the BBC don’t mention that…..‘Alistair Campbell was known to liaise with Baldwin in endless attempts to ­discredit the Labour government’s enemies, the results of which regularly ended up prominently in The Times — a paper once admired for its thundering independence.’

Why do people trust the BBC Because it is accurate, impartial, truthful, reliable and unbiased. However this information is provided by the BBC from a survey commissioned by itself.…using 650 people….for a submission to the Plurality Review.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/05/bbc-ofcom-media-plurality-review

‘In its response to the consultation, the BBC said it accepts that “any assessment of plurality might take into account its share, voice and role in audiences’ news diet”, but argues that despite its role as the largest supplier of news, it should not face curbs to protect the rest of the market, and should only have its role questioned during the period in which its royal charter is up for renewal. The BBC document cites new research conducted for the broadcasting, showing that it attracts “72% of all television news minutes consumed, despite only broadcasting 27% of news minutes broadcast”.’

“The BBC uses its leading position not to advance its own interests and opinions but to ensure that a diversity of news and views is presented to all in a fair and balanced way.”
Said the BBC of itself.

The BBC have decided that the measure to use when judging plurality is not actually how many journalists or tv and radio stations  you have, or indeed even the number of viewers and listener and readers, but the revenue you make…or in the case of the BBC the revenue they are gifted by order of law.

Wonder why that is….oh…..Murdoch makes lots and lots of cash, more than the BBC.  Therefore he is unfit to run a media business and his operation should be hamstrung. Thereby in fact reducing plurality and choice.”

BBC Censorship: Spot Another Missing Book Report Edition

By | | , , , , , , , ,
8 Comments

Last  year, a book about the President came out in which it was revealed that His White House was a hostile workplace for women. Even the lapdog US media had to talk about it, although they quickly moved on. The BBC censored all news of it, because it made the President look bad. Now another one is coming out, and the mainstream US media is all over it. Once again, the BBC is censoring the story, so you don’t get to learn anything which might make Him look bad.

The one book involving the President which the BBC did find time to briefly mention was “Obama’s Wars” by Bob Woodward (of Watergate fame). That didn’t make Him look too bad at all, so it was okay to tell you about its existence. At the time, Matt Frei, while realizing that the book showed Him as “thoughtful and serious”, had a concern:

But will the nuance of his finely-tuned brain be lost amongst the bold print of the headlines?

Of course, the BBC did find time to mention three different books about George Bush which came out during his time in office. One was about insider stuff from his Administration, one was an attempt to paint a portrait of the man from interviews with six people close to him, and one was by a psychiatrist who wondered if Bush was disabled. They even thought it was worth telling you about a biography of his wife. I’m not sure a regular biography of Bush was published while he was President. I can’t find one online anywhere. I wonder if that has to do with the fact that we knew all about him by the time he ran for office, while The Obamessiah’s background was shrouded in mystery or simply covered up, any negatives dismissed as racism or falsehoods.

So now that a second book about Him has come out, one has to wonder why the BBC refuses to acknowledge its existence. It may have something to do with the biggest story about it so far:

The Choom Gang: President Obama’s pot-smoking high school days detailed in Maraniss book

The Internet is buzzing after the Washingtonian published a review of Washington Post associate editor David Maraniss’s forthcoming book “Barack Obama: The Story,” including an excerpt about President Obama’s high school clique and their favorite pastime.

Let’s just say jobs weren’t the president’s first green initiative. The group of friends smoked marijuana frequently enough to nickname themselves the “Choom Gang.”

And it’s not just the internet buzzing. The mainstream media has been talking about it as well, plenty of links in the above WaPo post, and of course the rightosphere is bursting with amusing bits from the book. The following, though is from left-leaning Time:

Barry also had a knack for interceptions. When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted, “Intercepted!,” and took an extra hit. No one seemed to mind.

The boy is the father of the man.

