Breaking news. At LEAST 3 people have been killed and 27 hurt in an attack on an Israeli bus in Bulgaria. 24 minutes into the main BBC 5 O Clock PM news, not a mention of it. Utterly shameful from this £3.5BN a year broadcaster. I presume they are too busy getting Jenny Tonge on speed dial…
CARNAGE NOT WORTH REPORTING
Bookmark the permalink.
Utterly disgraceful! Also, they are too wrapped up in the ground breaking news that some footballer has called another a ‘choc ice’ to report, in depth, that a major UK bank has allegedly been laundering Middle Eastern terrorist money!
And check the website too. According to the BBC “more than 20 people were injurred when the bus exploded”. No mention of a bomb or terrorists. The bus just exploded all by itself. Compare that to the telegraph report: “At least seven people are thought to have been killed in a terrorist attack on an Israeli tourist coach at the Burgas airport”. Lets see how the BBC jew haters report it on the 6 o’clock news.
Well, we all know how reluctant the Beeb are to rush headlong into reporting unconfirmed eye-witness reports, don’t we? Unless, of course these reports fit in with their own narrative, obviously.
‘how reluctant the Beeb are to rush headlong into reporting unconfirmed eye-witness reports’
Watertight oversight ((c) R. Black) is a seal of journalistic rigour that seems to be effective only one direction, and leaky as hell in the other.
Yup – as expected it’s not mentioned atall in the BBC1 six O’clock news headlines. But they are featuring junk ‘human interest’ reports about exercise and olympic traffic lanes.
Three dead in ‘attack’ on Israelis at Bulgaria airport
Or Haaretz
Perhaps the BBC were just doing some of that journalism stuff and verifying before reporting.
yes – I will wait and see if they cover it in any TV news bulletins or if, like the Fogel murders, it ends up being completely ignored.
CNN and AP seem to be clearer on it. Still, they got through the primetime 6 O Clock News without a mention. Pesky Jews, right?
Indeed. They found time for junk reports about texting habits, exercise and minor adjustments to the Olympic opening ceremony acts – but no time to report terrorist mass murder of innocent Israeli women and children.
You would have thought that someone who spends so much time on the BBC taking their money, and likes to think of himself as a “commentator” would have had even the most rudimentary understanding of how a program is put together or how journalism works.
But then why let the facts get in the way of your prejudices and pre-determined view of every story. Much easier to believe everything is a conspiracy heh?
This site is a joke — just not a very funny one.
Is it my imagination or is Knackered Enemas getting increasingly abusive as though he were growing bored with maintaining a persona of sweet reasonableness.
Precisely. By his own recent admission he’s been hanging on too long. He’s like a wet fart in a bubble car. Time to open the hatch. On your way, Nicodemus.
In this case, yes. I am getting increasingly tired of maintaining a persona of reasonableness. Sometimes on this site such utter tosh is posted that it defies belief that anyone with even half a brain can actually believe it,
The fact that the BBC did fact checking is not censorship, it is journalism.
Time and time again all this site does is to demonstrate the ignorance of the posters, people who have no idea how journalism works, no idea about the laws of libel, of contempt.
There is a pretty good rule of thumb: anyone that uses phrases like “NuLieBor”, “ZaNuLIebor”, “Tony Bliar” or mentions one or more of the following: Gramsci, cultural Marxism, lefties, libtards, Frankfurt School doesn’t have a clue what they are talking about and their opinions are worthless rehashes of tired right-wing internet memes.
There may be exceptions to that rule, but I sure have hell haven’t seen any on here.
If you want a textbook example of observer bias and the filter bubble, this site is it.
Most of the time I don’t care — believe what you like — but every now and then the endless nihilistic, paranoid, racist (yes, it is racist) ignorant and deluded whingeing gets to one.
Nick, what did you think of the BBC coverage of the Fogel murders? Or rather the complete lack of BBC TV news coverage? For me that was a pivotal event – such a blatant case of bias by omission, it really opened my eyes to the BBC’s anti-Israel bias. The reporting, or lack of reporting I’ve seen since has only reinforced my perception.
thats more like it ,back to normal 😀
how is this site racist? please explain?
