Interesting piece from Guido this morning in which he highlights Leftwing attempts to launch a politically motivated muzzling of certain media providers…notably Murdoch.
EU Lefties Trying to Ban Murdoch, Axel Springer and Berlusconi
‘Their real goal is betrayed in the ‘about’ section of their website: “Some, notably the UK, suffer from problems of excessive concentration leading to undue influence of certain economic groups, notably Murdoch’s media empire, over political processes”. Arguably Berlusconi’s media empire has more influence over political processes. By coincidence all three media groups are, to varying degrees, right-of-centre and sceptical of Brussels…’
We all know who wields the real Media power and influence in the UK… the BBC with its massive unearned resources, its enormous media footprint…from TV to national and local radio, to the web and on into its immensely powerful commercial side which crushes all genuinely commercial rivals with its state provided advantages.
The BBC plays its part in manipulating politics on many fronts…from immigration, religion, Europe, our response to terrorism and war.
Perhaps the biggest effect has been its malign influence on politics itself….We used to have separate political parties which each had a definable set of policies…not any longer….it is hard to tell the Parties apart in reality and that has effectively meant the death of politics and the death of Democracy as they all fight for, or posture on, what they are told is the centre ground….but is in fact a left of centre place that the BBC et al define as the new ‘normal’.
The reality is that probably the majority of the population are right of centre on all of the things that the BBC holds dear….and yet Cameron has abandoned any attempt to appeal to those voters as he fears the BBC’s reaction. Cameron merely pays lip service to limiting immigration, European influence or multi-culturalism with his fine speeches which get the headlines and plaudits but result in little effective action…probably intentionally.
Charles Moore in the Telegraph in 2004 spelt it out for the Tories about the BBC’s damaging influence:
‘Having to pay to support the “soft left” BBC bias – “is like compulsory tithes to the Church of England in the 18th century.”
Michael Portillo correctly observed that the BBC subjects Tories to a sort of continuous character test much more harsh than that applied to other parties.
The assumption behind this test is that there is something defective, even almost perverted, about being Conservative, or indeed conservative. You are therefore guilty of racism, homophobia, selfishness etc. until proved innocent.
It seems to me that the BBC today is the enemy of conservative culture in Britain. This is not immediately obvious….The few glorious programmes are used as the camouflage behind which political correctness can advance.
How does the BBC approach subjects such as American power, organised religion, marriage, the EU, the Middle East, the actions of the Armed Forces, the rights of householders to defend their property against burglars, public spending, choice of schools, or any perceived inequality?
Who will be more politely treated – Gerry Adams or Norman Tebbit, a spokesman for Hizbollah or Paul Wolfowitz? If someone appears on a programme described as a “property developer” with someone described as a “green activist”, who will get the rougher ride? If a detective drama features a feisty lesbian and a chilly aristocrat, which is more likely to be the murderer?
None of these attitudes is unique to the BBC, but what is unique is the BBC’s power to impose them.
In order legally to have a television in your home, you have to pay the BBC £116 a year. This allows it to dominate virtually all forms of broadcast media, many of which have nothing to do with any idea of “public service broadcasting”.
Out of the deference that this power instils, senior BBC executives are paid more than anyone else in the entire British public service. Greg Dyke, the now ex-director-general and editor-in-chief who seems to have been too busy to edit, got £464,000 last year. BBC executives are like the princes of the Church of England before the commutation of the tithes. They are rich and powerful, and no doubt they mean well, but there comes a time when non-conformists get fed up with paying for their sermons and their privileges.
That time is surely near. We must find a way of abolishing or hugely reducing the licence fee while reviving the core of public service broadcasting. How half-witted of Tory Britain to hand this chance to Tony Blair, instead of claiming it for itself.’
I’ve said it before, say it still and will keep saying it… the continued existence of a uniquely, compelled-funded, unaccountable, self-investigating £4Bpa media monopoly like the BBC is a clear and present danger to democracy thanks to its malign influence on policy and objective public information and education when confronting the ballot box at times of voting. On the matter of voting; hold that thought*.
Though it has reach into many other areas, in broadcast it is absolute, 24/7, 365/365. News, documentary and ‘entertainment’.
With a few exceptions its output is little more than propaganda, and how it addresses any concern from any quarter demonstrates the most obscene examples of authoritarian censorship that would make Joseph Goebbels blush and Douglas Adams dismiss as beyond satire.
