Withdrawn this post as Albaman rightly points out a BBC report I missed.
One Man’s Poison
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- MarkyMark Dec 21, 12:44
Weekend 21st December 2024
“Terrorist cancels membership and starts new hobby.” “Chris Packham quits RSPCA role over cruelty claims” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyv381edvg9o Chris Packham calls for… - G Dec 21, 12:25
Weekend 21st December 2024
MM, Exactly. I’d love to hear the so-called, International Criminal Court’s views of their paymasters’ actions. Thing is, when the… - Foscari Dec 21, 12:22
Weekend 21st December 2024
Be fair everybody. Islam is a religion in which Christmas is an anathema. The BBC understands this and respects it.… - JohnC Dec 21, 12:16
Weekend 21st December 2024
Hot on the heels of Bowen criticism for out of touch with reality the BBC are when his third question… - markh Dec 21, 11:59
Weekend 21st December 2024
‘Sikh family distraught as man’s beard is cut without his consent’ shrieks the BBC webshite. For God’s sake BBC if… - Sluff Dec 21, 11:54
Weekend 21st December 2024
How about having a ‘white working class boys underperforming at school’ week? At least that way, the time spent on… - harry142857 Dec 21, 11:51
Weekend 21st December 2024
BBC news channel 231 on Freeview at 11.00. The “alleged” suspect doest fit ye classic terrorist (my word, not theirs)… - Deborah Dec 21, 11:38
Weekend 21st December 2024
I am just trying to understand the sort of man being painted by the Daily Mail who was in the… - MarkyMark Dec 21, 11:36
Weekend 21st December 2024
“Béatrice Zavarro, Dominique Pelicot’s lawyer, says schools have a responsibility to have better sex education.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2vlx20dm4o ………………………………………………………………………………………….. How Emmanuel Macron’s…
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
From today:
US credit rating at risk, warns Fitch
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21027323
From January 3rd:
Fiscal cliff: US urged to tackle budget deficit:
“Rating agency Moody’s said lawmakers would need to take additional steps to lower the ballooning budget deficit.
Rival agency Standard and Poor’s added: “Washington’s governance and policymaking had become less stable.”
S&P added that the deal had done nothing to put the finances of the US on a more sustainable footing.
The deficit has topped $1tn in each of the past four years.
Moody’s said that if the US failed to cut the deficit, the government’s top credit rating could be at risk.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20897566
It must be difficult for the bBBC to know how to play this.
On the one hand, a possible downgrade of the UK’s credit rating is a great story with which to attack the Conservatives.
On the other hand, the reason for the possible downgrade is that Gordon Brown left too big a debt and the ‘Tory cuts’ aren’t deep enough.
Thanks Alan.
Nobly played, Sir.
The ‘Haven’t seen..’ is a path still worth noting, but seldom much to hang a hat, post or thread on, with a sting in what might lie, or come to lie, across a media estate as vast as that of the BBC.
Few have the time or resources to check all, in a timely way.
Those who can may care to help explain why, currently, the BBC has at least two versions of the recent Waste story still on its pages, despite having been informed one at least is based on a press release fast becoming discreditted…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/food_waste
Half of all food ‘wasted’ report claims
leads to…
UK supermarkets reject ‘wasted food’ report claims
And a thread that was only open for one day during working hours.
And barely references a debunking of the story… by the BBC.
This story did feature on this site having been picked up by the main broadcast editors.
Seems the BBC may have ways of handling corrections that are… different.
Uniquely so.
Especially in comparison to a site that has roughly 20,000 fewer staff and £4Bpa less budget.
Instant response, and action.
It would be nice to think that the passions for accuracy that motivate many here got deployed where it may really help the licence fee payers of the country get the education and information they deserve, and have to pay for.
Even if it may take several months and cost a small fortune in market rate dissembling.
‘Few have the time or resources to check all, in a timely way.’
Except Albaman (and Dez).
‘BBC employs 147 publicity staff’. Makes you think, don’t it?
I don’t work for the BBC. I have never worked for the BBC or any company associated with the BBC. I have no relatives or friends who work for the BBC.
As for: “Few have the time or resources to check all, in a timely way.” – it was a simple Google search which provided the links. It took less time to do the search than it took to write my initial response.
