Morning all. A new Open Thread, as requested.
FRIDAY OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Zephir Nov 16, 01:59
Weekend 16th November 2024
Kennedy has said that he is not against vaccines but wants them to be more thoroughly tested and investigated.[237][238] In… - Zephir Nov 16, 01:52
Weekend 16th November 2024
Kennedy is critical of the United States’ alliances with dictatorships like Saudi Arabia. He criticized the Saudi-led intervention in the… - Zephir Nov 16, 01:49
Weekend 16th November 2024
In 1987, Kennedy founded the Environmental Litigation Clinic at Pace University School of Law, where for three decades he was… - vlad Nov 16, 01:36
Weekend 16th November 2024
I only watch the BBC news on very rare occasions when I can’t sleep. Last night I switched on wondering,… - Zephir Nov 16, 01:33
Weekend 16th November 2024
All those “mass protests”against a country that offered to wipe out their debts and give them a trade deal, oh… - Zephir Nov 16, 01:13
Weekend 16th November 2024
Bit like the insurrection in Ukraine where their democratically elected president was usurped and exiled and Zelensky put in his… - Nibor Nov 15, 23:25
Weekend 16th November 2024
Dear Brissles, As a lorry driver I note : That every Summer the traffic increases It doesn’t decrease in autumn,… - BRISSLES Nov 15, 22:44
Weekend 16th November 2024
Nibor … .Being long retired I generally avoid the ‘old’ generally recognised rush hour on the roads. In more recent… - Nibor Nov 15, 22:36
Weekend 16th November 2024
Economy not doing as well as Rachel Reeves and Labour expecting it to do? Hold on! It should be stratosphering.…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
File this under ‘what are the odds, huh’? The Today program manages to cover the housing shortage just before 8 without once mentioning the role of open borders.
The BBC will spend the whole day on this, they will go from dawn till dusk blaming the coalition for not building enough houses when they should be blaming labour for flooding the country with millions of people while doing little to provide housing for them.
Build a few Labour Camps, that should do it.
I see this site is still ze dwelling hovel of choice for bigoted right-wing trolls and losers with zero social life.
I suppose your idea of a social life is apologising to foreigners for the Empire, getting duffed up by feminists because “all men are rapists”, and posing in the front window of Starbucks pretending your second-hand Macbook is new. Where did your lifestyle coach train, at the Beeb?
If you don’t like the posts here go to the Daily Mirror and post there.
Another stunning contribution to the debate: scream ‘Waaaaaaacist’ at any view on mass immigration that goes against the left-fascist imposition of multiculturalism on an electorate who had no say on the issue.
That’s as may be, but at least we are libertarian “bigoted right-wing trolls and losers with zero social life.” Try posting a similar comment on any BBC blog and watch it disappear PDQ. If enough people post off the required response, they close the comments, because as we all know the impartial and oh so balanced Beeb always knows best, and gets it about right – everytime.
They’ve had lessons from their friends at the Climate Research Unit – experts at ‘losing’ (not to mention manipulating) data.
“I see this site is still ze dwelling hovel of choice for bigoted right-wing trolls and losers with zero social life”
Ad homs! Splendid! Always a sign of desperation, I feel…
At the end of this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19290947 about Breivik is the following sentence. “The attacks, regarded as the worst act of violence in Norway since World War II, sparked a national debate about the nature of tolerance and democracy in the country.”
Now, if I were Norwegian, I would be talking about Breivik’s motives, i.e. Immigration. I reckon the bBC thought police constructed that last sentence.
But given the blinkered mindset of the Norwegian left-wing I could believe that they won’t consider any other way. Remember that they send their children away to an island for a week at a time to be brainwashed in left-wing propaganda.
And immediately after it the Norwegian PM’s comments included the reasoning that control of the internet was necessary.
BBC manages to package Brevik as
” a right-wing militant,”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19304814
Not a “protester” then, carrying out a daring and audacious assault?
I think it’s called ‘reaping the whirlwind’ for their blind arrogance. The fascist left must share the guilt for Breivik’s horrific slaughter as it is they who imposed ‘multiculturalism’ on their people just as they did in this country. We can only hope all political parties see sense and start to encourage open debate on this before it gets totally out of hand.
BBC-ANC in denial over massacre of blacks by blacks in South Africa:
it is politically compulsory apparently for BBC-ANC to refer to ‘apartheid’.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19292909
As far as I can see, almost all of the police, including their commissioner, are black.
That apartheid is terrible.
Noting the discrepancy between the ‘Editor’s Picks’ and the most liked comments, of which this is second highest..
122. Skywatchman
Dear BBC HYS Moderators and Editors, I, and I suspect many other contributors, are very concerned that comment and debate on this serious news topic in South Africa has been overly censored.
One would anticipate a percentage of posted comment to be removed but in this specific forum the removal rate is extremely high and to anyone reading the posted comments is rather un-nerving as to why?
Propaganda (or Balls) Backed by Censorship.
Guessing they didn’t want folks’ views after all?
Apologies for the late follow-up as I’ve been unable to get in to this site for two days, but on Friday evening I noticed that Caroline Hawley’s 2-minute video report where she ended by dragging up apartheid has now been moved to the ‘Europe’ section of the BBC News site.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19289392
I’m sure there must be some reason but I can’t imagine why.
Now the Olympics are done and dusted I would like to analyse a couple of programmes the BBC showed prior to the games. The theme was higher faster etc. and concentrated on African/American West Indian and Kenyan athletes.
The first was about the dominance of the aforementioned athletes in sprinting. The model for this was the excellent Michael Johnson a bastion of common sense and gravity compared with the wittering Lewis and (whatsisname?) Jackson in the BBC commentary team.
Disappointingly, the programme was not so much about science and explanation but more a ‘Who do you think you are? And we had a history lesson in slavery.
The conclusion was that survival of the fittest had produced a race of sprinters. The only science of the programme revealed that Johnson’s DNA was 7/8 s from Senegal.
We were not told where the remaining eighth came from, which is a pity as Senegal has not produced a single Olympic sprinter as far as I know!
So no mention of fast twitch fibres which East Coast Africans have a greater proportion of than other Africans and the rest of us; no mention of foot length in particular longer toes and relatively short tibias all of which contribute to superior leg speed and leverage.
So, no real science, it is due to surviving the truly terrible conditions of transportation and slavery.
Should be some fit Australians!
A quick summary of the programme about the dominance of Kenyans in middle and long distance running. This was all due to hard work and dedication. Living at altitude was brushed over, and no mention of those lithe muscles having a higher tolerance of lactic acid than other races which is the real reason, or was when I read about some 25years ago.