Just do an internet search for “Choom” (mooch spelled backwards – so apt) and you’ll see just how much the BBC is out of step with the rest of the media on this one. It’s just another reason why their usual excuse for doing something because the rest of the media is doing it rings so hollow.

The BBC found plenty of time to remind you of George Bush’s youthful indiscretions, including here, here, and here. After he was inaugurated in 2001, Gavin Hewitt thought it important enough to grill Bush’s former pastor about it for a Panorama special. Even the late Alistair Cooke mentioned it once. So why does the BBC censor such stories about the current President?

The thing is, I don’t think this is going to hurt Him much at all. Perhaps it whittles away a little more at His shining image in the mainstream press, but anybody turned off by this revelation wasn’t going to vote for Him anyway, and anyone still dedicated to His cause certainly isn’t going to be dissuaded by this silliness. I doubt this will cost the President a single vote. But it makes Him look less than the supreme intellectual, smartest man in the room, superstar destined for greatness we’ve been hearing about from the BBC for the last four years. It’s also more evidence that the media failed in their jobs and refused to look too deep into His past in 2008, something else the BBC would hate to admit.

FAT NATION…

By | |
9 Comments

It’s strange how the BBC can take almost any issue and use it to advance the notion that whatever the problem the answer is always more Nanny Statism. Take the story of the 63 stone Welsh teenager, Georgia Davis,  who was “allowed” to become so large that she needed to be cut free from her house after collapsing with breathing problems. The BBC had Sunday Times columnist Minette Marrin and Enver Solomon, policy director at Children’s Society, on Today to discuss this issue earlier today.

Leaving aside the curiosity of someone getting to the 63 stone scale tipping point in a society which is allegedly characterised by people starving to death due to the wicked cuts at no point in the discussion is the catastrophic failure in modern parenting discussed.  Once upon a time, parents were rightly held responsible for what their children ate but in this case Marrin was arguing for an even more intrusive State  whereas Solomon demonstrated a lamentable lack of wisdom. The real crisis behind this story is the collapse of the family and the rise of the irresponsible parent – both encouraged by the liberal intelligentsia and their pals in the media, the BBC in particular.

BANANAS

By | |
19 Comments

“Day-o, Day-ay-ay-o
BBC  come and me wan’ go home….”

Harry Belafonte is the sort of guy guaranteed a warm welcome from the BBC and so it proved this morning on Today at 8.20am. Sarah Montague fawned over Belafonte, the “activist and singer” as the BBC so carefully describe him. Treating him as a latter day combination of Martin Luther King meets Ghandi, Sarah seemed strangely disinterested in exploring some of his more colourful thoughts. Here are some pickings…

” Three years ago, he disparaged Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice as “house slaves” toiling on the Bush plantation. Miss Rice he compared to a “Jew” who was “doing things that were anti-Semitic and against the best interests of her people.”

He’s helped raise money for the Rosenberg Fund for Children, an organization whose stated mission is to provide “for the educational and emotional needs of children of targeted progressive activists, and youth who are targeted activists themselves.”

The fund is named for Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. Such progressive activists were they that they betrayed atomic bomb secrets to Russia. And were justly executed for their treason.

In 2000, Belafonte visited Cuba and spoke at a rally honoring the Rosenbergs. His pal Castro, another progressive activist, was hailed by Harry for his role in keeping Cuba “an example of keeping the principles the Rosenbergs fought and died for alive.”

In the early 1980s Belafonte journeyed to Europe to participate in pro-Communist “peace” rallies that demanded unilateral disarmament by the U.S. and its allies. When American Indian Movement radical Dennis Banks was sentenced to three years in jail for rioting with a dangerous weapon and assault, the always helpful Harry sent a statement to the court on his behalf.

More recently, Harry identified the real culprit of September 11th. Speaking at St. Sabina’s Church in Chicago in early 2003, Belafonte was quoted by the Chicago Sun-Times:

“We move about the world arrogantly, calling wars when we want, overthrowing governments when we want. There is a price to be paid for it — look at 9/11.”

Is it any wonder Sarah hung on his every word?