Wednesday Open Thread for your edification…
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- MarkyMark Nov 21, 11:59
Midweek 20th November 2024
FREE JABS FOR BARRY “500K From Chinese Spy” Gardiner. Gardiner, Barry 20/11/2008 Astrazeneca Dinner 12 Astor Suite https://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/Functions%20and%20Events.pdf Gardiner, Barry… - MarkyMark Nov 21, 11:55
Midweek 20th November 2024
200 people – no wonder people keep voting for them … FREE MEALS….. https://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/Functions%20and%20Events.pdf Abbott, Diane 03/10/2008 London Schools/Black Child… - MarkyMark Nov 21, 11:54
Midweek 20th November 2024
Entered the House of Lords on 8 July 2010 Previously MP for Kingston upon Hull East until 12 April 2010… - andyjsnape Nov 21, 11:51
Midweek 20th November 2024
bbc seem to love this Labour party/government Has Labour promised the bbc no review into the tele tax and an… - MarkyMark Nov 21, 11:43
Midweek 20th November 2024
“Covid put intense pressure on NHS but it did not collapse, Hancock tells inquiry” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cm2mpg1ljrdt [img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4ttvGCXoAEdopM.jpg:large[/img] [img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F28rEHOXwAAyvaz.jpg:small[/img] Matt Hancock paid… - MarkyMark Nov 21, 11:41
Midweek 20th November 2024
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMNoCzwX0AQBDdY.jpg:small[/img] - MarkyMark Nov 21, 11:40
Midweek 20th November 2024
V good. [img]https://www.worldofbooks.com/cdn/shop/files/1399807447.jpg?v=1718329871&width=493[/img] - MarkyMark Nov 21, 11:37
Midweek 20th November 2024
“THE fast-food chain, Burger King, is withdrawing its ice-cream cones after the lid of the dessert offended a Muslim.” https://www.scotsman.com/news/uk-news/burger-king-recalls-sacrilegious-desserts-2508096 - Zephir Nov 21, 11:23
Midweek 20th November 2024
Here we go libtards…. Ceasfire in Gaza still ? #Bekind still ? “Moscow threatens to attack POLAND: Kremlin warns it…
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
Apart from a few papers, there’s been a complete MSM shut-down over these reprehensible incidents of anti-British, Muslim extremist abuse. It is the duty of the BBC to report acts of violence like this. Despicable!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9517417/Army-servicemen-were-attacked-verbally-abused-and-harassed-during-the-Olympics.html
In support of Alex
Meanwhile BBC Midlands has reported the trial and conviction of BNP former councillor; it is also on their webpage.
‘A British National Party member and former Stoke-on-Trent councillor has been found guilty of racism charges.
Michael Coleman, 45, of Caverswall Road, Weston Coyney, had denied two counts of racially aggravated harassment.
The charges related to racist language used in two articles on his website between 8 August 2011 and 8 March 2012.
He will re-appear at Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court to be sentenced on 28 September‘.
Apparently he used the word ‘Darkie’ to refer to Black rioters. A Labour councillor echoed the words of the Police and said this sends out a clear message that offensive racist language etc. will not be tolerated and that the police will pursue and prosecute all such cases with vigour.
Compare and contrast the BBC treatment of this case with that of the troops helping out at the Olympics.
Thanks for sharing that mate. The way the BNP members are treated is appalling; whatever you might think about the BNP, they ARE a democratic, legitimate and legal party with over a million voters – but they are treated, by the Left-wing KGB, Politically Controlled Police Force, like enemies of the state… it’s a disgrace!
Ethnic and religious minorities can say anything about white British folk but not the other way round. The BBC’s special treatment of Muslims and ethnic minorities IS the best evidence we have of bias; it’s an utter disgrace!
Perhaps we can give his blog a few more page views? I certainly can’t see anything hateful on there and nothing worthy of prosecution:
http://Stokepatriot.blogspot.com
Note, I’m not endorsing the blog by posting it, just supporting his right to free speech.
In our multicultural society it seems some cultures are more equal than others.
….and here’s more proof:
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/sexual-harassment-now-okay-for-uk-muslims/
From today’s Evening Standard
“The BBC has booked a stand for the Lib-Dem conference in Brighton on September 22. In the conference programme, the BBC says ‘Visit the stand to hear about BBC services and how we aim to deliver value to licence-fee payers’. Perhaps one way to deliver better value would be not to pour money into Lib-Dem coffers for the stand – I understand the BBC is paying more than £10,000 for the pleasure”.
The BBC are paying nothing. The licence payers are!
Why do the BBC give airplay to such hypocritical drivel?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19489626
If I am correct, Liebour’s front benches do not exactly consist of spring chickens; rather a few old faces that significantly contributed to the wholesale wrecking the economy, controlled immigration and the education system. But if you just popped down from Venus for an evening scone and cup of tea and the BBC was your sole means of terrestrial news coverage, you would be forgiven for thinking that Labour had never been in power (and that the human species, especially the Westminster variety, is a pathetic group of lying, infantile narcissists).
Just because we hate the BBC doesn’t mean their employees aren’t human.
Condolences.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/robertpeston/
Seconded. Well said.
seconded again
My sympathies go to Robert Peston and his sons at this very difficult time.
Afghan troop tensions ‘increasing’
the tension between Afghan and British soldiers is an “increasing problem”,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9748000/9748678.stm
hardly surprising, beyond absurd …. give this a listen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/us-general-ramadan-factor-in-afghan-insider-attack/2012/08/23/c9b32d28-b9f8-47d0-b69f-c9bdcd581245_video.html
is he an al bbc employee?, definitely an Obama one.
mind you, i thought i had heard him before
he could take over nikki campo s (5live) your call
– perfect example of moderacy
with friends like that eh! … any wonder our troops are frustrated?
I note the BBC has aligned itself against a third runway at Heathrow. What the heck has it got to do with them?
If Labour had been in favour of it still, then the BBC would have been screwed for an opinion to voice!
The BBC are against all airport expansion as it would lead to more proles cluttering up holiday destinations that should be the preserve of the taxpayer-funded elite such as they.
O/T but I bet the bbc would be in favour of this:
http://crashbangwallace.com/2012/09/05/back-to-school-back-to-maggie-bashing/
Is the third runway one of those infrastructure projects Miliband says we should be doing to stimulate growth but his party never got round to when in government?
What is utterly disgraceful about BBBC is its unashamed portrayal of Daleks as sub-humans. On Saturday the peace loving democratic Dalek parliament found itself subverted by the islamaic leftist Doctor Who and some souflee loving dyke. For 50 years the Doctor has been trying to establish a Time Lord Caliphate in Cardiff and the BBBC constantly portrays him in a positive light compared to the poor Daleks. Does the BBBC ever comment on the true rainbow ethiticity of the Daleks? Course not.
All the Daleks want to do is exterminate in peace. Evidence of bias at the highest level.
Very revealing of your belief system.
Aww bless the BBC protectors are learning wit and irony one day they will learn to think for themselves well er maybe !
Still nice try for a beginner !
It’s true – they’ve converted to the one and true religion.
It’s a clear case of inter galactic racism.
I think it’s about time Daleks had a more sympathetic press and why not a carnival in west London celebrating their contribution to British culture?
When was the last time a Dalek appeared on Question Time?
I confess that I had never thought too much about this maligned minority before, thanks JAH…
At least when the Dalek blew himself up he only took his own kind with him.
If this is an attempt at humorous metaphor, it’s lost on me (on both counts).
Sounds like a bad day at the climate modelling laboratory, JAH. Get yourself home, lad, and treat yourself to a nice hot cup of green tea and a Linda McCartney meal for one.