Are we not allowed to know the science behind the achievements of these wonderful atheletes? What is the BBC scared of?
“Science” in BBC terms is restricted to “approved” science – much like the ban on “Jewish” science in 1933-45 Germany. Accordingly, for instance, the treatment of climate “science” at the BBC is restricted to propaganda by the CAGW cult together with the occasional drive-by kicking administered to CAGW infidels by the 3 Charlatans ™ (Harrabin, Black and Shukman). Analogously, citing the possibility of a racial reason for perceived behavioural difference is, again, verboten on the BBC’s popular output.
You see, once the BBC admits that black Africans – and those of black African descent – are superior in the physical activity of athletics, the next obvious question to ask (for both a scientist and a competent journalist) is whether there are any other differences of ability – physical or mental – which can be traced to racial causes. Once that little door is opened, the next thing you know the BBC will have to allow discussion of the works of Jensen or Murray on differences in IQ between the races. Since such discussions are effectively off-limits (although, it’s not without possibility that there are the occasional references to such on the BBC website) the BBC adopts the “impartial” stance of shutting down discussion on these matters and allow that black athletes are observably superior to white ones in certain events but that it has nothing to do with . er . being black.
Totally agree Umbongo.
Interestingly, when it came to the programme on swimming, which was excellent and interesting, science or at least the reasons why some physiques are better suited to swimming, was actually examined. No ‘No go areas’ here.
This time it was shorter leg length compared with longer bodies, and ‘wingspan’ (having arms that, when stretched out are equal to or greater than height) that enabled swimmers to kick more rapidly, porpoise in the water and obtain greater leverage and with less depth of stroke and quicker recovery. Plus of course having flippers, or big feet! Also riding higher in the water with less drag was another factor. Unfortunately, I must have missed the bit about the reason for this…adipose body fat, which is that fat level just under the skin that migrants out of Africa moving north developed (along with other characteristics) to adapt to the cold-survival of the fittest?
I was wondering if the ancient Olympics had spread a bit further, if the newly freed Hebrew slaves would have cleaned up the medals.
I remember reading the exact same thing four years ago about Michael Phelps. Some youth coach was talking about how he spotted Phelps’ potential by looking at the kid’s big feet and overall body form.
“No ‘No go areas’ here.”
What color are most swimmers’ skins, I wonder?
Chess, too, is disgracefully “dominated” by whites.
Any comprehensive school teacher will tell you that the reason the average white IQ is 30 points higher than the average black score is all down to racism.
Genetics doesn’t come into it, except when the state is forcibly sterilising EDL members to prevent terrorism.
And then she will tell you that those graphs showing more male geniuses and idiots than female ones – the average IQ between the genders being equal – were all drawn by wife-beating, gun-license-owning, 4 X 4 driving men.
And that IQ doesn’t even exist. Phew, this isn’t doing my menopausal stress levels any good. I’m off to write my Guardian column over a Tuscan latte.
I believe Indians have made significant contributions in the past as well. Although…..
I read lately that estimates of fossilised strides of human ancestors, showed that they ran much faster than Usain Bolt. So our hunter gatherer ancestors had to run fast to catch the food. For the last 6,000 years we in Britain have learned to domesticate animals and plants, while they continued to run with spears, to catch the food in Africa. Also in the highlands of Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda another group robed the hunter gathers in the low lands and then ran back to the mountains, they evolved the ability to run fast over long distances because the hunter gatherers caught up with the stragglers.
34 dead south african mine bbc,
“armed with spears and machetes – strikers were in no mood for compromise” – “Police, armed with automatic rifles and pistols, fired dozens of shots”
bbc – “reminicent of apartheid ” …. WHAT!
the bloody nerve, of the bbc, beneath contempt!.
what you have here, is the chaos that ensues, with a president who couldn t lie straight in bed, and a government that couldn t run a bath, still at heart tribal and that uses thinly veiled white/colonial rhetoric as an
escape valve for their own failures.
i wonder if the over 2000 murders of south african white farm families … yes usually the older ones, (easier to hack to death), is even worth a mention? didn t think so.
the talk is unbelievably, that Terrablanche was spot on, in a tribal society, the Boer “tribe”, should just have had the orange free state, some transvaal set it up
and protected it, the farmers have had to go back to defence/weapons training, the police have no interest, encouraged by ANC infastructure, the long worked productive land is being erm “repatriated” by government.
When this means this so called rainbow nation can no longer feed itself, i suppose the international hand outs will have to start.
a country thrown away
I posted yesterday I was putting my feet up and waiting for the BBC to link the mine shooting to The White Man. “reminiscent of apartheid” qualifies for me…
‘wonder if the over 2000 murders of south african white farm families … yes usually the older ones, (easier to hack to death), is even worth a mention?’
Lost a couple of not-too-distant rellies to the Mau-Mau, whose response to multiculture was slicing & dicing the cultural enrichers in their neck of the woods.
Oddly, in contrast to family recollections of what went down, I was not so long ago treated to the BBC’s version of events.
Who to believe, who to believe…?
As to whose version I am compelled to pay for, no contest!
Couldn’t get on here yesterday; 404 site not found.
I watched and compared BBC and Sky. Sky showed and made plain the violent intent of the so-called “demonstrators”. It clearly showed the knob-kerries, spears and pangas being carried (presumably for self defense). They even showed a clip of a youngster demonstrating his spear by licking the blade. No forearms were seen but the presence of AK47’s was very likely.
Contrast this with what the BBC showed. No weapons were visible, just a massive crowd of people. You know that looooooooong shot where someone needs to explain that the dots in the distance are actually people. In the very last frame one individual could be seen carrying a panga.
Having lived through the apartheid era it was normal for the Police to be armed but in riot situations front-line riot cops carried tear gas and automatic shotguns loaded with bird shot or salt-and-pepper. Further heavier shot was carried but not normally required. Military weapons (7.62 nato) were carried but use thereof was confined to officer controlled life threatening situations.
The only time I ever remember military weapons being used was the famous Sharpville incident where a dozen or so policemen were surrounded by 4000 angry residents. These cops were armed with the very unreliable Thomsons machine pistol which are renowned for having a hair-trigger. Police records indicate that one of the young policemen in a state of panic gripped the weapon too tightly and it fired causing his comrades to join in.
So this cannot in anyway be compared to apartheid era riot control. During that era any display of weapons would have resulted in immediate use of tear gas. Any attack on police would have been met with shotgun fire.
btw also compare and contrast with British policing.
