Cats look down on you
Dogs look up to you
Pigs look you straight in the eye and treat you as an equal
The BBC doesn’t give a shit what you think.
The BBC?…..‘good examples of moderate, liberal devotion to the idea of a polite, eggheaded vanguard, without whom the proles get distracted, confused, besieged, and eventually succumb to the terminal disease of false consciousness.
The problem is that the contemporary Left has been used to the idea of itself as a paid bureaucracy as the measure of the success of class struggle.
You actually believe that someone like you [intellectual liberal/socialist] is better able to grasp the “objectivity of a social reality” than are poor workers, because your privilege, your education, has better equipped you to see the world as it really is, without the ornamentation of language, without the bias of place or time–absent the subaltern subject position they suffer from. You’ve been able to rise above ideological distortion.
Notice what you have made of yourself: God. Your perspective is from nowhere. In the name of those poor workers, you have turned yourself into the God who will judge them for their sins against the “objectivity of a social reality,” the sins that usually congregate under the heading of false consciousness.‘
From HERE.
I thought this was a blog about BBC bias. Not a blog about Alan’s hatred of socialism. Even if we agree it should not be here. With these rants, this blog is going to lose any credibility it has earned.
Try reading/understanding the post next time……it’s about the BBC’s patronising attitude to the man in the street and its complete disregard for his views.
A big clue might be ‘The BBC doesn’t give a shit what you think’
‘Socialism’ as an ideology wasn’t mentioned…but as the BBC is the most powerful proponent of that ideology in this country it’s going to be mentioned quite a bit in relation to the BBC’s output favouring ‘Socialism’.
In other words BBC bias in favour of the Labour Party et al.
See?
Gosh. How profound. You write “The BBC does not give a shit what you think” and then follow it up with a ton of claptrap.
Yes. You are ranting about your own view of the BBC building off some other blogpost. No BBC article is referenced or linked to. Yes you do include the letters BBC in there but so what. It is an empty rant. Your view. No evidence, nothing. Just empty. It is not analysis, just polemic.
This blog has gone downhill since Alan started all of his posts. Where are David Vance and David Preiser and the others who used to contribute more frequently. I want hard analysis and not ranting.
And the link you refer to is called “socialism without socialists … blah blah”
So don’t say it’s not about socialism.
The post isn’t about Socialism.
Not sure if I can explain it in any simpler terms than I have already.
As this is a written blog you’ve had time to read, digest and analyse what the post said….there is no excuse for you not to understand it….especially as it has been pointed out to you what the post is about.
You seem to have your own agenda and your own point to make rather than engaging with the subject of the post…..ironically the behaviour you say object to in my post…..a ‘post built on nothing’.
‘Nothing’ as opposed to years of ready evidence, as listed on this blog day in day out, about the BBC attitude?
If you don’t like the posts, or the blog, don’t read it….no one’s forcing you to, or start your own and write your own examples of BBC Bias if you believe you can do any better.
Let me know when you have set it up…..
David Vance and David Preiser – don’t you care about this blog. Anyone chancing by here will come away thinking it is just a right wing rantfest rather than a razor sharp dissection of BBC bias.
I imagine the food at the BBC canteen is disagreeing with you, have a lie down Joe Bloggs.
It’s probably just a bad case of wind.
Joe Bloggs is the mindset of the BBC in a nutshell – you have the freedom to say whatever you like just so long as they agree with it.
Alan, not everybody who disagrees with you works for the BBC.
Alan, this isn’t about BBC bias. This is about your opinion of the BBC in the context of someone’s rant against Socialism. There isn’t a single example of anything from the BBC, and it isn’t mentioned in the essay to which you’ve linked.
Also, David Vance would probably appreciate it if you used “sh!t” instead, since it’s visible on the main page.
Well said.
Me, I think the BBC is full of trendy metrosexuals who have a lefty mentality and read the Guardian and agree with everything it says. They distrust business, like immigration, kow tow to Islam, dislike Israel and lover the EU. I disagree with all of this.
But let’s prove it by highlighting what they say. Show us the evidence. Give us careful prose, tight reasoning so that we come away convinced. Otherwise you can just say what you like but then in that case Alan you should get your own blog.