The main news item on the 6’0 clock news was the high price of fuel. BBC went to town on this interviewing people who claim to be suffering because of this. Main criticism was that oil companies fail to reduce fuel prices, when the world price drops, as quickly as they put it up when it increase.
I am little confused, surely from the Green, Save the Planet, cut pollution, reduce the number of car journeys BBC perspective, that is dinned into us all the time, high fuel prices should be a good thing.
Nothing to do with having a go at oil companies?
And this was the main News item!
They are probably getting concerned over the increased cost of all those daily Dulwich and Islington return trips to Salford.
They’re not worried about that – they claim it all back from the suckers (I mean taxpayers).
I’ll set ’em up…
By the same token, they should have have a similar feature on the price of ciggies.
As predicted, Roger Harrabin can’t wait to continue the fine tradition of CAGW buffoonery long practiced by his now-departed comrade Richard Black in the BBC’s online science pages… In this piece, he sneers and grumbles his way through a sullen story, reporting through gritted teeth that Cameron’s reshuffle has seen the departure of Charles Hendry (pro wind farms), with the (for him unhappy) addition of two decidedly less enthusiastic Ministers: the new Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, and Energy Minister, John Hayes – both of whom oppose the madness of such a colossal waste of taxpayer money.
Mr Harrabin is keen to paint the departure of Mr Hendry from the government’s energy policy-making team as some sort of imminent national disaster, and can barely find a good word to say about the new incumbents.
And then, to his considerable credit, Mr Harrabin – in an unexpectedly equitable and uncharacteristic move – abruptly finds the presence of mind to include some praise for the new Ministers from Lord Lawson and Benny Peiser, both of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, even allowing Mr Peiser to get in a good word or two about the promise the UK’s shale deposits might offer. Not a sneer from Harrabin in sight.
However, never one to be off-message for long, Roger is quick to pin his ‘green’ hopes for a happy, subsidised, windturbine-filled future on Ed Davey who ‘…will take personal control of renewables policy…”.
Hmmm. The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind… The answer is blowin’ in the wind.
Mr Hendry was a hugely experienced Conservative minister popular with the renewables industry.
Is it generally considered to be a good thing for a government official to be popular with those he’s supposed to be regulating? Do we now praise George Osborne because the banks like it when he defends their bonuses? Bit of a giveaway there, I think.
Nice to see the public’s TV License Fee is spent well, on BBC lawyers!
BBC’s chief finance officer sues the Daily Star
Zarin Patel demands damages and a permanent injunction over articles about the tax affairs of corporation staff
“It is highly unusual for a top BBC executive to take legal action against a newspaper. She is using the BBC’s in-house litigation department to sue the paper.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/05/bbc-finance-officer-daily-star?newsfeed=true
Check out Peter Lilly MP on Newsnight tonight (Wednesday) calling out Paxman and the BBC on their biased ambushing him with an alarmist segment on Warmism, and calling them on their BS.
Paxman tried the James McIntyre defense that the BBC is too large and disorganized to concoct anything of the sort, but clearly the Newsnight producers set it up, which is what Lilly meant. Also the Green Party woman showed her eagerness to revert your society back to a pre-industrial level.
I only caught the end of it but I thought Lilley acquitted himself well and even managed to get the last word. The newsnight editors must be fuming.
Newsnight editors fuming? Lilley was fuming from the outset and rightly so. It beggars belief, but it seems that the BBC were telling Lilley what he was allowed and was not allowed to talk about. it appears that they tried to set him up.
We’ve not heard the last of this, I suspect
I don’t think he will get invited back anytime soon. It’s interesting to note he was briefed as to what he could talk about before going on he programme.
he was fuming?….yes it certainly looked that way didn’t it.
They always brief guests about the topic they’re going to discuss. Standard procedure in the industry, not just the BBC. Guests rarely complain when they’re ambushed like this, though.
Apparently Andrew Green of Migration Watch had a go at Naughtie this morning as he didn’t get on until 8.55 when he’d been promised a longer slot starting at 8.30.
Perhaps the fight-back has started….
BBc jump to support pseudo charity on breakfast and north west. Breakfast gives an example of a Single parent)woman in poverty . Of course she has a TV and broadband, as Arlene explains these are expected. No doubt she has a mobile phone as well. North west shows us more parents at the food bank.
Perhaps as the BBc will let them off paying their TV license. Or maybe the executives could do their charity work without pay. Hey just like the voluntary work I do , for nothing. Anyone know how much their executives get paid? And who was it that flooded the country with migrant workers to lower wages and have since apologised for doing so? Or maybe the Goverment foreign aid.
In poverty with TV and broadband ..my a**e.
well there is poverty and then there is POVERTY. Nobody ever died of beans on toast.
The Beeboids usually mean “relative poverty”. Which is an impossible mistress to satisfy.
Absolute poverty is wealthy broadcasters and senior execs having to do without child tax credit, if I have interpreted the beeb’s campaign against the means-testing of this credit correctly.
Relative poverty; that will be having eight children when you cannot support them through work.
” No doubt she has a mobile phone as well. ”
No doubt either it will be the latest i-phone too!
Of course it’s what is vital to life Arlene!
Does anyone know how we measure “poverty” in modern Britain?
According to the charity, Save the Children, one in four British children are living in poverty.
If this is true then it is a appaling, but I don’t think it is. I certainly see no evidence of it. Undoubtedly jobs are hard to come by, but, of course, allowing 3 million people into our country was always going to create problems for the working class. Surely even socialists realised this? The very people the Labour Party was created to protect and support have been tragically let down. Our politicians have actually added to the problem rather than helping to ease it. They are a disgace!
And apparently a child is considered to be living in poverty if it has to share a bedroom.
And Sky TV is an essential according to one charity bint who was spouting on Jeremy Vine some months ago as it’s needed to keep the kids entertained. Stuff books from the charity shop, give us the Disney Channel anytime.
Cloud cuckoo land.
At the end of tonights newsnight programme there was a section involving the US economist Larry Summers. The build up was extraordinary using words like “respected” etc. so I guess no-one involed has any sort of stake in the Harvard pension fund.
Oh and in a completely unrelated topic Larry Summers used to be the boss of Stephanie “floundering” Flanders.
Please note this week’s BBC Horizon crackpot “science” bias exposed by Dr Peter Woit of Columbia University at http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5115
“This Week’s Hype
Posted on September 5, 2012 by woit
“BBC Horizon this week is running an episode How Small is the Universe? with a description that features the usual sort of [extra dimensions] hype … No mention is made of the fact that the LHC has seen zero evidence for any such thing, or that few if any physicists ever thought there was any real chance it would. …
“The other experiment invoked is the MAGIC gamma ray telescope, presumably in the context of the search for Lorentz-violating dispersion of gamma rays from gamma ray bursters. This was discussed in an edition of This Week’s Hype from five year’s ago … Since 2007 there have been a series of much more sensitive results from Fermi ruling out the quantum gravity interpretation of the MAGIC observations …”
If it’s any consolation, I watched it and didn’t understand a word of it. Something to do with extra dimensions curling up and causing global warming, I think.
Yes I watched this as a recording while the wife watched New Tricks, until the racist accusation at the school’s pupil composition started; no idea what happened after that.
There were an awful lots of scenes where some professor peered into buildings and informed we could not go in there becuse something was going on. Not very scientifiv scheduling.