10 years ago I remember a deranged mental patient running around the streets of a suburb brandishing a sword. Result; shot and killed by an armed response unit.
Hi folks. Would be interested to know your thoughts on the guilty verdict of the Russian punk group Pussy Riot, who face a three year prison sentence for blasphemy and religious hatred. Now I am not a fan of the oppressive Putin regime but I, personally, think that what the group did was a typically offensive and cowardly leftist attack on an easy target, the Christian church. Would they have done the same in a mosque? NO! Which brings me to a loathsome feature this morning on BBC News 24.
The feature had a couple of guests on bemoaning the oppression of the Putin regime; the guests and the two news readers all came to the highly predictable conclusion that the punk group acted in an entirely ‘fun, light-hearted but politically polemical(!)’ manner and that any prison sentence would be harsh and ‘militant’ (to quote one of the stupid guests). I will say only this: what would the BBC’s line be if this were a mosque that the group had desecrated? This was typical craven Left-wing behaviour and was a total affront to Orthodox Christians everywhere. Can anyone remember when that prat of an artist in Glasgow defaced a Bible and called it art? The chattering classes found it ever so funny… I found it disgraceful and have HAD ENOUGH with the bullying of Christians. Let’s see what happens when a punk group goes into a local Mosque and causes mayhem. We would all be living in subways to escape from the BBC blitzkrieg of hypocrisy.
The Left bully Christians because they know they can get away with it; they are, however, petrified of Muslims because they know they will get beaten up! Pussy Riot? More like a bunch of Pussies!
The overriding mandate to gain and wield temporal power is not part of Christianity’s central doctrine, and criticism or disrespect for it are not criminal and punishable breaches of the divinely ordained law of the land ( as it is for Islam in Muslim countries – and as Muslims seek to make it in non-Muslim states). The answer is not to invest Christians with the obligation and right to intimidate that Muslims believe they have
(we had that in the past and decided we didn’t like it) – it is to face down Muslim threats and attacks with the full might of the state and allow a complete free for all in criticism, lampooning and mockery of a belief system that was never very respectable in the first place and is too brittle to survive such treatment intact.
I still believe in a little thing called RESPECT for the sanctity of religious property and others’ beliefs, no matter how primitive or infantile they may appear to the self-styled intellectuals, rationalists and atheists and so on. I also believe in freedom of speech so long as it does not involve aggressive, destructive and willful obstruction of others freedoms, in this case, religious… the group obstructed others’ freedoms on that day to carry out their worship and in so doing violated their democratic freedoms and personal space; in this respect, I disagree with their protest. By all means, demonstrate outside the church/mosque/synagogue/stone circle etc, and criticize Christianity… But to loudly and aggressively demonstrate in what Christians believe is God’s House… a holy place? No, that is just plain provocative and offensive and not in keeping with reasonable freedoms of action and speech.
I agree they deserved punishment: they deliberately sought to create maximum aggravation but three years seems to err on the side of rigour and could tilt the balance of sympathy in favour of them and away from Russia’s (long suffering) Christians.
Respect has to be earned not demanded with menaces: I’m not asking that people should cause disturbances in mosques but at he very least that newspapers have the guts and respect for all their readers to publish cartoons of old Mo – and the BBC to show them on-screen when discussing them. I believe Christianity can survive ridicule in a way that Islam cannot.
I believe Christianity can survive ridicule in a way that Islam cannot.
Absolutely spot on Wally
yes, well said.
And here we see the BBC doing a wee bit of name-dropping, in support of Pussy Riot… I say it again… what would have been the response had they trashed up a mosque? Would there have been al of these predictable lefty protests? NO!
forgot the link!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19297373
I cannot agree more, freedom speechs
no 1 should be criticism of the state and religion.
What i cannot stand, is the double standard,as to why these “wimmin”
did not in do it in a mosque, spouting the same crap, answer is threat and violence IMMEDIATELY, being women
they would of at least had an erm “excuse” of some strand of feminism.
it IS the self enforcing of sharia, by pseudo activists, that is most gaulling.
and despicable organisations like the bbc who just lap it up… AS they self enforce sharia, by criticising christianity
(no threat) as opposed to islam.(an ever present threat).
Wimmin the vast majority of feminists I have met in my life are completely mad. When I was at university/college there was one woman who used to bring her baby into the classroom. The reason for this so she could breastfeed her baby in class to make feminist statement.
I cannot agree with you more! I recently read that 80% of religiously motivated attacks across the world were perpetrated against Christians – the BBC obviously doesn’t think that’s enough and sticks the boot in wherever possible. They’ve even got a slideshow including a shot of someone chainsawing an enormous crucifix in Ukraine, erected to the memory of the politically oppressed no less! Let’s see how many and varied ways we can scandalize Christians – everyone else is doing it!
And the BBC did not make a fuss when that man was thrown into prison for burning a koran in public, up North somewhere. No calls to free the koran one.
It’s OK in this country to deface the Bible… but to do so with the Koran is social and professional suicide… such is the tyrannical Islamo-Marxist state we live in. In the morning coffee house fraternity of the pretentious chattering classes, to make mockery of Christianity is a sign of how ‘radical,’ ‘edgy’ and ‘right-on’ one is, but if you were to deface the Koran, you best hitch a ride with NASA’s next mission to outer orbit (or better to use India’s space shuttle, actually, because you’ve probably paid for it!).
Absolutely right.
Adolph Salmond of the SNP funded and defended the defacing of the Bible at the Glasgow school of art calling it ‘freedom of expression’ yet his screaming and outrage at the proposed burning of a few pages of the Satanic Verses was something to behold.
Hang on, wasn’t this a protest against Putin, only using the liturgy parody as the method because it’s something Russians can relate to? It’s pretty difficult to see this as an attack on Christians and nothing more.
Yes, partly David, but from what I have garnered from the whole affair and the wider debates is that the politico-feminist group specifically chose the church because of its ‘antiquated’ views on contemporary society; yes, by all accounts, it was mainly an anti-Putin protest but the medium was equally important according to one of the protagonist’s friends, who was interviewed on RT. My point, though, is… would they have used a Mosque as a vehicle for their brazen and showy demonstration? I think e know the answer!
Yes, I understand that aspect of it, and I do appreciate that people can be angry at this for the blasphemy angle anyway. And I agree they never would have thought of doing it in a mosque, although probably more because it wouldn’t have had the same effect.
But this was an attack on Putin first and foremost.
But what I hear is the BBC’s admiration of the three women and whatever they think of Putin – objecting in a place of worship is not – in my eyes – appropriate.