Yes, but what is it you really don’t like about this site?
Ey up, I think we’ve upset him.
One last thing, Nick: please explain why you chose not to comment on two of the most glaring pieces of BBC bias posted only last week, namely the Victoria Derbyshire interview with the new union leader and the Panorama ‘special’ on the economy. Both were spectacular labour/union idolising lovefests, and Panorama was no less than a re-writing of history.
You are very selective indeed over what you choose to debate, and even then nearly always disappear just when your arguments are about to get thoroughly twatted.
You are obviously very left wing in your views.
You also give your unequivocal support to the BBC on here.
The conclusion is therefore pretty obvious, and it is the reason this site exists.
Sleep tight.
please explain why you chose not to comment on two of the most glaring pieces of BBC bias posted only last week, namely the Victoria Derbyshire interview with the new union leader and the Panorama ‘special’ on the economy.
Because I didn’t see/listen to either of them. Forgive me for not taking the reports on here as an impartial unbiased assessment of the two broadcasts.
You also give your unequivocal support to the BBC on here.
No I don’t. What I have tried to do is to posit alternative explanations that don’t require some super over-arching conspiracy to bind together every member of the BBC into a single whole.
Nick, what did you think of the BBC coverage of the Fogel murders?
(a) They made a very bad editorial call — which the BBC admitted. (b) It is part of a deliberate policy by the BBC as part of its anti-Semitic agenda. Take your pick.
Using “right wing” as a blanket description is rather lazy
If the cap fits. The “arguments” typically are centred around or feature: almost unequivocal support for Israel; strong anti-immigration that is based on little more than racism; anti-gay rights; a disregard for minority groups; strong support for the death penalty; a near idolization of Margaret Thatcher; strong support for UKIP; a belief that David Cameron is not Conservative enough… Need I go on?
Well, Nick, I admire your persistence if nothing else.
I’m not sure what your objective is but if it is to change minds on here that’s not going to happen, I’m afraid. There is only one thing that will convince us the BBC is not biased and that will be the BBC showing consistent evidence of balanceand impartiality.
And I stick to my point that you unreservedly defend it because you align with its left wing, Labour-supporting, EU-supporting, man-made global warming supporting agenda.
I’m not sure what your objective is but if it is to change minds on here that’s not going to happen
Quelle surprise.
you align with its left wing, Labour-supporting, EU-supporting, man-made global warming supporting agenda.
Do I believe in the EU, yes and for this reason. The one part of the economy that is growing with BRIC rates is the internet economy — the future. It contributes more to the UK GDP than agriculture. But in order for that economy to grow there has to be a market. The UK is too small on its own, no European state has a big enough domestic market, so a divided Europe is never going to be able to compete. There has to be a single European market.
Just this week France has talked about imposing a sales tax on goods bought online outside of France — how can you build a market to rival the US with protectionist polices like that? THere has to be pan-European co-ordination. If you want that, how are you going to do it without a political structure?
Or talent mobility. There were only 200 girls, and 3100 boys, who took computer science A level last year. If we want to build an internet economy, where are the computer scientists? We are not producing them. As it happens there is a tradition of mathematical and engineering excellence in many of the new member states. Without talent mobility how would these people come to the UK if they can go to, say, Berlin?
As for climate change — who am I going to trust more? James Delingpole, the former arts and former media correspondent of the Telegraph (sacked twice) who admits that he does not read peer-reviewed journals (Maybe because he has no science qualifications, not even an A level — he has an arts degree); or the Royal Society which I think has 11 Nobel Laureates. Don’t even think about coming back with a conspiracy theory … they are all in the pay of…
you unreservedly defend it
I don’t — I just chose not to air my objections on here.
I wouldn’t argue against any of the five comments made by Dave S below, except for his line “I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories “.
This whole site is a subscription to a conspiracy theory, and its cheerleader is the site’s owner. This post is a classic example.
Nick, old mate, you just parrot the climate propaganda. I really do worry that you have been brainwashed beyond salvation. Yes, we all know Delingpole isn’t a scientist, but he’s entitled to his view as much as Monbiot, or
Indeed he is — but I didn’t mention Monbiot who is a bit of a fool frankly.