I found the programme interesting, although like so many similar programmesa nugget of information the size of a a couple of sentences expands to to fill a slot 60 minutes long but with more empty space (filled with walking talking, getting in and out of cars) than an atom of hydrogen
BBC Horizon crackpot “science” bias exposed by Dr Peter Woit…
Except as the doctor admits, he hadn’t actually seen the programme.
And then when he did he added to his blog:
Is it too much to ask that people at least do a modicum of work? LIke watching a program before slamming it?
Yesterday, on all bBC news outlets was the story of the £500k fundraising scheme by Savethechildren. The bBC dragged up the usual set of sob stories, some clearly false, mother saying she cannot afford food, but has an backside that would take up two seats. The story felt like a political stunt, but I did not know the connection.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/09/saving-the-children-another-child-poverty-report-misses-the-bigger-picture/
The article stats that the person in charge is an ex Gordon Brown aide. Always follow your instincts.
Guido nails it….
http://order-order.com/2012/09/05/partisan-charity-confirm-fraudulent-ad-campaign/
Who Do You Think You Are last night was a classic example of how the BBC transforms the past into a lefty pantomime.
It starred Annie Lennox, a singer whose talent was once immense but is now sadly faded. She started off as she meant to go on (assuming the shown scenes are shot in the order they are broadcast of course). She stated straight off that her family was poor and, despite being rich herself, she was still working class. Well good for her
So off we trot to rural Scotland where we are promptly shown that Annie’s relatives were poor (as were mine and no doubt everybody else’s in the 1800s except for the 1% on top). One of Annie’s relatives was a widow born out of wedlock and who lived in a slum 20 years later with her 5 kids. Her father was a solicitor who lived in comfort just around the corner. Much of course was made of this, of how the evil rich solicitor paid no attention to is daughter and ‘ignored her in the street’ whilst only living round corner. No attempt was made to place his side of the story, no doubt as it wasn’t known, but that didn’t stop them with the widowed mother of 5 of course. The only ‘facts’ they had were the lineage, their addresses, she was an official ‘pauper’ and his trade yet a whole story is made from this.
Next we follow one of the widow’s kids who, once orphaned at the age of 5, is sent to live with the solicitors sister. Now just those two facts would suggest to me that the solicitor was aware or became aware of at least one of his grandchildren – or this that was a coincidence. Now the programme played a blinder here. The solicitor’s sister is portrayed as a heartless wretch who takes in her grand niece as a ‘skivvy’ and then throws her out at the age of 10 ‘when she has no further use for her’. Much is made of this phrase ‘ no further use’ but when it is introduced it is not the sister who uses it but a church elder writing in a church archive. So there is no real connection to the sister with this phrase and yet she is portrayed as a child abusing monster!
The whole programme is hung off this one misinterpretation of the ‘facts’ scanty as they are and a whole ‘Evil Top Hats’ story line is created from it. And why? After all the tale of the orphan born in poverty who ends her live 35 years later dying of cancer is sad enough to carry any drama they insist on creating. But no we have to get the socialist approved doctrine of history sprayed onto a thin framework of misinterpreted facts.
In other words contrived propaganda.
Still the scenery was nice.
Annie Leftiebollox is a master at the school of socialist surrealism, so no real surprise she connived on this one.
Is there any evidence that people whose parents were “poor” can sing any better or worse than people whose parents figured somewhere else in the spectrum of wealth? Talent is handed out at random isn’t it, not inherited? Opportunity may favour those related to people in the industry, but it didn’t stop out Annie, and luck is in there too.
Because she was talented and lucky, and gifted with good bone structure, she brings up her poor origins. Typical of a guilty millionnairess – a victim of “fame” and fashion politics that goes with it. Perhaps she should adopt an orphan from Malawi.
As you say – or rather confirm – “Who do you think you are?” – is undisguised (or very badly disguised) political propaganda which resolves into poor=good, rich (or even vaguely comfortable)=bad. I noticed last night that the heartening information that the local kirk worthies (middle-class to a man, I suspect) coughed up to educate the pauper’s children including the girl, was rapidly subsumed in the continuing saga of the evil supposedly perpetrated by Mr Rose, Lennox’s remote ancestor.
Also, at the end of the programme, there was a brief encomium to the comforts of rural as against urban poverty. What a crock! The myth that 18th/19th century rural poverty was preferable to the urban one is contradicted by the massive migration to the new towns of that era. My ancestors moved from rural East Anglia to London in the late 18th/early 19th century. From the few family documents (and family oral history – unreliable I know) available, it is clear that for my family of rural labourers and marginal farmers Norfolk was a sh*thole and London gave the opportunity to earn a living wage albeit in horrendous conditions (compared to today). I suspect the same now applies in India where Bombay – despite the (visible) grinding poverty of the urban poor – is preferable to the (invisible) even more grinding poverty of the countryside.
But, whatever you do, don’t tell Lennox. Her mind is closed. She’s “working class” and perforce a perennial victim of “toffs” despite the wealth and privilege accorded her by showbiz and endless publicity from the BBC (and others) of her exposing the sores of her impoverished clientele in the third world. A fine example of her chippiness was her obvious discomfort at the pride her aunt (?) showed in the possibility that Lennox’s grandfather danced with the Queen Mother. Lennox’s display was sickening in its (reverse) snobbery: a snobbery much worse than anything perpetrated by those prominent ex-members of the Bullingdon Club.
Yes, the Church’s charitable role was brushed aside despite the fact that it was a Church archivist telling the story. It would be interesting to know what was left on the cutting room floor. And did, perhaps, the Church get prompted in that direction by the ‘evil’ solicitor?
We’ll never know.
Ever notice how uncomfortable these ‘celebrities’ are when they’re in churches or talking to vicars? Like all good multiculti left-liberals they’re basically ashamed and embarrassed about their Christian heritage. The narrator (or more likely producer) of Who Do You Think You Are then dismisses any good Christian achievements while over-emphasising Christian failings. It’s all part of the anti-Christian narrative. Now imagine a parallel universe – WDYTYA with muslims – it’d be all about the glories of Islam, it’s charity and benevolence etc etc. Puke.
Why do you watch this stuff? If you hate it so much why put yourself through it?
Why not do something a lot more interesting, useful, fun? Walk the dog, read a book, play with kids, write the novel that is within you.
Not only have I never watched this programme, I never would. Much as I liked Annie Lennox in her day, who cares who her great grandmother was? I can’t imagine a less productive use of one’s time.
It is almost as if you watch these programmes just to be outraged by them.
Perhaps because he is forced by law to pay for that cr*p ?
I don’t really buy that argument. The BBC covers a lot of sport which I don’t watch. Other genres I dip into, but I concentrate on drama and comedy on TV, radio and online because those are my core interests, and have been since well before I worked in the industry sector I do now.
In all, I’d say that the are huge swathes of the BBC – from CBeebies upwards – that I never, ever benefit from. Am I “forced”, in Biased BBC parlance, to pay for them even though I receive no benefit? Yes, if that’s the language you choose to use. Do I begrudge that? No.
Not every programme has to be for me, about me, or appeal to my own view of the world. Biased BBC contributors and commenters may dispute that the latter is what they want, but more and more, in both posts and comments, they demonstrate an intolerance of different opinion that eclipses anything the BBC has ever been accused of.
Maybe it’s the same reason you spend time on this blog, Nicked.
Perhaps because he is forced by law to pay for that cr*p ?
Only if you watch TV. If you don’t watch TV (and frankly almost all of it is crap) then fine.
But just because you have to pay for it, doesn’t mean you have to watch it. No one forces you to watch some super-annuated 80s pop star droning on about their family. Who cares?
Maybe it’s the same reason you spend time on this blog, Nicked.