‘I don’t work for the BBC. I have never worked for the BBC or any company associated with the BBC. I have no relatives or friends who work for the BBC. ‘
Great then post up some or any criticism of the BBC as nothing but constant defense is making some of us doubtful!
By not attempting a defence of the vast majority of the accusations against the BBC on here, he is by default acknowledging the overwhelming bias. So he’s cool.
Acknowledging nothing of the sort. The number of accusations of perceived bias on here are minuscule when compared to the total output of the BBC.
That, my friend, is complete bollocks. Your absence from the more notable instances of bias shrieks volumes – for instance the BBC’s secret meeting with global warming activists which it claimed was with the worlds top climate scientists, whereas they were discussing how best they could broadcast the warmist message throughout every aspect of their output.
In other words, the BBC lied through its teeth.
And in case you hadn’t noticed, ‘climate change’ is the biggest political issue on the planet, and the BBC decided it would take sides. This one issue alone leaves the BBC stinking of shite, and your lack of a defence over months of postings on it leaves you hanging by your sphericals.
“……………….. ‘climate change’ is the biggest political issue on the planet” – is it? Looking at the activities of governments over the last few years I suspect that more time has been spent on financial/budget matters than on climate change.
We can debate climate change and the political movement behind it until the cows come home (though your absence on all those debates so far has been noted).
However, you have sidestepped the main point yet again (you seem to have a talent for this – not uncommon amongst lefties) which was the BBC telling blatant lies. So, here’s one last opportunity for you to defend them.
The floor is yours…..
Still waiting for an answer, Albaman.
Without wanting to sound crude, it’s a case of put up or shut up on this one. Credibility at stake, and all that.
So let’s try once again: the BBC lied about its climate change meeting. Your defence of them is……
Sorry, you have used up all the space.
‘you have used up all the space.’
Beats falling back on doing no more than stealing oxygen when your debating foundations crumble.
The number of accusations of perceived bias on here are minuscule when compared to the total output of the BBC.
An interesting POV.
Yet you devote yourself to circling this little site as part of a 24/7 blockade (old kings dead; long live the new two arising) to swoop down on anything: to date, one score on a ‘haven’t seen’ correction.
But no concern, or mention, with the BBC’s actual errors, from a vast and influential media monopoly. Where error is instigated either on purpose or through ineptitude, yet when highlighted defended to the death by repetition of belief often enough in hope of prevailing by attrition. Taking months, if ever being admitted at all.
Maybe you don’t work for the BBC.
In what you contribute beyond simply correction as managed once, here, in the manner you usually do, if seeking (for some odd reason) to act as interference you certainly are not working for them in persuading against their clear biases, true.
“Yet you devote yourself to circling this little site as part of a 24/7 blockade ” ……. strangely only last week you commented on my absence with some cryptic comment about “returning from the slopes”. Difficult to be both here 24/7 and not here at the same time.
‘Difficult to be both here 24/7 and not here at the same time.
Apologies.
After the last I neglected to factor in your comprehension capacity.
The 24/7 was not of course meant literally about you, especially you alone, much as one can appreciate you bask in such attention. That’s how blockades work, using rotating pickets. Hence… ‘long live the new two arising’. Whether just new names or a new crew, only server records can tell.
Maybe English is not your first language, or you simply only see what you wish and blot out the rest? If so a career as a BBC reporter, editor or even market rate talent is suggested.
There does appear a coincidental roster, as everyone needs a break, unless they are a Turing Machine.
Which is why the entire BBC, which you not so strangely seem to have time through the day to defend to the exclusion of most else, including logic, gets to decamp for all of December and much of January. And to more exotic Winter locales, to recharge the batteries before returning to tell folk not to travel or do things others can’t afford… or simply post endlessly on their belief on what is not.
So the only difficulty seems to be your grasp of things, be it deliberate ignorance or genetic disability.
If you restricted yourself to factual correction, and simply quote/link sharing, as with this thread post original, you’d actually serve the cause of keeping the world’s largest media monopoly accurate and objective.
But you don’t.