*And since its creation, and with no hint that things will ever change, despite being a ‘public service’ that in no way can be described as essential, and with no free society anywhere finding the need for an equivalent, despite those who legislate and take us to war being subject to public approval every few years, it is immune from being held to account even as it demands its right to hold all up to its hypocritical gaze on demand. All judged in secret, from featured vox pops to modded comments, by shadowy individuals who can damn, boost or quietly suppress on whim to serve social engineering and political ambitions they are unwilling to fight in the open via democratic means.
And now a shaky edifice of zero credibility, whose self-proclaimed national treasure status is propped up by a few episodes of Life on Earth, the chance of a ticket to an R1 roadshow, or a rerun of Dad’s Army (until it gets PC’d off for celebrating militarism).
None of which strikes me as too reassuring on simple national interest grounds, much less great value at £145.50 or else to keep Mark Byford’s pension topped up as the investments can never go down as well as up in Beebworld, or ex DG’s in 2 x hush money, or Hugs in a full complement of lawyers whenever she’s out the office.
“Free speech campaigners condemn Labour peers’ Press regulation proposals as an ‘unacceptable attempt to hold the Government to ransom’ ”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2275373/Free-speech-campaigners-condemn-Labour-peers-Press-regulation.html
Of no interest to pro-E.U Beeboids:-
“‘EU Parliament no better than banana republic’ with PR campaign”
(Nigel Farage, 4 min video clip)
http://rt.com/news/eu-summit-pr-campaign-701/
Here it is in full
http://youtu.be/OY8HtkUrP9E
And Russia TV gets this interview….but the BBC, not quite so investigative.
From Bob Spink’s 2008 Early Day Motion, which got 11 sponsors (1 from Labour) –
“That this House notes that soft loans and payments amounting to 258 million euros over the last five years were paid by the EU to the BBC…….further notes that there are, in addition, undisclosed sums in respect of joint projects……….”
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2007-08/791
Spink was replaced by Tory parachutee Rebecca Harris, a fan of German Time (CET).
I still think that individuals can do something if enough complained and therefore made the BBC pay for more staff to answer complaints. If not satisfied, MP’s can be held to communicate with the BBC . A competition on this site for the worst and best replies from the BBC would spur BiasedBBC readers to complain directly to the BBC .
With you all the way… though pondering from which end of whose spectrum the ‘worst’ BBC reply may emanate.
I have tried several times to use the BBC complaints system but I have not received anything from them beyond their standard acknowledgement e mail reply. Do you have any tips for how to get them to engage? My labour MP is unlikely to take any complaints against the BBC seriously.
The BBC in general tends to be confused when it comes to budgeting. So when today they talk about the EU budget negotiations it can be difficult to tell if they have just lost the plot or whether they are trying to pull a three card trick on the listener.
Today at 1.30pm Radio Five tees up Open Europe think tank head of economic research Raoul Ruparel.
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Page/Staff/en/live
A reduction in the proposed EU budget for a future year is – in the perception of this economist and indeed for the BBC news editors – will, apparently, result in “cuts”.
‘Can you give us an example of the sort of “cuts” this will entail? asks the Beeboid. The talking head is happy to respond.
So suppose I plan to spend several thousand pounds that I can’t afford on a Caribbean cruise next year. I realise my sums don’t add up and then revise my annual budget downward. Cornwall or the Lake District win out – but apparently the loss to Cunard or P&O (If they still exist?) is to be portrayed as a “cut”.
BBC: Economics inspired by Gordon Brown and Ed Balls.
There will be a net increase for the UK as the rebate disappears.
For example – Why has this is news not been mentioned on the BBC news?
Syrian troops have been stopping urgent medicines and basic supplies into the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp in Syria and have been doing so for seven weeks now.
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.il/2013/02/food-and-medicine-cant-get-past.html
Because the ‘Palestinians’ were invented ( and the BBC has gone along with this) to make the Israelis, not the Syrians, look bad. The maltreatment of any ‘refugees’ by Syrians is irrelevant.
The Fourth Estate is finished, hopelessly compromised, no longer carries out any role in holding Governments to account. The journalists of the loss-making Guardian and oligarch-owned Independent are given vastly too much airtime by the bBC, allowed to set the news agenda. The bBC actively pushes propaganda of the Liberal/Left, gives a free pass to Labour spokesmen, operates the official memory hole of 13 years of Labour destruction of Britain, promotes comedians of totally partisan line (Left) and blanks out as non-news anything that exposes the left to criticism. The Fifth Estate, the Internet, is now the only voice of Opposition.
Wait till the EU-inspired Media Council is established – it’s for policing the web too.