I come here for the warm and loving sentiment I get from my fellow respondents. I feel like we are all one big family now.
Not because you want to help us hold the BBC to account?
He is The Lord High Defender of the Indefensible, doncha know. It’s his calling, his vocation, his destiny, his…..
job.
The point is why should we have to pay for relentless propaganda of the nasty sort? The sort which tends to hate everything we believe in. Surely that should be up to those that support that bigoted, left-wing viewpoint to pay for it if they choose.
If the BBC left off the propaganda and left-wing lies and smears then people wouldn’t be complaining. In fact this site would not exist, and would not need to exist. Even if it spent as much time propagandising for the other side (and I don’t mean this country’s enemies – they already do that!) then that would might be begrudgingly more acceptable but it would still not be right.
Most people on here don’t complain about soap operas (unless there is a blatant left-wing story line) but I would assume only a few watch many from choice.
But does it occur to you that the bias may not lie with the BBC? When you see things like Sky is just as bad, or the whole MSM is just as bad, do you not stop and wonder if perhaps your viewpoint is not in line with what most people think?
What is clear to me reading this site is that many contributors hold, how shall we put this, robust, views. Could it not be that those views are where the bias lies? Just because an organisation doesn’t agree with your views it doesn’t make it biased.
One of the other issues with this site is a fairly obvious lack of understanding of how the media works. It a politician says white when you interview one you will obviously say that everyone knows black is the correct answer. If she says black, you will say white. No journalist ever agrees with a politician for the simple reason that you have to get them to justify their argument.
Now you will say that the BBC never did this when Labour was in charge. If you are going to make that claim, then produce the evidence.
‘No journalist ever agrees with a politician for the simple reason that you have to get them to justify their argument’.
I’ll remind you of that one next time I hear one of those cosy little chats between Davis or Webb or Naughtie and a Labour politician.
As for your timing, there have been scores of examples on here of the preferential treatment given to Labour – you’ve just chosen to ignore them. Let’s see if you’re around when the next one crops up….
johnny is absolutely right. The evidence for the different ways they treat left politicians to those perceived to be on the right is documented in the thousands on the following site:
http://biasedbbc.tv/
Unrefutable evidence in abundance on that wonderful site. 😉
So if one holds “robust” views, one is disqualified from making a judgment? That’s nearly every BBC journalist done, then. We’ve seen from their tweets and opinions given on air accidentally, or at the BBC College of Journalism, that they can be quite robust. You have equally robust opinions on some issues, so how are you not biased like we are?
You’re giving us another version of “You just want the BBC to tell you what you want to hear and be Right wing all the time.”
I think you will find the evidence here on this site. No it isn’t 100% accurate, but there are plenty of examples that are. Craig’s paper review statistics being an excellent example. Of course if this site had a fraction of the BBC budget, then I would think the accuracy levels would rise dramatically.
People on here do perhaps get a little over excited sometimes and perhaps do jump at shadows, but the basic premise is sound. The BBC is heavily biased to the left (just remember all those champagne bottles from 1997). Which is funnily enough, why people from the right complain about it. If the BBC was biased to the right, then I would bet you a pound to a pinch of shit that there would be a website like this full of left wing people complaining.
Yes people here also complain about other parts of the MSM, but I think you know the big difference between them and the BBC don’t you? None of those is legally obliged to be impartial.Nor do they pay for themselves through forcible taxation.
I don’t think anybody on here expects the BBC to parrot their particular political leanings. I for one, would like to see robust analytical questioning of all politicians.That rarely seems to happen thouugh.
As to the ad hom attacks. I must admit that they often make me cringe. I rarely see the need of them as I believe we are on the side of the angels. 😉
I think there is a need to hold the BBC to account, I think it is vital. The BBC occupies a unique position and as such society should be very, very careful about putting that much power into the hands of one organisation.
But I don’t think this site is capable of the task. The “robustness” of many of the views expressed here, the lack of understanding, the jumping to conclusions and the paucity of the analysis mean whatever evidence you purport to collect is worthless.
Add to that the very obvious bias of this site and you make it trivial for anyone to disregard the entire operation.
I know enough people at the BBC and I can tell you that this site has no impact whatsoever simply because you destroy your own credibility by the lack of discipline. You have been going for a decade. What have you achieved? What do you want to achieve?
And… another missive from he who cannot ignore or be ignored, this time in reply to what was a very polite, eloquent outline by mister_choos.
Way to pick your battles, dude.
‘I think there is a need to hold the BBC to account, I think it is vital.
Thinking gets you a place in CECUTT; belief gets you a Directorship. Thinking like this, probably a P45.
society should be very, very careful about putting that much power into the hands of one organisation.
Well, ‘society’ has been a wee bitty careless up to now, and thanks to the unique way it is governed, and informed, and educated, seems headed in a dubious direction, perhaps due to its current governance, means of information and education.
But I don’t think this site is capable of the task.
Yours to have and share. As you do, a lot. And are allowed to. Remember, do so with the BBC too often by their secret recipe of rules, and you get expedited. Or, in the case of DB on twitter, simply banned. Now, how’s that work out? Comments?
‘The “robustness” of many of the views expressed here, the lack of understanding, the jumping to conclusions and the paucity of the analysis mean…
All, no doubt, features, for good or ill.
It’s a free site with no moderation. What… do you expect, especially when all of the above is equally unleashed by the BBC and its fellow travellers (have you seen what passes for ‘debate’ on BBC FaceBook threads?) at will, and with no accountability. Despite some supposed checks and balances in theory supposedly existing on such, more formal MSM entities.
‘…whatever evidence you purport to collect is worthless.’
Who is this ‘you’? Other than a complement to the equally daft counter of BBC journalists invoking ‘we’ way too often in silly attempts at all-inclusivity.
As to evidence, you are not the judge, much as you appear to think you are, based on an odd notion that some sort of experience with media sets you above all others. That may work in your bubble and sound great in the echo-chamber you inhabit, but not in a world where people can decide for themselves.
If evidence fails, the let it fail on its lack of merits in full glare of public exposure. Not because you want to get back to a secret Star Chamber with only you on the panel.
It will not fail because you say you don’t like it. Though that is of course how the BBC prism seems to operate up to senior editorial level.
Add to that the very obvious bias of this site..
The site exists, and is named, in the cause of looking at where the national treasure that is the uniquely, compelled-funded BBC fails professionally in terms of service.
That, by definition, will see the majority of posts being critical.
What were you expecting, a review magazine?
..and you make it trivial for anyone to disregard the entire operation.
Not even sure what that means. Possibly the opposite of what you meant. But for someone who has better things to do than deal in trivia and whose precious time leaves much to be disregarded, you don’t half turn up a lot to say the same thing.
I know enough people at the BBC
Shocked, I tell you, shocked.
and I can tell you that this site has no impact
Uh-huh. Find a Marine. Tell ’em.
whatsoever simply because you destroy your own credibility by the lack of discipline. You have been going for a decade. What have you achieved? What do you want to achieve?
Again with the ‘you’. What are, in turn, ‘you’? A nagging elderly female sibling of my Mother’s? A person? An entity? Oh.
Discipline? Excess? Errors? Ad homs? Trolling? False flags?
It’s a free forum… on the internet.
Deal with it.
I can testify to how much BBBC gets noticed and has achieved because I have had it cited as a nemesis by the BBC, and in ways that they have, and will further regret.