Do we really believe the BBC gives a toss about “pussy riot” (must have taken them ages to think their name up.) I’ve never heard of them, but it looks like they are probably as bad as thhe slits or the Raincoats.
Bet Putin is really worried about the BBc coverage….not.
Bunch of PR chancers ‘stormed’ (the MSM’s idiot term du jour) the wrong venue.
Actually reforming Hear’say or somesuch and doing the same in a Mosque to highlight lack of women’s rights might be… ‘educational’, not just for them at the time, but to witness the BBC’s ‘take’ on events thereafter.
Where’s there an Ecuadorian Embassy when they needed one?
I went to a gig last week (Refused-Swedish, communist, hard-core punk) and on the drum kit there was the obligatory slogan ‘free pussy riot.’ Apparently the ‘punk rock community’ (whatever that is) is behind these (particularly ugly) girls. As is Paul McCartney and a host of lefty musicians but would they be so vocal if it had happened in a mosque and there was the possibility of death threats for supporting them? Christianity is such an easy target for these outrages as forgiveness is all part of the Christian ethos. Now, I’m not an Orthodox Christian but I find this whole thing outrageous and I have absolutely no sympathy for them. Obviously, what you can get away with in the west, (imagine if it had happened at St Pauls there’d be high fives all around at the beeb and zero gaol time cos the luvvies would be out to support them) you can’t get away with in Russia. Personally, I couldn’t give a shit – send em to a gulag.
I’d like to correct an earlier posting. When discussing Justin Webb and the BBC’s obsession with evil right-wing “Evangelicals” I stated that four US supreme court judges were Catholic and four Jewish. Of course, as every schoolboy knows, 4 + 4 doesn’t equal 9 (Supreme Court judges).
While the point I made (if Romney/Ryan win the election, then for the first time in US history, there’ll be no “Protestants” running the country) is still valid, my maths was not as good as my history. For the record, and in the interests of accuracy, here’s the full run down of the 6 RCs and 3 Jews who are US Supreme Court judges:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr – Roman Catholic
Justice Antonin Scalia – Roman Catholic
Justice Anthony Kennedy – Roman Catholic
Justice Clarence Thomas – Roman Catholic
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – Jewish
Justice Stephen Breyer – Jewish
Justice Samuel Alito – Roman Catholic
Justice Sonia Sotomayor – Roman Catholic
Justice Elena Kagan – .Jewish
See, BBC! No Evangelicals!
If Obama is a muslim then protestants haven’t been running the US for the last four years either!
I should have put ‘running’ in speech marks because we all know that the President is just a figurehead. Real power lies behind the scenes.
The other week I regretted listening to Sunday, and a piece about the Chinese government’s pickle with Vatican-appointed Catholic bishops (the Chinese think they can appoint their own for some reason and expect the Pope to rubber stamp it). Anyways, the everso fair-minded David Willey ended the article by bemoaning this “dialogue of the deaf”.
Now, last time I looked, it wasn’t the Vatican who were abducting and, in some cases, torturing Chinese citizens – I’m afraid Catholic priests, bishops and laity are reserved the honour of that treatment. The BBC thinks that any stick is fine to bash the Caths with – and when it comes to one as big and as filthy as China, then they don’t mind getting their hands dirty for a good cause!
And I thought the BBC believed in the separation of Church and State!
In his latest musing, Mark Mardell talks about a new group of former seals and security professionals who question President Obama’s use of leaks to bolster his political standing.
Mardell, the president’s UK representative, says “This suggestion that he’s boastful and politically vain, like Romney’s argument that Team Obama are running a campaign of hate and anger, is designed to undermine the president’s personal appeal.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19290268
Dear Mark, this is not about undermining the president’s “personal appeal”. This is about life and death. There is disquiet in the intelligence community that all Obama’s actions are political. The credentials of these people are impeccable and it would be in their nature to shut up – so why are they speaking out? And it’s not just former personnel who are unhappy. There was an incident yesterday which shows the state of mind of the current operatives who put their lives on the line to protect the President and VP.
Yesterday, Joe Biden, campaigning in Virginia, asked the owners of the “Crumb and Get It” bakery in Radford if he could use their premises for a photo op. The owners declined. The owner Chris McMurray had taken offense to Obama’s remark that small businessmen “didn’t do that on their own.” Biden found another venue.
BUT here the kicker: “…shortly after ‘ Crumb and Get It’ told Biden’s advance people ‘no’ — the secret service walked in and told Chris McMurray ”Thanks for standing up and saying ‘no’ — then they bought a whole bunch of cookies and cupcakes.”
http://articles.wdbj7.com/2012-08-16/crumb_33237831
Incidentally, since this story surfaced, “Crumb and Get It” have had “Chick-fil-a” sales, in other words, sell-out business with orders from all over the country in support of their action.
I don’t think Mark Mardell would be interested in that little tidbit. After all, it if isn’t reported in the NYT or MSNBC it didn’t happen.
Louis, it kind of is about the President’s personal appeal. Mardell has defended the President in the past about an ad which seemed to politicize the killing of Bin Laden. Mardell wrote as fact that Bin Laden was “indeed killed on Mr. Obama’s watch, on (H)is orders.”
The BBC’s US President editor was uncomfortable with it then, but this new deal might possibly take away the one foreign policy success which even His political enemies supported. Can’t have that, oh, no. So Mardell must spend time and effort here debunking the Seals’ claims.
When word gets out occasionally that He really is little more than the Community Organizer in Chief and is just as slimy as the rest of them, that damages the brand. Remember, Mardell was telling us only recently that the President is way ahead on the likeability factor.
This issue – if the Seals are correct – makes Him look very bad, very petty. In this case, it’s not about a policy or political maneuvering: it’s about personality, and it makes Him less likeable to His worshipers.
You can tell Mardell is unhappy and senses this from the way he says that this is an attempt to undermine His personal appeal, rather than an attempt to speak truth to power or an attempt to get the word out how this President is unhelpful to national security. No, as usual with Mardell, there can be no legitimate opposition to Him or anything He does.
Has the BBC spent this much effort debunking any attacks on, say, Romney or Sarah Palin? Over to you, defenders of the indefensible.
I take your point
I have no problem with the BBC reporting the Telegraph scoop, that the D of E misreported how many school playing fields have been sold off. The Beeb have also reported how many the coalition have sold off during their time in government. Again, that is a legitimate subject to be reported, however, in the interests of impartiality it would have been nice to have been told how many the Labour government sold off during their time in office. For those interested Guido has a table.