But if you could point out to me where I have parroted anything to do with global warming I would be in your debt.
Sorry, after a bit of button trouble, I’ll continue….
Nick, old mate, you just parrot the climate propaganda. I really do worry that you have been brainwashed beyond salvation. Yes, we all know Delingpole isn’t a scientist, but he’s entitled to his view as much as Monbiot or, if you want to talk about people who only have arts degrees, your very own Harrabin. Why do you not mention the scores and scores of scientists who are producing papers which disprove the claims of the warmists, or do you really believe (as the BBC and IPCC keep telling you) they don’t exist? Why not try some serious research on the ‘sceptic’ sites on the internet, or is it too painful for you? What are your views on Climategate, in particular Michael ‘hide the decline’ Mann and Kevin ‘it’s a travesty’ Trenberth? Aren’t you worried that such an august scientific body as The Royal Society is treating any science as settled? I know a lot of its members are. Do you know what its motto is and what it means? Can you explain why Manhattan isn’t underwater as the esteemed IPCC scientist James Hansen said it would be by now? Can you explain why temperatures have stayed flat for 15 years, totally contradicting the warming models? Can you explain why positive feedback and thus the alarmist temperature rises it underpins, is not happening? Do you ever think outside your little lefty-bubble box? Or are you simply happy to spout the propaganda, regardless of how moronic it is beginning to sound, comfortable in the knowledge it is just a front for a wider socialist/environmental agenda?
As for the EU, it depends on our imports just a little bit more than we rely on theirs. Do you honestly think trade and the movement of labour would stop overnight if we pulled out? Doesn’t having 70% of your laws being made by an unelected, bloated, stifling bureaucracy, whose budget has failed to meet auditor approval for 14 years make you just a teeny bit unsettled? Or is the truth of the matter unelected goverments rather appeal to you, as long as they are socialist?
‘But if you could point out to me where I have parroted anything to do with global warming I would be in your debt’.
Ok – 1. ‘Delingpole doesn’t read peer-reviewed journals’. No, nor do I, but it doesn’t stop me from reading up elsewhere on what both sides are saying and forming an opinion. However, if he did, he’d find plenty of peer-reviewed papers from both sides of the fence. For a complete deconstruction of the warmist mantra ‘only peer reviewed science by the world’s top scientists’ – go buy Donna Laframboise’s book – a must for a good journalist such as yourself.
2. ‘Who do I trust more, James Delingpole….or The Royal Society’. Typical warmist tactic, not comparing like with like and ignoring the schisms Paul Nurse’s stance on a ‘settled’ science has caused within the society whose motto, by the way, is ‘nulliuis in verba’, which roughly translates as ‘take nobody’s word’. Simply saying someone else says it is so rather than taking on the argument is tantamount to admitting defeat, as you are avoiding the debate.
3. Discrediting anyone who speaks out against the warmist position, rather than countering their arguments (which you did with Delingpole) and which the warmists did more sinsterly to David Bellamy and Johnny Ball, amongst others.
We have gone pinging off on a massive tangent about global warming. Believe what you like. But I knew somewhere in there was going to be conspiracy theory… And there it was.
On the subject of the EU no one European nation is big enough on its own, not even Germany.
Where is growth going to come from in this economy? Which sector is actually still growing? There are 450m citizens in the EU27, bigger than the US, yet there is no European Google or Facebook.
Do I think the free flow of talent would stop? Yes, without a doubt. We make it incredibly hard already to attract talent — so much so that many companies move to the US where it is still hard, but easier than the UK.
I don’t think the EU is perfect by a very long way; the EC has too much power as does the council while the EP is the only body with a mandate.
But without a doubt our situation would be considerably worse were we not in it.
You will find very few tech CEOs who favour withdrawal from the EU.
Not going off on a tangent, just choosing a subject dear to the Left on which no argument will be entertained or point debated.
You have chosen not to address a single one of my questions, naively proving my point. Is ‘But I knew somewhere in there was going to be conspiracy theory… And there it was’ really the best you can come up with?
Truly pathetic and totally predictable, but thank you so much for conceding the argument so easily, albeit unconsciously.