99% of the time you exist to try and stop others from doing so, especially when on to something. With no more than arrogant beliefs, snarks and taunts. With the odd whinge about how what you do is noble critique, when getting served back and usually pwnd is time to run to teacher. Sadly Jim seems no longer around as much, even if his self-appointed role as hall monitor was at best ironic and more than often pure hypocrisy.
If not staff why you devote so much time and effort who knows, but you are not alone and the results are inevitably the same. The BBC gets further known by the company acting in obsessive interference with legitimate account-holding.
So keep it up.
Propaganda backed by censorship or attempted suppression is unhealthy.
Any thoughts yet on the BBC still running with multiple, contradictory headlines and stories based on a now accepted (by parts of the BBC even) flawed PR punt?
Or does your remit only extend to trawling miniscule sites against whose evident commitment to accuracy the £4Bpa, 20,000 strong ‘news’ behemoth pales in comparison, with a response and apology and correction provided here near instantly?
Everyone errs. It is those who admit it I admire.
Those who do not, and deploy every effort to avoid doing so, really are the ones making it hard to trust them any further.
Another day and another rant. You seem to spend an inordinate time in responding to someones whose views you consider irrelevant.
Another day
Objective and true.
and another rant.
Subjective. I can see no evidence of a rant, however.
Maybe it’s simply what’s in your mind?
You seem to spend an inordinate time in responding
Mine to spend.
I like this site and find it of value.
You clearly do not.
Yet you seem here as much if not more.
Go figger.
to someone whose views you consider irrelevant.
Not true. And not just you (again with the me, me, me).
Your views are not views. They are diatribes. And often have aspects in need of counter.
Which it amuses me to provide.
Again we are at a one character space.
I leave it to you to get to no character at all.
johnnythefish good point !
will defer to the better judgment on this
lol !
Toss a coin with two sides and over a large number of throws you get 50% Heads, 50% Tails. I see no explanation for Albaman other than as a liar in his pretense of “objectivity”
If you consider me to be a “liar” so be it. I certainly won’t lose any sleep on the view of a person I have never met.
Your online integrity is what is at question, with your coin falling on only one side. I have never met any of the people whose opinion I respect through their words, and yours equally, without respect. Go figure.
In Climate Change, assumptions are facts. So by this definition, Albaman buys the Guardian newspaper. He is a Scotsman who votes Labour. He is employed by a tax payer funded public relations agency as a troll for the support of the BBC. So you must understand that for him to gain credibility by criticising the BBC, he must first gain approval from his boss. That is a FACT.
Well you did get something correct – I am Scottish.
Then that must mean that you are a Liberal Socialist, Labour Socialist or a National Socialist.
Must be a lack of perceived bias to report as it seems the combined “efforts” of Richard, Guest Who and johnnythefish are all being pointed in my direction!
So that is why you cannot see any bias, you assume a lack of perceived bias to report, if you look the other way. In other words you have not developed the mental ability to see bias on the BBC because you are distracted by bias yourself.
Well , then it is no longer worth replying to your blogs then.
Goodbye.
Thanks.
I’ll be joining you in that, Richard, and suggest everyone else does the same. It’s clear he has little to offer in defence of the BBC so simply comes on here to disrupt. He gets a disproportionate amount of space and attention for his waffle and dissembling, wasting everybody’s time, so just ignore him – he’s just another leftie with a head full of ideology and little else.
Thanks again.
Yet again the useless and gutless BBC refuse to highlight the glaringly obvious Muslim link in the disgusting gang rape of children, today, as ten scum were charged in Oxford. And they didn’t even have it as headline news, but instead having HMV’s potential collapse instead. Utterly disgusting!
Unbelievable… hardly any of the controlled media are even reporting. What is happening to this country when Left-wing multicultural utopia has become more important than the welfare of our children? I utterly despair!
“The men came from as far afield as Bradford, Leeds, London and Slough.”
Hmm. Wonder what those places have in common…
Sorry for popping up again, but I just read this by Steyn, who, as ever, nails it:
http://www.steynonline.com/5387/the-veil-descends
Brilliant analysis.
Has one Welshman or woman…let alone anybody in the U.K written on this, like this?
Or has that veil he speaks of already come down on the liberal elite, who are paid to report and “analyse” incidents like this…and draw out the bleeding obvious conclusions?