It would also be nice to hear just one BBC journalist, ask the obvious question of those Labour politicians who are experiencing such shock, horror and outrage on this subject “Could you you tell us please how many your government sold off and the reasons why?
Yes! It is “amazing” that the BBC can report on sales 1989-1997 and 2010+, yet not notice that they have failed to provide any information on 1997-2010
And who says 2010 is Year Zero for the BBC when reporting this kind of thing?
More Or Less covered this today (R4, 4.30), and I believe Tim Harford was on PM yesterday as well.
Remember last week when the BBC was complaining about the inflation busting rising in rail fares. But they have been a bit quite about the inflation busting pay rises to their top execs. From the Graud
BBC report reveals executives’ inflation-busting pay rises
Corporation’s quarterly report shows overall fall in expenses claims, but three managers’ salaries rise by up to 12%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/17/bbc-executive-pay?newsfeed=true
Gotta love this BBC News Online Magazine piece by Tim Geoghegan:
Ayn Rand: Why is she so popular?
What a shock, it’s mostly negative, mostly deconstructing Rand’s various ideas in an attempt to show how weak and nasty it all is. For the most part, we learn that Rand’s work is so popular in the US because of her emphasis on individualism and “unfettered capitalism”, which is an anathema to Beeboids.
We also learn that intelligent people grow up and move on, seeing how shallow Rand’s ideas were, and how awful her supporters can be. The overall message here is that only intellectually and emotionally stunted people still seriously go for the ideas laid out in her books.
Funny how Mardell can write a defense against the Seals’ criticism of the President about the Bin Laden killing, dismissing it as a political attempt to undermine His likeability, yet this BBC report about a blatantly personal Democrat attack on Romney about his taxes doesn’t merit such analysis.
Instead, it’s just a quick layout of the Democrat talking points (they’re just “reporting” it, I know, I don’t mean to imply they’re merely spouting propaganda – this time), as we learn that they say Romney has something to hide. No mention that this is good old-fashioned class war, as the huge earnings shown on those tax returns will just be waved in everyone’s faces in an attempt to make Romney less likeable. It’s just as much a political ploy – after all, the rumor Harry Reid spouted is unsubstantiated, no evidence at all. There are no accountants coming forward, and Reid will never reveal a source, nor will any other Democrats. But the BBC won’t dare turn their noses up at this the way Mardell has criticized the Seals’ efforts.
Instead, the BBC helpfully links to a real class war piece about whether or not the super-rich “pay their way”. In case anyone doesn’t hate Romney enough for being rich, you know. Even if he does pay some taxes, it’s never enough, right, BBC?
You can bet Mardell won’t be trying to dismiss this line of attack the way he dismissed the one on the President.
Now Royal Mail decides it will start delivering goods to a random address near to the right one, and BBC ‘News’ writes a completely uncritical article, with no-one saying it’s not a good idea.
One bloated, public-sector, not-fit-for-purpose, organisation supporting another.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19293772
I was struck with the BBC’s discomfort with the riots in France. After all this wasn’t supposed to happen,they are now saved, they have a left wing Government and only the nasty right cause riots.
The left wing Hollande will also have to cut, as everyone knows.
However, the BBC calls the French rioters criminals, yet over here they are downtrodden victims of the right.
I suspect the BBC will not want to highlight France’s right in future as they will have the same hard choices as Sarkozy would have done.
The BBC is unable to work with the change in political because it doesn’tchange anything.
A joy to have just returned from a tour around the former Eastern Europe.
I noted a lot of former “Marx Engels” type-places of old are now renamed “Ronald Reagan”/John Paul/Jan Palach roundabouts and squares….
Only in the soft-left liberal elite places like Vienna do the likes of Marx and Engels still get to keep their names on things…as if it`s a cheap gesture of solidarity, bought with cheap reflex sentiment…which, of course,it is.
In other words-the former Communist bloc laud the “thick and bumbling” Ronald Reagan, they praise the likes of Thatcher and John Paul II..indeed, those very oafs and fascist dupes that the Guardian and the BBC seem to want airbrushed out of progressive history as we lived through it.
Prophets without honour eh?…yet, the Eastern bloc know who saved them(Radio Free Europe, Walesa etc)…and those who were only too pleased to suck up to the International Brigade of hypocrites that screwed their nations over, for more than 40 years.
Tragically they might have swapped the USSR for the EU had it not all collapsed as it did and does as we speak.
Yet the BBC or Guardian snivel round the likes of Hollande and lefties round the continent, rather than engage with those who lived under the Socialist Dreamers for so long….just so they themselves would never have to!
Any chance of the BBC reviewing its take on Reagan or John Paul then?…nah, why bother to ask!
what’s your favourite radio station in england?
I’m learning the english language and i have to listen to BBC online a few hours and I really got tired of those arrogant liberals.
Manuel – Classic Fm (101.1) – but it is mainly classical music – so will not help you with your language skills (except for the adverts and the news)… still a bit left wing but can chill out to the music.
Manuel. Try RTE1 online. A decent coverage of world events free of the insidious BBC spinning and misrepresentation. Also their use of the English language is at least as good!
Damian Thompson…
The BBC’s man of the people
The journalist Paul Mason is dead chuffed by a nice review of his book Why It’s Kicking Off Everywhere, a study of the Occupy movements, by the American historian Paul Le Blanc.
“This challenging ‘must-read’ volume is a journalistic account with a difference, informed as it is by radical and revolutionary social theory (most obviously, through not exclusively, Karl Marx),” writes Le Blanc.
Le Blanc is a hard-Left scholar who campaigns against “the dismissive or trash-and-bash attitude towards Lenin”. He disagrees with aspects of Mason’s analysis, but his review – in Links: the International Journal of Socialist Renewal – makes clear that the two men are on the same side of the workers’ struggle.
You may be wondering: can this Paul Mason be the same man who is paid from the BBC licence fee to offer rigorously impartial commentary in his job as Newsnight’s economics editor? The answer is yes.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100174768/jonah-lehrer-the-fall-of-a-hipster-intellectual/
“Boko Haram” Conducts “raids” and Not ‘Massacres’.
For my sins, I had BBC 2 on a few days ago and saw this on Ceefax:
Sorry, not sure how to add an image.
[IMG]http://i378.photobucket.com/albums/oo222/adaadat/Biased-BBC2012-08-15Ceefax-BokoHaram_850xY.jpg[/IMG]
If you have a flickr or similar account, you can insert it via the second link, “You can add images….”, below the reply box.