It is pinging off on a tangent as this is not a thread about AGW. Were it so I would not engage for the simple reason that probably in no other topic is so much I’ll-informed nonsense spoken by people with no scientific background who cherry pick a few facts to support their case.
Essentially for most people, myself included, there is neither the time nor the knowledge to read and assess all of the information and to form informed opinions.
Instead what most have to do is to pick their lens, the experts they will use to interpret the data for them.
When I look at the debate and compare the champions it is a very easy choice. Delingpole or the Royal Society. Which one would have the skills, the knowledge, the expertise, the time and the ability to interpret the data accurately.
Back on topic, this site will never be taken seriously by anyone unless and until it learns to restrain its own obvious right-wing xenophobic bias.
It will never be taken seriously until it’s contributors learn to do some work and learn about how news actually works.
In the meantime carry on, I for one find it hugely entertaining. And it is also worth knowing what a the knee-jerk, Muslim-hating, xenophobic little Englanders “think” about the topics of the day. Mind you tommy Robinson or Nigel Farage would give one that — but without the inadvertent humour.
Oh dear ! But the BBC has a few problems which are becoming noticeable.
Funded by a compulsory tax if one wants to own a television- just own a TV mind you.
Paying senior executives vast salaries from this tax greatly in excess of what we pay the PM.
Producing light entertainment that could well be provided commercially without cost to the citizen.
Becoming largely irrelevant in sporting programmes ( lets agree not to mention the Olympics -a one off) and these too could easily go to independent stations.
Using taxpayer funded local radio to create a near monopoly.
But all this is by the by. Any criticism will be dismissed as nihilistic, paranoid and the ultimate sin of liberaldom – racist.
I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories but the BBC has for many many years recruited the like minded- probably kind hearted quite nice Waitrose folk- the same like minded that now form our floundering ruling elites. Well intentioned they were at first but now their day is ending and they just don’t understand why so many no longer accept their view of the world.
Many of us fear that Liberalism ( the modern version) can so easily tip over into authoritarianism when put under pressure” The we know best attitude”. It is not just this site that has less and less time for the BBC. It is growing and I expect some at the BBC know it.
One more thing. Using “right wing” as a blanket description is rather lazy but indicitative of an inabilty to countenance any view other than a liberal one. Some of us are quite leftwing to use the conventional terms.
Well said, Dave s. Nicked’s comment was one of truly sublime arrogance. Worthy of an Oxford PPE indoctrinee at his most condescending & contemptuous. Words delivered to us from on high; that exclusive place where only the holders of ‘nuanced opinion’ may reside. The thrust of his comment is crystal clear: Only I know. Those who disagree hold opinions that are ‘worthless’ because they ‘don’t have a clue what they are talking about’: conceit of the highest order.
I wish the School of Frankfurt was nothing more than a ‘right-wing internet meme’, believe me. Because it’s baleful influence is all too apparent in New Labour’s appalling legacy. Something that those of us who live in culturally enriched inner city boroughs have to contend with daily.
Nicked may well have a background in journalism, if so, the NUJ straitjacket must fit him very snugly. Objective reporting? Don’t make me laugh. Our beef with the BBC is that we’re expected to fund it, whether we approve of it, or not. Is that giving us ‘choice’? Thanks to organisations like the BBC, free speech is gradually having it’s throat cut. And, ‘now & then…it gets to one.’ Nah mean?
Worthy of an Oxford PPE indoctrinee
Just how big is the chip on that shoulder? I didn’t go to Oxford, I didn’t read PPE. I am state educated.
Nicked may well have a background in journalism, if so, the NUJ straitjacket must fit him very snugly’
Yes I do and no I am not a member of the NUJ. I was, for a year a long time ago, but it is such pointless organisation I left.
And before you leap to the ‘he must work for ‘The Guardian/Indy/BBC/Mirror’ no I don’t. I have never been on staff on any of those titles. I work for an outlet that is as far from them as it is possible to be.
‘I am getting increasingly tired of maintaining a persona of reasonableness’
Reverting then to the more accurate actualite of impatient unreasonableness being refreshingly honest perhaps in showing true colours, but hardly likely to engage new fans outside what is evidently a rather unpleasant bubble more usually inhabited.