The only reason there has not been more impact is the BBC systems of effecting any change from outside have effectively been neutered to the point of farce, and the majority of those who get elected every few years live in fear of incurring the wrath of a £4Bpa broadcast behemoth that controls what the public hears and sees, and hence responds to, from dawn to dusk, 24/7, 365/365, via the choice of ‘story’, who is featured and how it is editted. And that power is vast in guiding policy, and has no regular ballot on it to hold such power to account.
And the BBC, and you, knows it.
Doesn’t mean this cannot change, though.
You really are missing the point as you so often do.
Why should I or anyone else have to pay for liberal leftie revisionist history -mere conjecture masquerading as facts, which influences what many millions of people think – simply because it’s on the BBC?
By the way, one googled site says the good Ms Lennox is worth £30 million. Now that’s what I call working class.
Think of me as the Good Samaritan. I refuse to pass by. I watch and comment on the vileness your tax-supported employer perpetrates in the name of impartial unbiased broadcasting in the hope that at some point the great British public will recognise the BBC for what it is and compel their rulers to destroy it.
Truly you are doing god’s work.
Nicked emus If you don’t repent you will spend eternity in the lake of fire.
I will see you there. At least we won’t be cold.
I won’t be there. I will be in heaven with Jehovah god.
I wouldn’t be so sure. I’ll keep a space for you.
Thought you might be enjoying the company of 76 virgins, Nick? No?
Nah they only get 72!
Cutz even there then!
Your cheap jibe is conclusive proof not only of your stupidity but your ineffable ignorance. As anyone with a semblance of education or intelligence would know, that particular cultural reference known to most people in this country for the last 1,500 years does not necessarily imply any religious significance.
Obviously with your intellectual limitations and crippling prejudice – particularly in respect of the Christian heritage of this country – you fit right in at the BBC.
Nothing like (a) having a massive sense of humour bypass and (b) playing the man.
How many times do people on this site cry “ad hominem” when someone who doesn’t agree with a posting.
Yet here we have Umbongo in what is nothing but an ad hominem. Add his to the death wish, the threat of violence, someone calling me a c*** and a w*****.
I don’t particularly mind, all I ask for is a bit of consistency — either quit bleating about other people’s ad hominems if you are not prepared to stop them yourself, or stop playing the man.
It is a pretty sure sign when some resorts to that kind of response that they have lost the argument. Rather like Umbongo.
The only talent you seem to have, Nick, is for deliberately winding up a small minority of people on here to the point where they respond with personal abuse.
So I reckon this is probably one of the objectives your boss at the BBC set you. Let me guess at the success criteria……hmmm, – number of times you get called a cunt?
Just about hits the nail on the head re the BBC boss. It has to be a bbc set-up, fully funded out of our money.
Please tell us the “humour” in your initial response. Please tell us where your response was not ad hominem.
On second thoughts don’t bother. Having been shown up for the ignoramus you are, you accuse your opponents of the very things of which you are guilty. It’s a familiar tactic of the BBC/Guardianista community and I’m happy to have it confirmed by your resort to such tactics that you have neither the wit nor the intelligence to take part in an adult discussion.
Take some free advice. Shuffle back to the BBC canteen for another dose of groupthink. That way you’ll be completely in your comfort zone.
Take some free advice my friend — try avoiding insults if you want to be taken seriously.
And ease up on the “it’s all a big conspiracy” stuff. As I have said many times before, the only person in the pay of the BBC round here is David Vance.
Bloody ell, Nick, thought you were doing a confessional there on your continued self-flagellating visits to these hallowed pages!
More tag-team trolling from the Scotty/Nicked axis. Arriving in tandem, one on top of the other (probably literally too), they infest these pages with their smug, clever-dick bullshit. There’s a probably a back room somewhere at the beeb where these clowns do their trolling (with our money).
Ok Ok, I know I shouldn’t listen to Woman’s Hour but it just happens to be on when I’m working and yes, I know I could turn it off, but its a bit like a scab that’s not quite ready to come off yet – it hurts but you just can’t stop picking at it! Anyway, in true BBC fashion, today on WH they had two muslim women apologists for the convicted muslim child molesters on to enlighten us that the REAL victim here was Islam. Yes, really! Of course, the men who committed these vile crimes were not REAL muslims, (where have I heard that before?), and, of course, there was NO racial or cultural element to these crimes, as these crimes happen in other communities too(!) Funny that, I can’t recall too many stories about jewish rape gangs or buddhist paedophile rings ravishing the country. Of course its a SOCIETAL issue (like everything else) and to pick on the poor little muslim/pakistani community is just, well…racist. Well, thanks for that Woman’s Hour, now I understand; its all my fault for being so damn white.
The judge didn’t think so: ‘Judge Clinton accused the gang of targeting white girls because they were not part of their community or religion. With experts on paedophilia insisting street grooming by muslim men was a real problem, the judge made it clear he believed religion was a factor.’http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141279/Rochdale-child-sex-trial-Police-hunt-40-suspects-promise-arrests.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141279/Rochdale-child-sex-trial-Police-hunt-40-suspects-promise-arrests.html
Did anyone catch the ‘You and Yours’ lunchtime interview with the chappie from The Institute for Grocery Distribution (yes, I know)?
This was ostensibly to get some insight into food prices, shortages etc. He was straight into describing the droughts and floods over all points of the compass which have caused the shortages and – surprise, surprise – referred to them as ‘extreme weather events’, which of course has become the main mantra of the AGW lobby now temperatures have stopped rising. There was then a reference to the future effects of ‘climate change’ at which point you really start to wonder if the eco-fascists haven’t infiltrated every organisation in Britain. After all, if we’re hearing this crap from a spokesman from something ostensibly as boring and utilitarian ‘The Institute for Grocery Distribution’, what hope is there?
By sheer coincidence, Susan Watts of Newsnight had a complement running.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/9/6/peter-lilley-on-newsnight.html
Mr. Lilley is credited with taking to task the BBC on a variety of criteria, from the ambush attempt on the parameters of the discussion, to the science poor Susan was again trying to faciliate in her ‘report’ (the initial comments on the BH thread cover these).
But I was stuck by how chillaxed our Jezza was at being told to his face that the BBC was trying to pull a fast one. His only defence was a joking ‘we’re too dumb to do that’, for which Mr. Lilley’s gesture was a poetic counter. I’d say he had sympathies.
Also, to whoever at the Greens thought getting Ms. Gillard’s slightly dumber and even more grating cousin to lead them… all I can say is that was ‘brave’.
I saw that segment. Lilley was excellent. Paxman was calm about the accusation because he didn’t have anything else to say other than the James Macintyre defense. He knows perfectly well that the BBC has a specific extreme position on Warmism, as we see from his quote posted on the sidebar of this blog. His hands are tied, and I’m sure he didn’t appreciate Lilley’s accusation.
The bBC, its hatred of Israel and its continuing anti-Semitic view point.
Israel urged to admit African migrants on Egypt border
The UN’s refugee agency has called on Israel to grant entry to African migrants trapped on the country’s tightly controlled border with Egypt. Around 20 people, believed to be from Eritrea, have been stuck at the fenced desert barrier for a week. Israel’s refusal to grant them asylum “is highly irresponsible”, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees said.
And here is what the bBC doesn’t mention in its swipe at the nasty jew:
“The so called refugees are in Egypt. Not Israel”
The bBC, the traitors in our Midst.
The bBC, its love affair with radical Islam and how it tries to push the view that all Islamic terrorists are…..victims.
Terror suspect Babar Ahmad faces possible private trial
A British businessman has told the BBC he wants to bring a private prosecution against two UK terrorism suspects. Karl Watkin said he wanted to prosecute Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan, rather than them face extradition to the US. Mr Ahmad has been detained without trial for a record eight years. The US accuse him and Mr Ahsan of running a major jihadist website.