Try again. I’ll get there eventually.
http://i378.photobucket.com/albums/oo222/adaadat/Biased-BBC2012-08-15Ceefax-BokoHaram_850xY.jpg
Here’s a thought that has been passing through my mind for several years :
How much did the bbc coverage of Terry Waite’s. and John McCarthy’s incarceration contribute to their protracted incarceration? And in a similar vein, what effect did the bbc’s attitude towards muslims have on the brutal killing of Ken Bigby?
I don’t know the answer, of course, but I tend to err on the side of the conclusion that the bbc was a party in their gruesome deaths.
that should read : barbaric treatment and gruesome death.
Sorry John, but can’t agree with you.
They have a duty to report it, if it happens.
They are not responsible for the actions of those barbaric savages.
They do have that duty, but fall short and are found wanting, because they censor out the gruesome actions of the barbaric savages that carry out these foul murders, when the video evidence has been provided by the murderers themselves.
They have a duty to show everyone in this country just what these animals are capable of. But they wont. they suppress the truth.
Bastards is what they are.
But they don’t report some incidents, kidnapping and hostage-taking, for instance, where the police ask for a news blackout. So why can’t the media self-impose reporting restrictions and not give the criminals the publicity they crave?
Do we have any evidence that the kidnappers listened to the BBC? It’s a bit like BBC American coverage. There is no evidence that any American’s opinion was changed by the bias.
does anyone watch The Review Show? What a load of lefty bollocks, and that’s just the guests let alone the drivel that’s discussed
After all seeming fine for about a week, i’ve had trouble connecting to the site again on Friday and Saturday.
Sadly me too. But hooray it’s come back. David, take two of the big green pills, and go to the darkened room for a nice lie down. Thanks for a brilliant blog.
And today, Sunday. Couldn’t connect with the site from midday until late tonight.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2190412/IDS-fury-carping-moaning-BBC-report-casts-doubt-jobs-boost-He-accuses-Stephanie-Flanders-peeing-British-industry.html
What I found most interesting about this was the SKY paper review, where the anchor smiled smugly at the camera to dismiss this criticism and said ‘all broadcast journalists are impartial’.
I did not know that. All?
In fact, I’d say that was quite a claim.
The kind that appears can only be made from one side of the studio table and from one end of the broadcast system.
One I suspect made more in knee jerk wagon-circling against the notion of any government taking a a pop at the media’s god given right to say what they want.
However, what about… the slight possibility… that a few people can see opportunity to insert their personal agendas into what they choose to talk about or how they choose to ‘interview’… and who not.
Why is Ms. Flanders called ‘Two Eds’ Mr. Nixon? I don’t think it is for her brainyness or duality of roles.
Ms. Flanders is, like any ‘reporter’, welcome to hold powers to account, but her track record of analysis in who she holds to account, and who she favours no matter what, is hardly balanced. Perhaps explained, if not excused by her background. Like that of other high profile Editors in high profile ‘analysis’ roles, such as that raving Tory Paul Mason, and Conservative dynasty heir Robert Peston, biographer of John Major.
As precedents go, I find it quaint that any ‘news’ professional views his own profession as incapable of any flaws they accuse the rest of planet of each minute to fill the 24/7 news maw.
Such pan-industry defensiveness may explain why there’s less kick-back than one might be expected.
The BBC must be laughing.
I used to quite respect this anchor, but such a smug, daft statement really has dented his credibility for me.
IDS really is having a pop at Steph 2-Eds Flanders. A formal complaint. Good luck to him. I bet the Today programme does not report on it all.
Of course the BBC gives its usual knee-jerk reaction that she is totally impartial. But as IDS says – that is bollox, just listen to what she says, just a routine rollout of Labour talking points every time.
We know she has a gut animosity towards both Cameron and Osborne – her earlier remarks have shown this. But IDS is correct to point out that most of the time she is against the Government whatever happens.
Time she was taken down a peg or two. And the very idea that Paul Mason is there alongside her makes a mockery of any idea of impartiality at the BBC.
‘a formal complaint to BBC head of news Helen Boaden’
As you say… good luck to him.
This is the woman that claimed that every man (and woman) jack of the BBC staff are genetically impartial… because she is comfortable in her belief that is the case.
So comfortable that on her ‘The Editors’ blog thread making this claim, she failed to answer a single one of the 99% negative responses before it closed out.
Propaganda backed by delusion backed by bare-faced arrogance backed by total lack of accountability backed by cynical censorship.
IDS has a hope in hell as he is trying to play in the BBC complaints system ‘happy time’ zone, namely bias, which will always have elements of subjectivity and hence can be brushed away with a ‘we don’t think so’.
I rarely bother with complaints any more under this category, even in egregious cases.
Mind you, even with pure facts, they still try and pull bare-faced denial of what is in black and white.
I have one from February I’ve dragged kicking and screaming through attempted rejection after rejection by director after director, and at last has grudgingly been elevated to the next Trust whitewash in October.
After scores of ‘there is no difference’ to two headlines, when I have served up links and scans to show they are simply trying to say black is white, they are now muttering about ‘misunderstandings’ between departments, having put me through the wringer.
I know they’ll end up deciding there was/is no case… they always do… but the correspondence will be another nail once the BBC’s handling of complaints is taken away from… the BBC.
If any other entity self-assessed as they do their attack dogs would have a field day with any power being held to account for such practices (Newsnight did recently on the PR industry).
They do it.. and it is A-OK… uniquely.
Such hypocrisy is risible.
IDS should know he’s dealing with The Untouchables and his complaint is futile.
Awesome. Thanks for this, GW! Made my weekend. I laughed out loud, which is a first for me when listening to anything IDS says. Too bad he wasn’t this clued in or useful when he was party leader.
It’s about time somebody at a high level noticed the consistent policy advocacy of “Two Eds”. We’ve only been documenting it here for years.
Islamic Egypt.
Islam Not BBC (INBBC) self-censoring.
Three reports:
1.)
“Raymond Ibrahim: Muslim Brotherhood ‘Crucifies’ Opponents”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/raymond-ibrahim-muslim-brotherhood-crucifies-opponents.html
2.)
“Muslim Brotherhood has ‘started crucifying opponents of new President’, claims website”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2190258/Mohammed-Morsi-Muslim-Brotherhood-started-crucifying-opponents-new-President-claims-website.html#ixzz23yjzcjKJ
3.) And from INBBC on Islamic Egypt, an ‘Islamic al Jazeera’ type report on something else:
“Egypt President Mursi ‘to visit Iran'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19307659
This is even more cartoon-like than even anyone here could have imagined. I know I was more optimistic than pretty much anyone else, but I don’t think even you, George, expected this.