Luckily it appears to be one where abuse is excused by pinning responsibility on anyone but the perpetrator, ‘driven’ to it, by other folk not giving him all demanded, all the time, as if by right.
Hence just another toy pram ejection merchant when you don’t get your own way.
Lucky we are (possibly) not compelled by law to fund your contributions too.
BBC: no better than the other crap news outlets, then. International respect for being superior to the rest of them undeserved, as they merely follow the lead of others.
Nicked emus:
“Perhaps the BBC were just doing some of that journalism stuff and verifying before reporting.”
Yeah, like they did when several Beeboids were telling you within minutes that whoever killed all those people in Norway had to be a right-winger. And similarly speculated without any of that inconvenient verification about how the killer in Toulouse was a white supremacist because the connecting factor between the victims was that they were not white.
Can we quote you on this next time the BBC does it again, Nicked?
And the answer from Nick is……….
The answer from Nick is this.
Anders Breviek left a manifesto.
The Toulouse killer was believed, incorrectly, to be a white supremacist. But that was a view that circulated for days not a few hours.
So widespread was that view that the in-house journal of this site, the Daily Mail, in its report had a picture of Breviek in its report.
There is a difference between reporting a breaking story and reporting an on going one. If you compare the BBC’s coverage with the Mail the BBC was more circumspect about the connection. “widely believed” is a true statement.
Let’s look at two more examples. The Oklahoma bomb was initially blamed on Islamist terrorists. The Madrid train bombs were initially blamed on ETA, in this case blamed by the government.
As for the fact that AP and CNN reported it, yes but there is a big difference between a snap and a writethru.
When dealing with a breaking story you go with what you know, or have a reasonably high level of confidence. It is better to be right than to be first. There is also a difference between rolling news and bulletins. There is a difference between snaps and writethrus.
Tend to agree with you on the Anders Breviek case, but I think you’re on very dodgy ground with the Toulouse killer – the Beeb really ended up with egg on its face with that one, so convinced were they he was a white racist.
Nicked, you’ve jumped ahead of the facts there. The Beeboids were speculating on air before anyone even knew who the Norway killer was, never mind finding his manifesto. Your defense fails there. Also, I’m not sure how you think saying that the idea that the Toulouse killer was a white supremacist was “circulating for days not a few hours” is in any way a defense of the Beeboids’ speculation without any basis. Or are you saying that in some cases it’s okay to speculate without evidence while in others they must wait for evidence? Curious.
The Oklahoma City bombing is irrelevant, unless you’ve got specific examples of BBC coverage of that incident, like we do here with the current./recent ones.
As for the Madrid bombing, I believe the BBC would have been reporting the (false) Narrative spread by the Spanish government and media that it was ETA. That’s not the same thing as the rampant speculation over Toulouse and Norway and Gabby Gifford, or Mardell’s attempt to dismiss the idea that the Ft. Hood killer was a jihadi even though those fact were already known, or the BBC’s similar attempt to dismiss a jihadi motive for that Palestinian who went mad with a bulldozer. Your defense falls flat on all levels here.
“Netanyahu noted that the attack follows similar attempts in India, Georgia, Thailand, Kenya and Cyprus in recent months.” All fully reported by Al Beeb of course
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-07-18/Israeli-bus-attacked-Bulgaria/56305176/1
This morning the radio 3 newsreader predictably began the story ,with the line ‘Iran has denied any inolvement ……’
… and the BBC leftists cynically continue to dig the Corporation’s grave …
First mention in 7pm news 24 headlines ( score one for the BBC – they managed to keep it off the main BBC1 news broadcast so it won’t be seen by many people ). And again the report is framed using the BBC’s patented anti-Israel language: “Israel says….” and “a bus exploded”. Again, no mention of a verified terrorist bomb nor the murder of civilians.
Spontaneous combustion?
Interesting. While they mentioned it briefly in the headlines at 7pm they still haven’t shown a report on it yet (7:30pm ). Instead choosing to repeat prerecorded Labour propaganda pieces by about unemployment and the economy. Despite having a perfectly acceptable eye witness VT report up on their website here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18892336. Why isn’t this being broadcast on the TV news? Don’t want the proles to sympathize with the yids right? Oh, here it is – a 15 second account at 19:29 showing new VT. Cut away quickly for a lengthy report on BMX bikes being cut from the Olympic opening ceremony. FFS!