Oh here we go again, the bBC promoting the viewpoint that Babar Ahmed is a victim. You know that Babar Ahmed who has been locked up in Limbo not because the American or British Authorities, but due to his legal team who have tried every trick in the book in which to prevent their client from going to the US. (Ironically if he had gone in 2004 he would be free by now) But hey, that doesn’t prevent the bBC from bending over backwards who while they take every word from Ahmed as gospel, leave out how he was caught out lying in court, when he accused the police of giving him a good beating and disrespecting Islam (A sackable offence at the bBC)
But it gets better. Note how above the bBC claim Ahmed is accused of running a jihadist website by the US. Here is how the bBC sucked up to Allah with a feel good stroy about that website in 2002.
Pro-jihad website draws readers
A website that has been prominent in its support for Osama Bin Laden, is now urging Muslims in America to leave the country.Azzam.com is one of the most well-known supporters of jihad, or holy war, on the internet.
The site also attacks what it calls “apologetic and defeatist” Muslims for siding with the West.
So even with the bBC reporting 10 years ago that Ahmeds website was a recruiting tool for the Faithful to attack and murder the unbeliever, they still cast doubt over the Americans claim that Ahmed was a key recruiting tool (In every sense) for Armed Jihad.
The bBC, the traitors in our midst
Okay, the BBC article isn’t exactly denying the guy’s involvement in jihad, but they sure are coy about the evidence. How curious they decided not to link to their own story about it. Can’t use the “it’s an ongoing court case so we can’t report it” dodge.
The BBC’s favourite song
Actually I rather enjoyed that. Some of the pictures were very beautiful, and I liked the music too. It’s only the chilling feeling, when hearing the words “Allahu Akbar” that normally accompany the slaughter of one or more innocents, that spoils the effect.
If Islam wasn’t such a murderous religion, it would be possible to truly appreciate this sort of thing without the negative connoitations it conjours up. It would be like listening to a nice Church choir or a synagogue Cantor. Or even those wacky Hare Krishnaites I saw and heard in Cardiff a couple of months ago.
And all that from an atheistic point of view.
MASS IMMIGRATION, and the crisis of the colonised British people:-
‘Daily Mail’ –
“Act now… or say goodbye to the Britain we know”
By FRANK FIELD AND NICHOLAS SOAMES.
{Excerpt]:-
“The fact is that the public do not believe the claims of the immigration lobby and they are right. Nor do they think that enough attention has been paid to the impact of such huge numbers on the lives of ordinary people – particularly not by the BBC.
“The reality is that we are experiencing by far the largest wave of immigration for nearly 1,000 years.
“Certainly, there has been some limited immigration over the centuries and many immigrants and their children have made a positive contribution to this country. But mass immigration is entirely new.
“This really is the last chance saloon. If the Government were to lose its nerve and fail to press on with reform we would be saying goodbye to the country we inherited.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198919/Act–say-goodbye-Britain-know.html#ixzz25hvlNOwQ
Even a ‘liberal’ such as Christopher Caldwell is concerned; but INBBC, on the contrary isn’t -it is enthusiastic for the Islamisation of Europe and Britain:
See excerpts from Caldwell’s book here:-
‘Reflections on the Revolution in Europe:
Immigration, Islam and the West’ (2009).
For Caldwell book on ‘Amazon.uk’:
“Europe’s Muslim population triples in 30 years”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/europes-muslim-population-triples-in-30-years.html#comments
Trends don’t continue in the same direction forever. The situation with Islam in Europe will change dramatically. Mark my words. More and more people are waking up to this ideological black death.
Really?
But away from utopian dreams,
stop Mass Immigration into Britain
from Islamic countries.
“This really is the last chance saloon. If the Government were to lose its nerve and fail to press on with reform we would be saying goodbye to the country we inherited.”
Why do visions of champagne on ice at the BBC keep flooding my mind?
don’t forget the coke and rentboys
How the bBC, covers up for Islamic terrorist orgs.
Nigeria mobile phone masts targeted
At least 24 mobile phone masts have been attacked across northern Nigeria, industry officials say.A military spokesman blamed the militant Islamist group Boko Haram for the first such attacks on nine mobile phone companies. Boko Haram has previously threatened to attack the firms, accusing them of helping security agencies to monitor its members.
Yet again the bBC goes out of its way in which to paint Islamic terrorists as being righteous in their mission to turn the whole of Nigeria…Islamic.. So the reason the bBC gives for Islamic terrorists knocking down telephone masts is becasue the Telephone companies have been found guilty (by the bBC) of helping the army and Police fight. Nothing about how this current killing spree is all about been paid off. You see the bBC don’t mention that until President Johnson came to power, the governors of the Northern States paid off Boko Haram so as to keep them happy. (But as we all know you can’t off Islamic terrorists.) Which is what Boko Haram weren’t when the Government put a stop to them getting paid off (Like the Mafia) But my post isn’t about that its about the little side bar the bBC post:
Boko Haram: The story so far
2002: Founded in Maiduguri
July 2009: Hundreds of members killed when Maiduguri police stations stormed; police capture and kill sect leader Mohammed Yusuf
Dec 2010: Bombed Jos, killing 80 people; blamed for New Year’s Eve attack on Abuja barracks
Jun-Aug 2011: Bomb attacks on Abuja police HQ and UN building
Dec 2011: Multiple bomb attacks on Christmas Day kill dozens
Jan 2012: Wave of violence across north-east Nigeria; Kano bombing kills at least 180
May 2012: Offices of ThisDay newspaper bombed, the first time media houses have been targeted.
Notice something ? The bBC doesn’t mention that the vast majority of people killed are..Christians or that Churches are the primary target.
NAh the bBC paints the image that these poor Islamic terrorists are only targeting tools of the Government. |Yet we all know, that the recent huge migration of people are Christians from the Islamic north,
The bBC, the traitors in our Midst who keep on trying the brainwash the plebs that Islam is a religion of peace.
Anybody seen a BBC “Fact Check” on anything the Democrats have said yet, like they did for Paul Ryan’s speech?
For example, has any Beeboid at least tweeted that one of the three supposed Bain employees they had on stage crying about the cruelty wasn’t a Bain employee at all but actually a union organizer who worked on behalf of Bain employees against the company?
Come on, Beeboids, get with it. Paul Adams had no problem tweeting that the Republicans were misrepresenting the $716 billion figure taken from Medicaid by ObamaCare. How about now?
But if you use nicked’s logic, just because you can prove here that the BBC is treating the two parties differently, that the BBC is biased. It is just that you hold certain views robustly and the BBC is definitely not, never, definitely impossible to be biased at all.
(Despite the evidence.)
Maybe I just want them to be equal opportunity panderers.
Three high-ranking (in the Party) Democrats have made Nazi remarks about Republicans this week. South Carolina Democratic Party chairman Dick Harpootlian said this about Gov. Nikki Haley’s speech at the RNC:
“She was down in the bunker à la Eva Braun.”
Pat Lehman, Kansas delegate, said this:
“It’s like Hitler said: If you’re going to tell a lie, tell a big lie, and if you tell it often enough and say it in a loud enough voice, some people are going to believe you.”
And John Burton, chairman of the California Democratic Party, said this about Ryan’s speech:
“They lie and they don’t care if people think they lie … Joseph Goebbels — the big lie, you keep repeating it,” Burton told KCBS radio. “That was Goebbels, the big lie.”
Hey, BBC: why no scowling at such negative, hate-filled rhetoric now? Is this kind of polarization you like to blame on the Tea Party movement?