If the BBC doesn’t spend even 10% of the energy on this that they spend on whining about executions in the US, it will be evidence of their utter depravity.
http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/tv-licensing-threats-and-intimidation.html
I presume the facts presented are accurate.
They would be easy to refute if not, so I am guessing they are.
So this flags up..
‘Notice as well that most of the people TV Licensing prosecute are invariably female and financially disadvantaged. That’s a trend replicated in court rooms across the land.’
Now, as the BBC is a power that is keen on holding others to account, I have a question for them; given they are champions of the underdog, and alert to any undue prejudices to or away from any demographic, at least as it suits their PC agendas, would the multi-millionaire senior staff of the BBC (market rate management or front of camera) care to comment on what seems to be a policy of targeting the poor and females in ways that they often aggressively criticise other entities, establishment and corporate, for doing?
Now it could be argued this is just how it pans out, and the law is the law and they are breaking it.
However, if any cretin (especially any who like digging holes trying out the quaint notion that the BBC is in no way connected with, or responsible for the actions of those it hires as debt collectors) does wish to follow that path, simply ponder the precedent elsewhere when the BBC does seem to get excited, only in a very different direction.
The BBC – not just hypocrisy, but unique hypocrisy
As here, if one follows blogs/forums/threads, you get to be aware of others who frequent them. The good, the bad, and the Drs. Scezandymenuses from Oslo.
Under the good, I include many, including on such as Graun CiF, who really know how to make a great argument. Even if I disagree with them totally.
They are civilised, smart and know how to create great debate. And there are many on BBC threads too, of course.
I have had knockabouts over the years with several, on many issues… politics, education, climate, etc.
Not surprisingly, though not exclusively, those that think Labour is the only party to save the UK, state education is the only way to compete worldwide, and Richard Black is the only scientist in the village… also tend to feel the BBC is the world’s most trusted news broadcaster, because, well, that’s all they watch and that’s what it keeps telling them.
So it is interesting when an acolyte runs foul of the very entity they adore.
To the extent of feeling very, very hurt…
Read from about there…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldtonight/2012/08/after_the_olympics_politics_ba.html?postId=113460716#comment_113460716
Anyone experienced with the BBC ‘specialist’ modding will feel, even for a groupie, after seeing this final plea…
‘How the heck can I explain (and give reasons and links for my statements) –with every second post removed ?’
I doubt the poster will ever be persuaded on the BBC’s tilt to propaganda, but they might be getting just a little antsy as to the levels of censorship that exist, persist and will never desist.
Aunty should be careful; the most ardent foes are often those who feel betrayed.
The Inappropriately named “quietoaktree” contributed no less than 24 of the 46 posts on that particulate thread before his final heartfelt plea not to be ignored!
Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere, but I was infuriated to read this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19293301
“Palestinian taxi hit by firebomb”
“Israeli officials said there were indications that Israeli civilians were behind the attack, which took place near the Jewish settlement of Bat Ayin.
Palestinian medics said those hurt were all members of one family, among them the driver and two young children.”
I don’t condone what happened, but contrast and compare with BBC reporting when the attack is on the Israelis. Remember the Vogels?
Is it any wonder that the general public has the perception that the Palis are always the victims. It’s because they’re never told anything else by our “neutral”
state broadcaster.
Shush, don’t tell anyone, but there is a quiet place on the BBC where avowed leftists and anti-Westerners can gather, can get away from it all, avoid the prying eyes of licence payers and say what they want completely untroubled by ‘balance’.
They can swap their bon mots like “Paul Ryan – Libertarian Disneyland….” and have their compatriots chuckle at quips such as “Mitt Romney, he’s outsourced his brain” which gets a response – not of balance – but “Hahaha, I like that one”
Keep this a secret, but one of the number – a French woman – is heard to gasp “Everyone knows – you should increase taxes!”
Phew, exciting stuff eh?
And where is this leftist Nirvana? Dateline London with smug Beeboid Gavin Essler.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01m9464/Dateline_London_18_08_2012/
Now the idea is fine. What do foreign journalists think about issues in the news this week? Trouble is the participants that the Beeb pick all seem to think the same. This makes for both a dull lack of debate and a monotonous drone of left-wing bias.
18/8/2012 Guests.
Mustafa Karkouti: ‘Syrian-born journalist’….. ‘based in the Gulf’. Critic of Israel and critic of US foreign policy.
Agnes Poirier: Introduced as writer for the magazine Marianne – but let’s be honest – her credits include Al Jazeera and twice monthly contributions to the Guardian’s Comment is Free. What does she think of us Brits? “Unhappy, ignorant, violent, disrespectful and obessed with celebrity and money” (The Independent 25/2/2007)
Her articles include “Where is our Mitterand? The Socialist Party badly needs a successor to the man who proudly took on the rightist De Gaulle”.
Henry Chu: From the liberal US newspaper the L A Times. Writing about Britain he reckons we suffer “….Government mistakes and painful effects of the hardest austerity cuts seen in a generation…”
And our star guest – Michael White of the Guardian!!!!
Gosh I wonder from where the Beeb imagine the balance will come? And I wonder where the Beeb imagine the points of debate will come?
‘Keep this a secret..”
It’s like that daft TV ad for secret escapes – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szRIkRbrIfQ – where the pretence is it’s all between them and not meant for anyone outside the bubble.
I think it’s one of those that bit the dust when they magically responded with a 10 day deadline while I was away, but my complaint to CECUTT about the DL on the Falklands (all journos putting the boot in on the UK’s colonial arrogance, inc. one token anti-Brit from the Indy*, and of course the host too) was a classic.
In the end they decided they ‘got it about right’ because they couldn’t answer my complaint.
And they couldn’t answer my complaint because they decided to split it into two: who was invited on and what each had to say.
Seems the ‘investigator’ on invitees can’t comment on what they say, and the ‘investigator’ of what is said can’t comment on who is invited on, so they couldn’t talk to each other and that made it all go away.
‘And our star guest – Michael White of the Guardian!!!!’
*Shocked I tell you… shocked.
And still waiting for Dr. G’s number-crunching on who gets invited on to which panels as a function of ABC public representation.
Oddly, despite being present, my two requests to visit such data were ignored then, and remain so.
Possibly another case of ‘not my department’… when it serves?
I tend to stay away from ‘bias’ of such nature as it is a minefield of semantics and subjectivity to nail down, but with such as the breakdown above it must surely add up to some factual data that would be hard to dismiss, at least easily.
Good research and more proof of the inbred bias at the BBC. Esler’s ‘Dateline London’ sounds like a Leftie masturbating circle.