Attacking Alan is hardly a razor sharp dissection of BBC bias. In any case you only have to watch or listen to the BBC for five minutes to notice its bias. As I see it Alan is attempting to understand the mentality behind the BBC. What is missing from this site is strategies to undermine this Stalinist behemoth. In my view the license fee should continue, but the BBC should be only one of a plurality of different suppliers.
Concern Troll is Concerned.
As a generalisation, all socialists think too much, place too much value on their thoughts and do too many of the wrong things as a result of all that thinking.
always the way with stupid people.
That is my precise reaction when I see your one of blogposts. In future I will not bother as they have zero informational content and they just waste my time.
David Vance and David Preiser – don’t you care about this blog. Anyone chancing by here will come away thinking it is just a right wing rantfest rather than a razor sharp dissection of BBC bias. It is becoming a joke.
I will miss your razor sharp critiques…ill-judged but decisive.
Joe, I’m in a different time zone.
I know you are. And I enjoy your posts.
David Vance seems to be taking a back seat these days.
I just finished reading a book called “The Swerve” by Stephen Greenblatt, one of those pop history romps that are so popular these days. On page 146, in a chapter entitled “The Lie Factory”, Greenblatt attempts to describe the corrupt Vatican of the 1400s:
“The papal court had, to serve its own needs, brought into being, a class of rootless, ironic intellectuals. There intellectuals were committed to pleasing their masters, on whose patronage they utterly depended, but they were cynical and unhappy. How could rampant cynicism, greed, and hypocrisy, the need to curry favor with perverse satraps who professed to preach morality to the rest of mankind, the endless jockeying for position in the court of an absolute monarch, not eat away at whatever was hopeful and decent in anyone who breathed that air for very long?”
Sound familiar?
I think that this has a valid place on the Biased BBC web, because it well accounts for the mindset that decides what is news, how it is to be presented and moulded and what the desired response to their choice of stories ought to be.
I does not need much of an extrapolation to see that this kind of thinking is a finer grade of onion skin that covers the BBCs view of the world.
They genuinely think that socialism would be a success, but has not been because it wasn`t tried properly. Like the Euro…it should have had the emergency doors sealed, so it could only be done with full commitment and with no parachutes as options for the faint hearts.
And for the likes of Mr Bloggs etc-witness how that piece of crap flushed onto YouTube screens is routinely being described as an “American Film” by the BBC at each and every turn…whereas the murdering cyclops that kills two defenceless policewomen is referred to as the “alleged” pepetrator or suspect.
There`s a whole PhD here for you Mr Bloggs in how the BBC chooses its words carefully and consistently…and always to skewer the White West viewpoint, and to puff up the criminal or Islamofascist ones.
And those that do all this, sure as hell read articles like this one of Alans…
Fine. Then let us have that analysis. Tell us what the BBC says about the film. Show their bias, their subtle use of language. I want to see that. I want to read about it here if that is what they are doing.
A more salient point is that Alan has lifted this incoherent diatribe from various bloggers, without attribution. Not only does it have nothing to do with the subject of the blog, it is not his own work.
I agree entirely with Joe Bloggs, Alan’s postings are almost without exception without merit.
If you had read the post you may have spotted it came from one blogger, who is linked to. So what’s your point?
As to the postings’ merits….’almost without exception’…..so some have merit! Excellent!
Well, no-one is forcing you to read them. If you are here solely to critique then perhaps you need a little more purpose in life.
The comment was not for your benefit, Alan. It was an appeal to higher authority. They know what to do…
And last time I looked, the point of blogging was to come up with some of your own ideas rather than to parrot those of other people.
‘I agree entirely with Joe Bloggs’
Red White and Blue…your plummage presumably?
Alan, put-downs only work if they’re correctly spelled. I think you mean ‘plumage’.
“I agree entirely with Joe Bloggs”
Maybe you two should get together (two lazy narcissistic Leftists working together – that should be good for a laugh) and set up your own blog.
Except that you do not have to, because the BBC already endlessly promotes your Leftist views, and forces those who disagree with them to pay for it.
In the first post Joe says “I thought this was a blog about BBC bias. Not a blog about Alan’s hatred of socialism. Even if we agree it should not be here.” [my emphasis]
Strange sort of lazy narcissistic Leftist. You know, people are still allowed to hold different opinions. For the moment.