As things stand, I think that veil is being stuffed down the throat of this nation by way of a gag…and not a lefty comedian in sight…
Don’t worry there’s bound to be something regarding Stephen Lawrence coming up shortly.
But the BBC have actually promoted a terrorist’s view in the past by promoting his previously banned music. See http://netanyalynette.blogspot.co.il/2012/08/legitmacy-to-incitement-by-extremist.html#!/2012/08/legitmacy-to-incitement-by-extremist.html
Good link Lynette, keep up the good work. I too think there was something fishy about Louise Mensch’s sudden resignation just at the point when her career seemed on the up. I had wondered if the BBC had ordered Cameron to “squash” her.
Excellent, Lynette – worth re-posting an the new Open Thread when it arrives to give it more prominence.
Basically the BBC giving its casual support to Islamic anarchy. Lovely.
Then ‘Despite all this, it seems that the points made were totally ignored by the Governors of the BBC and the complaint was not upheld . Comments that it was unsuitable to give an aggressive interview for evening listeners completely missed the point…’
Deliberately missed the point, I’d suggest, a la Albaman.
I’m sure that somewhere, sometime, the BBC promoted some music by someone that suggested that Islam posed an existential threat to western society and that credible action is required immediately in order to address the problem (in order to provide ‘balance’).
Maybe Dez or Albaman can provide the link and bat off yet another unfounded accusation of BBC bias?
I have mixed feelings reading such tales.
On the one hand utter frustration that such considered feedback is given the full weasel treatment at every stage, and only when cornered is the result an insincere ‘apology’ and meaningless note in the Beware of the Leopard file.
On the other hand, that they fight tooth and nail against any concession, and react so poorly when having to make one, shows how weak they are against determined individuals… and where they are many, we are growing in number and have something truly powerful that they do not: truth.
In face of this, even the most career-oriented kapo must go home with a niggling sense they are on the wrong side and digging their own hole.
‘The CD was only “widely available” after the “Front Row” programme was broadcast. ‘
Across the entire BBC estate, there seem a deliberate blind spot at the power it wields, simply by having £4Bpa to deploy across the broadcast airwaves.
It is why no-talents can become ‘market rate’, simply because they have been seen and promoted with PR no money … well private or commercial… can match.
And why what a few… a very few ‘decide’ to ‘share’ in the name of ‘news’ can see the very worst about our society boosted at the expense of all that is good.
It must be nice to control the pre-pro and the edit… and the complaints system.
But propaganda and censorship in the hands of the few has poor precedent.
And much much more serious the BBC actually sponsored a terrorist supporter.See
http://netanyalynette.blogspot.co.il/2012/12/the-bbc-sponsers-supporter-of-terrorism.html#!/2012/12/the-bbc-sponsers-supporter-of-terrorism.html
“We did not pay for her trip, we did however cover the costs of her flights, accommodation and the expenses she incurred while travelling with us , all of which came from the the programmes production budget”
That is a classic semantic distraction, equating her with some commercial ‘talent’ as opposed to being an activist seeking a pulpit.
That she was given one, and funded on ex’s all the way, thereby legitimising her journey and message further, shows the depths they longer ago plumbed, and continue to be allowed to investigate lower.
And if this Balen chap spouted what you quote, that his report is in FoI vaults still either suggests what he found was going to look very bad if from such a source, or they are saving his report for a rainy day when release can be resisted no longer and they can cheerfully announce he found that they got it about right all along.
We did not pay for her trip, we did however cover the costs of her flights, accommodation and the expenses she incurred
Ahem. What else is there to pay for on a ‘trip’ except the means to get there and back and the cost of staying there?
Or do they mean they didn’t pay for the snow globe of Gaza she bought?
Unique, isn’t it?
I think what you said was actually very reasonable. However, think about this, suppose you were to create a killer headline?
I ain’t suggesting your information isn’t solid., but what if you added a
post title that makes people want more? I mean One Man’s Poison Biased BBC is kinda boring. You should look at Yahoo’s home page and note how they write post headlines to grab people to
open the links. You might add a video or a pic
or two to get readers interested about everything’ve got to say. Just my opinion, it might make your posts a little bit more interesting.