I’ve not been here for a bit – slightly mollified by BBC coverage of the olympics. But listening to “Saturday review” hosted by Bidisha was bound to cure me
..
Bidisha is a typically moderate BBC employee, clearly chosen to display their impartiality. Some previous quotes: “Any man who thinks it’s OK to live in a household where the woman does the overwhelming majority of all the housework, childcare and family admin is a woman-hater”, or “I wouldn’t be above some impromptu castration”
..
To the program. Apart from some odd remarks about Jesus’ “socialist principles”, the show was full of unceasing praise for Ry Cooder’s new album, one guest saying it was “really good to see a grumpy lefty getting out there and doing protest music” Bidisha seemed crestfallen that the others didn’t agree with her that this album was going to change history.
..
Of course we are all rabid right-wingers! There’s no BBC bias at all!
…
Listen to the program and decide for yourself. Could it be any more obvious?
BBC-NUJ censorship and propaganda on riots in Amiens, France:-
-here’s a BBC-NUJ masterclass in censorship and propaganda where the words ‘Muslim’, ‘Islam’ and are totally omitted by Mr Fraser; instead Mr Fraser gives typical pro-rioter excuses:
“French police on high alert after riots in Amiens”
[Excerpt]:
“In Amiens this week people told me the violence was sparked by an overzealous stop and search. But it is no secret that in these suburbs there is also a suffocating sense of alienation.”
So, in typical BBC-NUJ pro-rioter propaganda, Mr Fraser has been told by “people” (rioters?) that it’s not the rioters who are to blame for rioting: it’s the police (“overzealous” ), and French society (causing “alienation”)!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19295112
Rioting by North Africans in Palma de Mallorca. David Cameron is on holiday on Mallorca, I wonder if he will take any notice…
Islamic EGYPT:
-closing Cairo’s bars may finally spur Beeboids there into criticism of Islam:
“Cairo’s barflies wait for Brotherhood’s take on beer”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19295534
No more of this:
I only caught the last five minutes, but tonight’s Silent Witness (drama around forensic pathologists) was about Muslims grooming under-age white girls for sex.
Believe it or not, this was on the BBC where they assure us that such things do not happen.
Part II tomorrow (Monday) evening.
I couldn’t bring myself to watch it.
I’m hoping someone, here, will dissect it.
I don’t hold out much hope that it’ll be any better than the fairly-recent “Five Days”, proffering the view that young wannabee suicide bombers are just ‘misunderstood’.
Request for all BBC employees and/or defenders of the indefensible:
Please show me the BBC report/segment/news brief/video of a follow-up piece about how US gun laws are horribly lax – featuring some kind of gun-control advocacy – to the story about that Left-wing, homosexual activist attempting to use a gun to murder people at the Family Research Council.
You know: the kind of BBC report which follows every other story about some idiot/lunatic shooting people up in a public space in the US.
I read this short piece by Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail:
Why did the BBC choose Russell Brand, the alleged comedian (and tormentor of Andrew Sachs), to make a documentary about drugs?
Apparently, admitting to having used a lot of illegal drugs makes you an expert.
When I challenged Mr Brand’s qualifications on live TV, he screeched at me a bit, then offered to kiss me. I declined.
A viewer complained about the way I was treated on this programme, and was told ‘… as impartiality is the cornerstone of our entire programme-making process there is certainly no bias against Peter Hitchens’.
I am going to have this sentence stuffed and mounted, so I can keep it in a glass case.
I wasn’t familiar with the documentary, and I certainly wouldn’t have watched it as I can’t stand Brand. So I ran a search on the BBC website. Since the 15th June this year they have 20 articles on him. 2 of them from the 25th and 26th of July concern an incident in which he threw a photographer’s iPhone through a window, and was subsequently ordered to do 20 hours of community service.
I found the links to his documentary – ‘From Addiction to Recovery’, which was shown last Thursday 16th and some related articles about it. One of them – Russell Brand wants drugs available through chemists from the 14th August, shows as Peter Hitchens noted above, that the BBC really relate to this piece of scum like he’s some sort of expert in the field.
Point is, how is it in none of the articles mentioning this documentary, does the BBC make note that just a month ago Brand was involved in an act of vandalism? Is this what we should think of as ‘recovery’?
For sure if Brand was somebody, or an entity, that the BBC didn’t favour, they would have definitely inserted this incident into the text.
BBC: ‘Legalise it, we’ll advertise it’
The BBC gave Niall Ferguson the Reith Lectures this year.
But I bet they don’t give any coverage to the way he fillets the feckless Obama Presidency in this week’s Newsweek :
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html
BBC-NUJ, Ecuador and South America versus U.K.
“Julian Assange row: Ecuador backed by South America”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19314618
Alternatives to BBC-NUJ’s anti-U.K political perspective:
a.)
“This monstrous narcissist is playing Britain’s governing class for suckers”
by Melanie Phillips.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2190724/This-monstrous-narcissist-playing-Britain-s-governing-class-suckers.html#ixzz244Y1QdWN
b.)
“Julian Assange and Ecuador: where we slipped up”
By Charles Crawford
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/charlescrawford/100177250/julian-assange-and-ecuador-where-we-slipped-up/
Anybody feel like commenting on this BBC article? I don’t think I have the energy…
This article is written by Navid Akhtar
“Navid Akhtar is an independent television producer whose work projects a positive image of Islam. He made a well-received documentary on Hajj for Channel 4 and the Ramadan series for the BBC.”
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/awards/index.php?page=2002/shafiq
The first question that I would ask of the BBC is who do they employ to promote a similar unqualified positive image of Christianity?
Notice how the BBC’s Ecuador correspondent, Will Grant, – he must have had a pretty work-free life up to now – never fails to bring up ‘colonialism’ when reporting on South American governments’ anti-British hostility. Apart from Guyana we never had a colony there. However his uncritical and repeated use of the word ‘Malvinas’ tells us all we need to know.
Will plainly went native during those long siestas.
Julian Assad has no better defender.
And today – oh, the irony! – the BBC publishes an article extolling the virtues of freedom of speech.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/19269353
The BBC interested in talking about freedom of speech (less so about those in Ecuador, but that is another story I guess… to some narratives)?
Anyone told their blog mods?
All things considered, it’s kinda funny there are no comments enabled on the piece
In the circumstances, probably wise~:)
Listen to this car crash of an interview by Justin Webb with UN Envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi, as Justin Webb fails to get him to denounce Assad instead of being independent as a UN Envoy should be.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01m0h63/Today_20_08_2012/
Starts @ 1:52:30