It’s odd that such things seem to have passed by or down the memory hole of our fearless holding power to accounters, for instance in reviewing Mr. Clinton’s universally worshipped speech.
BBC News – Master tactician does Obama a favour
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19498923 Share1 day ago – The BBC’s Mark Mardell says Bill Clinton’s speech to the Democratic convention stood out from anything else on the campaign trail.
As he says..
‘Fact-checking has become something of a fad in this election, although a very worthwhile one, and I suspect Mr Clinton has given them enough material to work through several nights.’
Guessing, by his use of ‘them’, he does not feel he needs to check any facts. Maybe he should start.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-2012-bill-clintons-speech-at-the-democratic-national-convention-excerpt/2012/09/05/f208865e-f7a4-11e1-8253-3f495ae70650_story.html
The notion that the Democrats are white knights in the political fray is plain silly.
For the BBC to be pretending otherwise, or even ensuring that’s the impression, hardly seems impartial holding to account.
And if they can do it there, they can sure as heck be doing it here.
SKY, itself a bit starry-eyed over PotO & MotO, at least topped off its report this morning by pointing out that fine rhetoric may not be enough to overshadow realities on such as unemployment figures.
It will be interesting how the BBC sees fit to massage these on behalf of their candidate.
Over here, by recollection, when it ran counter their narrative, they went into full hissy-fisk mode, led by the ex-girlfriend of the two men heading the Opposition.
Only in America? Only with the BBC.
” Few politicians have the charisma to hold a crowd rapt while delivering a lecture packed with so many facts and figures that they flew past in a blur.”
Mardell’s words.
What was that quote again? errr….”.read my lips, I did not have sex with that woman” (monica lewinsky).
Yep, aint he just the kind of bloke you can look up to, utterly truthful, straight, morally superior to us mere plebs, us proles.
Shame that little blue dress turned up! what was that stain again? and whose DNA?
coming soon: Slick Willy does Jeremy Kyle show, but refuses the polygraph.
All the talk about Goebbels and ‘telling the The Big Lie’ is pure projection on the Democrats’ part.
Democratic convention: Obama to pitch for second term – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19509840
Why is this the second highest listed item on the BBC news website, when practically all we heard about last week’s Republican convention was the fact that Clint Eastwood made a speech that attracted ridicule?
Jeff
Guilty Men – Britain and the EU – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2-ailFqB9Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Everything is OK with the Euro. Steph Flanders has spoken. It is saved . Not really sure what the hell she was on about on the 10 PM TV news but we can all stop worrying. Where the money is to come from seems to be a bit vague but I’m sure Ed Balls and Steph and the BBC’s finest
will tell us.
Me ? I would rather back my own judgement on the 330 at Chepstow that listen to any more of this rubbish.
Put today’s date in your diary. Sneery, orange Huw Edwards and the Beeb came on cock-a-hoop that the Euro was saved!
Our Steph sneered at those who had ‘put their money on countries falling out of the Euro’.
What, our Steph partisan on this issue?
Just what the doctor ordered eh – magic money from nowhere!
It all rings pretty hollow to me unless the German taxpayers are going to cough up real cash.
The Euro is doomed. About 40% of money in spanish banks has removed this year and put in places that are outside spain or not in banks. The other day a flash mob robbed a psanish supermarket of about 3 tons of food.
Greece is just as bad Italy is going the same way. It will be the UK very soon. If things do go bad me and my possy will be liberating supplies for the prols in our neighbourhood from all those nice houses in Islington and Hampstead that all those BBC employees live. That will be food and other essentials not coke or rentboys.
Without reading or hearing the latest from the Oracle of White City, let me guess what she says is going to save the day: somebody’s printing money again.
INBBC breakfast has continued the euphoria this morning. Their business bint trumpeting the market reactions of positive rises around 3%. Well, time will tell. I’d advise the INBBC to keep their champagne on ice a while yet.
The EURO aint quite alive and well yet.
No need to worry – it’s all under control.
We have the solution…
http://tinyurl.com/cgoqxgr
The BBC has responded to the challenge and now posted a news brief about fact-checking Clinton’s speech from yesterday. And get this: apparently the fact-checkers have decided that he wasn’t fair enough to the President!
Rather than what Ryan got, a full article which included bits from the various “fact-checking” sites, featuring careful breakdowns by a BBC editor, the piece on Clinton’s speech is merely a series of quotes from FactCheck.org, the Washington Post, and PolitiFact. No extra effort from a Beeboid to explain how bad it was, and certainly nothing checking any claims Clinton made about Republicans. There’s only one line about Pelosi misrepresenting the Republican plans, repeated by another Dem, quoting something from an earlier version of Rya’s budget. Essentially, it’s mostly stuff showing how the President did an even better job than Clinton made out.
Speaking of misrepresentation, the BBC seems to have slightly misrepresented what FactCheck.org said. While the BBC quoted the bit which says that Clinton was wrong to say that ObamaCare had raised health care that much – which makes the President look better – FactCheck actually had it as Clinton “Overselling ObamaCare”. Not quite the same thing as how the BBC presented it. The BBC curiously left out where Clinton was wrong about the President’s energy policies being responsible for job growth in that sector, when it was actually due to evil fracking and drilling. Funny how the BBC felt you didn’t need to know that.
The BBC also decided you didn’t need to know the important bits from the WaPo about how the claims about how much the President’s Plan For Us would lower the deficit. The WaPo explained how wrong that was, and that analysts called it a “budget gimmick”. Worse, the WaPo revealed that the President’s budget was really only going to lower the deficit by raising taxes. Instead of that important information, the BBC gave you the bit that made the President’s jobs record look better than what Clinton said. Imagine.
In other words, the only parts of the fact-checking the BBC decided were worth telling you about involved things that made the President look better. Agenda? What agenda?
But hey, I asked for a fact-checking piece, didn’t I? Silly me.
The bit Clinton missed out last night was :
“The US housing bubble – I built that”
Lugubrious Paul Mason is at again. Searching out his Spanish ‘Socialist Utopia’. He hopes and wishes it all would kick off everywhere but Mason is just a Dad dancing embarrasingly at a wedding.
Mason observes how this part of Spain (where he is catching the rays in his polo shirt) is ‘incredibly poor’. Touchingly, just like the locals, he believes it’s not fair and that this region should be wealthy. I do so hope that the Germans are watching.
Oh and to add to the sense on unreality apparently his Adalusian occupy rebels are inspired by…..Che?… No. Lenin?…..Nope. Mao? Nah. Wait for it…..Scotland’s own Braveheart William Wallace!! Methinks they have read a little too much into that Mel Gibson movie.
Paul Mason.: Busy in Spain promoting Socialism and funded by you licence fee.
Its gets worse….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19507180
A few snippets will surffice to tell you exactly where Mason is coming from…
“On Tuesday next week there is set to be the mother of all demonstrations in Barcelona ”
“Juan Manuel Sanchez Gordillo has been likened to Robin Hood…..mayor of the town of Marinaleda, whose trademarks are a big beard and a Palestinian scarf.”
“….the risk assessment for journalists will have to include getting blinded by the flashing diamonds on the wrists and fingers of the middle class ladies who will flock down the Ramblas holding “Goodbye Spain” placards, alongside gritty communists with hammer and sickle flags.”
[I feel queezy just cutting and pasting that last one – thank heavens I didn’t hear it in Mason’s own lugubrious tones]
Remember Greece? Our Newsnight Economics Editor is far more interested in the politics. The mainstream parties he warns are….