Given that a few posts earlier you were complaining that this site has too many posts about Islam, your assertion that “people are still allowed to hold different opinions” rings rather hollow, especially given that Joe Blogs was complaining about the “right-wing clap trap” and “rant fests” on this site.
If I had gone on to label opponents of my view falsely, simply because they disagreed with me, you might have had a point.
But I didn’t. So you don’t.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then (notwithstanding the fact that it later tells you it is a chicken) it is reasonable to make the assumption that it is a duck.
If Alan is attacked for his “right-wing” clap trap it is reasonable to make the assumption that he is being attacked from the Left.
As for your assertion that “people are still allowed to hold different opinions” it should be obvious (even to you) that this carries with it the implication that people who disagree with these opinions should have the freedom to express them.
In short, you are full of shit.
And you appear to be full of alcohol.
I said nothing about freedom to express opinion. It’s the unwarranted abuse of those who disagree with you that’s the problem.
“You appear to be full of alcohol”
“It’s the unwarranted abuse of those who disagree with you that’s the problem.”
Spot the contradiction.
🙄
I am not friend of the BBC. I want to point people I know at this blog to expose its bias. But with posts like the one above, I cannot do that as it is a joke.
It betrays a pathetic lack of imagination that you assume I am a liberal, just because I mock Alan’s feeble posts. If he carries on as principal contributor this site will quickly turn into just another irrelevant backwater of faintly unpleasant, kneejerk xenophobic ranting.
And, therefore, you’ll no longer be wasting your (and our) time here. I repeat, no-one is forcing you to read any post. This is a site set-up by professionals with busy family lives, in their spare time; they do their best within a highly limited timeframe – hectic schedules that ARE not amenable to the type of advanced academic hypotheses you seem to be demanding. If you really believe that a website such as this should be a nexus for Masters level academic rigor then you’re more deluded and ignorant of netiquette than I originally thought. Give the man a break or start up your own site.
As indicated above, I’m hoping to encourage the grown-ups back. David and David have intellect to offer where Alan has only bluster and ill-constructed diatribe.
Oh dear Alan, this post seems to have hit a raw nerve with those who exist in a higher plane of existence at the Salford Palace of Truth. These loyal defenders of the indefensible have taken exception to your comments and wish you to capitulate forthwith.
The fact that you have an audience that agrees with you about the Exalted Biased Ones is of no matter to them. They would destroy you and like rabid dogs would eat you alive. The fact that this modest blog has few resources and little clout (yet) but is fighting a mighty foe with all the money and power that three thousand million pounds a year can buy is not a good reason for allowing you to have your say. Not in their not humble opinions anyway. No you must be annihilated and every word in every post picked over until the point of your existence is lost.
I will admit that, like the town drunk that shouts and spits his annoying drivel at every passer-by, they are a distraction but your loyal following is still here mate.
So, keep calm and carry on.
I will admit that, like the town drunk that shouts and spits his annoying drivel at every passer-by, they are a distraction […]
That’s a bit strong, I don’t think Alan’s post have quite reached that stage yet. :p
Look, Joe Bloggs isn’t a liberal weenie like me. He shares the basic drift of the site. But he’s alienated by the glib assertions and pointless verbosity of Alan’s posts.
DV is a talented polemicist and DP a forensic fisker. But Alan….! He makes Sue look like a Pulitzer winner.
What doth thou propose, then? Pray, enlighten.
I think you mean ‘dost’. ‘Doth’ is third person, as in ‘How doth the little crocodile.’
You’ve got too much time on your hands.
That the BBC is left wing biased is absolutely undeniable. When the Government of the day is Conservative and yet the BBC had decided to take the views of the left wing Unions, and 8 other spokespersons to deliberately show Michaels Gove’s new education system in the worst possible light, then whatever the academic arguments, that is blatant bias.
I was one of the complainants but as usual the BBC investigates itself and is NEVER WRONG.
This country has the whole of the liberal establishment trying to destablise the country because they want to help the socialists back into power asap, despite knowing that it would be committing suicide for the country. The big problem is that there is NO competition in theairwaves AT ALL and yet we ALL have to pay the license fee.