News 24 Piece on texting habits has now gone on for 10 minutes. I have it on mute to prevent my head exploding from the shear tedium. But I feel I have to wait for the Israel report. After so long in preparation I’m sure it will a masterpiece of diversion, downplaying and jew blaming.
Israeli ambassador finally interviewed at 20:25 on BBC News 24. Reasonable interview although the interviewer did refer to the explosion as an ‘accident’ and asked if Israel and been too hasty in blaming Iran cos, like, buses just blow up by themselves all the time don’t they?
On reflection I can see the clever way they’ve played it. As of 20:45 they still haven’t had a full report on the bombing. Instead, all they had was an adversarial interview with the Israeli ambassador. ( Albeit one in which he managed to make his point quite well ). So, they’ve cleverly avoided confirming the story by giving it the authority of an official BBC report. Instead we only got an extended version of “Israel says..”. Clever bastards. A masterclass in bias by omission.
As written by the cherry pickers.
The only reason the BBC mention at all is to warm the hearts of the muslim viewing demographic.
“Look Mohammed, on the BBC. They say seven Israelis killed by a bomb on a bus.”
“That is good news, Ahmed! Only six million nine hundred and nintey nine thousand and ninty three to go!”
Don’t assume universal sympathy and revulsion for the poor victims.
People forget, on 9/11 there were places muslims were dancing in the streets.
All I ever see on BBC news is the truly revolting ,toadesque Keith vaz. If it had been Israel killing some worthless Palestinian terrorists it would be right at the top of the headlines, truly disgraceful from the left wing parasites.
What will do when Salafism becomes the most popular sect/religious beliefs of Islam in the West. The one thing they hate more than opposers of Islam is these BBC/Leftist supporters of Islam. The Left won’t what to do when the Salafism attacks them instead of their opposers. Worth having a ringside seat for that.
Considering the hilariously disproportionate amount of rug munchers and bum burglars at the BBC…..they’re fuckin doomed!!
‘Jihadwatch’:-
1.)
“Bulgaria: Jihad/martyrdom bomber murders at least seven Israelis in bus attack”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/bulgaria-jihadmartyrdom-bomber-murders-at-least-seven-israelis-in-bus-attack.html
2.)
“Netanyahu says Iran behind Bulgaria jihad mass-murder”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/netanyahu-says-iran-behind-bulgaria-jihad-mass-murder.html
Apparently BBC News 24 described the terror attack on Israelis in Bulgaria as -an ‘awful accident’. Can someone confirm?
Yes, the female BBC interviewer said it at about 20:26 when asking the Israeli ambassador if he had been too hasty in blaming Iran.
It will be a Mossad conspiracy, innit?
Here’s the video proof:
http://cifwatch.com/2012/07/19/video-bbc-anchor-characterizes-terror-attack-against-israelis-in-bulgaria-as-an-awful-accident/
I can understand – barely, reluctantly – hesitating before blaming a specific country for the bombing. But there is no valid journalistic reason for the Beeboid to declare this an accident. Zero.
Funny how Israel is never given the benefit of the doubt in this way.
A very brief 15 second report on BBC1 news at 10pm. No VT, just a Hugh Edwards piece to camera incorporating the phrase “Israel says…” and something about Israel retaliating. None of the eye witness VT footage from the BBC website, nor the VT of people being put in ambulances. Blink and you’d have missed the whole report. And yet this important news about terrorist murder was sandwiched between a pointless 3 min flanders fluff piece on the economy and a 4 min VT on the need for adults to exercise. Classic BBC Bias by omission.
It’s still being referred to as an ‘explosion’, which I guess technically is correct, though there seems to be a remarkable hesitancy to talk about a bomb or bomber.
Yet there was no hesitance in speculating on air that both the Norway and Toulouse murderers were white right-wingers, and no hesitation from Mark Mardell in dismissing notions that the Ft. Hood mass murderer had no jihadi intentions, even though those facts were already being widely reported.