“…now being out polled by a bunch of violent, Nazi-saluting fascists”
Balance in his jeans (sic).
Spain is such a great Socialist country that people are eating food out of bins to survive.
“The Don Quixote of the Spanish Crisis”
By JONATHAN BLITZER
[Excerpt]:
“Some see Gordillo as a rough-hewn Robin Hood. Others dismiss him as unhinged. As one conservative politician jeered, he is playing at being both Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham at the same time. The truth is somewhere in the middle —and, as it were, squarely in the muddle.”
http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/the-don-quixote-of-the-spanish-crisis/
Comrade MASON, NUJ Father of the Chapel at ‘Newsnight’, after weeks of utopian propagandising in Greece for a socialist revolution, now decides that Spain is the place to deserve his quixotic wisdom on building his socialist revolution there, at our expense.
For some reason the BBC TV tax doesn’t make the list
10 charges that make consumers scratch their heads
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19438088
i think the BBC should do a poll on how many gays support the Democrat Presidential Candidate and how many gays support the Republican Presidential Candidate….from the results they can then determine who will win the Presidential Election
MURDERS IN FRANCE.
Questions which most of MSM has been disinclined to ask:
a.) Was this part of a feud between Islamic families of Iraq origin being enacted in Europe, and causing the death of one non-Muslim Frenchman?
b.) Was Islamic politics of Iraq being murderously continued in Europe?
‘Telegraph’:
“Family feud may have led to executions in the Alps”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9527036/Family-feud-may-have-led-to-executions-in-the-Alps.html
Yesterday the extreme left media (Indymedia etc) were all over this one claiming he had been murdered by MOSSAD. Now they do that sort of thing from time to time but they don’t have history of slaughtering an entire family and a passer by as well. Now the family motives are coming out I’m guessing things will go quiet.
I missed hearing that accusation myself, but why am I not entiely surprised to hear it now.
When anybody gets murdered; the left immediately accuse one of their enemies of being behind it despite lack of any evidence. By the time truth is known the damage has been done.
I’m just amazed that the Beeb haven’t slipped the ‘extreme right winger’ meme in yet. Mind you, I do tend to avoid any of their ‘news’ so I may have missed it.
Has anyone else been blocked by the @BBCNewsUS twitter feed? Think I could be the first.
It’s a badge you should wear with pride.
Given the BBC’s move to twitter, especially for news, and one presumes in the cause of ‘we want your views’ interactivity, how is this justified?
At the very least there would need to be an explanation. If you were rude or somesuch, there may be legitimate justification, but that should be a matter of appeal and independent arbitration, as with ‘expedited complaints’.
Otherwise they are rather admitting they have moved further to a propaganda tool backed by censorship.. and discrimination.. to ensure they only get to broadcast, and what is heard by them or shared is only passed through their own filter first… from only those they wish to associate with.
Poor historical precedent. If not, given accessibility laws and Charter obligations, illegal.
That’s on top of the UK national broadcaster handing a large chunk of the UK’s news platforms over to foreign commercial enterprises who are free, and adding a compulsory charge to us for the privilege of being potentially blocked to access it.
Maybe the Fraud Squad, Discrimination Act or Monopolies Commission would be more appropriate than the [ahem] Trust?
It could be worse. The bBBC’s <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/06/barack-obama-dnc-speech-live?newsfeed=true" title="" in-house journal says that tweets-per-minute is how lazy journalists now measure the success of a political speech.
I’d had a few and some of my comments (now deleted) about Mardell’s weight weren’t very kind. Probably justified, on reflection. That’ll teach me. Anyway, time for a beer.
How about we have a thread entitled ‘fantasy BBC headlines’? We could include things like:
‘License fee is legalised theft, admits Director General’
or
‘Why there are too many wind farms.’
Any thoughts?
Jeff
‘BBC demands government raze every mosque to ground’
‘BBC science department discovers ‘truth’ many staff lost in window related ground collisions ‘!
‘BBC staff demand UN intervention after being stranded in Salford over night , Branson blames evil Tory’s’
‘BBC finally forced to release Balen report’
‘BBC employee comes out ! calls for inquiry into how a straight man got past security ‘
‘BBC employee suspended after images of Thatcher found on his laptop undefaced ‘
‘Peter lilley bitch slaps BBC! greens all green ‘
THE ICE IS MELTING!!. Shuckman (in the Artic) in usual form on BBc breakfast. Just how many times did he say amazed?..the scientists are amazed etc. etc. It might mean more stormy weather in Europe. Hey and one day I might believe all this baloney, although I think not.
Ice melts shock. Some years, more than others. Who knew?
BBC Breakfast vs. niche blog.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/9/6/peter-lilley-on-newsnight.html
Telling it often enough, vs. actual discussion and alternatives backed by fact?
An odd balance, of sorts.
And which to the majority of the public get served?
As to the over-use of ‘amazing’, I am minded of my favourite current commercial, if only for the barking character who kicks it off with ‘Totes amaze!’, which about sums up the BBC’s attitude to serious and complex science.
So time came to do the famous advertising for Mr Chavez and his tourism sector
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19492200
currently on top of the website.
What’s the price for a PR article like this? Maybe even Israel could afford such a lovely way to advertise itself. Or this opportunity is not open for everyone?
That might be the reason why only Venezuela gets this treatment periodicaly.
While Mr Chavez and his policies are an attraction for some, other aspects of his “Bolivarian revolution” make life difficult for tourists.
An attraction for whom? Aside from BBC staff and silly students, I mean.
I’m beginning to believe that the BBC will soon finally descend with a plop down the big state plug hole around which it has been circling for years.
5 Live this morning and Rachel Burdon makes a pronoucement. The BBC has found evidence that minimum alcohol pricing would save the lives of millions of pensioners. No ifs, no buts. Tune into Panorama tonight, plebs, and Dame Joan Bakewell will explain.
A future ‘Panorama’?:
‘the BBC found that minimum immigration from Islamic countries would save British lives’.
How about Panorama programme into the UAF/Unite against freedom.
Why the head of it Martin Smith was thrown out of the SWP/Socialist Workers Party for sexually assaulting a female member of the SWP. That would make interesting tv.
The BBc would possibly say although I could not prejudge or put myself in their position, that such a story would not be in the public interest probably.
No doubt it was a lack of sexual etiquette rather than sexual assault.
Strangely, it made a prominent slot in the Today programme as well.
Is that the sound of an agenda I hear?
So the BBC thinks that the strongest growth in manufacturing for 25 years is less significant than and Euro story, a story about job creation in the US and something about Glencore?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19515491
Why isn’t this the TOP story? No hint of an agenda to hide good news for the government surely?
a story about job creation in the US which in itself has a headline & starts as if unalloyed joy, only later suggesting that all is not as hoped
The US economy created 96,000 jobs in August, according to official figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The unemployment rate fell to 8.1%, compared with 8.3% in July.
Employment increased in food services and drinking places, professional and technical services and healthcare, the Bureau said.
But the figure was lower than expected and revisions to June and July data mean that 41,000 fewer jobs were created than previously reported.
Economists had expected non-farm payrolls to grow by 125,000.
Employment growth has averaged 139,000 a month in 2012, the Bureau said, compared with an average monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19519037
Sort of OT, but I think funny enough to indulge…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100179647/pushing-university-standards-down-will-turn-british-education-into-a-joke/
‘The BBC abroad was a byword for beautifully written and brilliantly produced programmes such as “The World at War” and “Upstairs Downstairs”.’
If pushing the BBC as a bastion of global envy and programming quality, maybe best to avoid citing two programmes, even in retrospect, they had little to do with.