The BBC will make a pitch to control the net as soon as it is ready to do so.
….and the classic canard is still being trotted out by the BBC whenever anyone mentions the Boundary Commission’s recommendations for creating more equally balanced voter numbers in each constituency.
With the BBC this issue is only ever mentioned when accompanied by a phrase like -“…this set of boundary changes would simply result in a number of extra seats for the Conservatives…..” No explanation that it’s more democratic, trying to equalise the value of everyone’s vote, nor of the fact that to achieve equilibrium with Labour today, Conservatives would have to gain something like 11% more votes than Labour….just to get equality.
In other words, it should be reported as “Labour has an inbuilt unfair advantage today, and these boundary changes would create a democratic balance across the country ” But are you ever going to hear that from any Beeboid ? We’ll be ice-skating in hell before that happens.
And don’t get me started on the BBC’s reporting of the Lib-Dems’ position on this one either – you know, the party that demanded PR…. “to provide a more equal and democratic voting process, because it’s in our genes…”
‘In other words, it should be reported as “Labour has an inbuilt unfair advantage today, and these boundary changes would create a democratic balance across the country ”’
If the word in the above sentence was Conservative not Labour the BBC would be endlessly drawing attention to the damage being done to democracy by this rejection.
The BBC are a 24/7 lobbying organisation for the (middle class) Left engaged in a transparent attempt to create a one Party State. They can barely bring themselves to say the word Conservative.
They are the greed, intolerance, and parasitism of the “professional Left” personified. Their hatred of a free press is truly sickening to watch. It is Stalinism with a smiling face – the very word “choice” dies on their lips.
The public for the Left are a cash crop whose function is to service the demands of a nomenclature whose sense of entitlement is bottomless, and whose arrogance makes the Medieval bishops look like models of humility.
Moore is correct in pretty much all of that, although he’s a bit naive regarding whether or not a “green activist” would get better treatment by the BBC than a property developer. The correct answer, of course, is that the BBC would most likely label the former as an independent, impartial voice.
“And now the Renewables UK poll results…”
‘If not satisfied, MP’s can be held to communicate with the BBC ‘
They simply put your complaint inside another envelope with a cover letter. It makes no difference to how its dealt with.
As one also advocating writing to complain to the BBC when they stray, and entities such as one’s MP when they tell you they are not to be held to account like ordinary mortals, you may be surprised that I agree with you.
Though I suspect out of the near 700 national troughing incompetents at Westminster, there may be a few (very few, once all from BBC-dependent factions are excluded), a couple with spine, integrity and even a fair amount of savvy may still exist.
But true, they also are pretty powerless. Look at an IDS getting stymied in the gates by a snotty Director cutting and pasting simply that they are impartial thanks to their long history of saying they are, and any hint of calling them out on being bent would inspire about the same as some policemen entering a gang no-go zone to actually enforce the law for once.
But I am still a believer in the power of a silent majority, especially one moved to anger as too many red lines on the pressure gauge get ignored… or taped over with ‘nothing to see here, you can trust us’.
There’s also the value of archive after the revolution comes and the walls can’t be propped up by exclusion lawyers any more.
Quite a few will have a bit of explaining to do when those files get poured over. And given the BBC’s addiction to things gizmo, no matter how long the shredders whirr or how many magnets are waved about, there will be a trail.
The first problem is that the BBC does not, and perhaps cannot, see itself as constituting a media monopoly of far greater size concentration and influence than Murdoch et al.
By virtue of being virtuous and non-commercial, it cannot sin, worse it cannot be conceived of as capable of sin.
+1000!!!!!
I’ve just seen that David Cameron, with the aid of some other countries, has successfully negotiated a reduction in the EU budget for the first time ever. I do not know whether this reduction will be enough to offset the gain-free giveaway by Tony Blair of our rebate, so we might actually – because of Tony Blair and the Labour Party – still end up paying more per year than we have in the past.
So, despite the best efforts of our Prime Minister, the ghosts of Blair/Brown can still come back to haunt us – and cost us money ! Another one of the time-bombs inserted by the Labour Party before it left office.
I’d be happy to be proved wrong, but I suspect that the BBC theme for this will be along the lines of “Cameron gets a reduction in EU budget, but this is a hollow victory, because the the UK will still pay more – let’s see how this is going to affect the poor and downtrodden in the UK….”
Nick Robinson is already on the case.
When is a cut not a cut?
I think he actually gives credit to Blair for your reduced payments to the EU, if that’s what he means by saying the “value” of the rebate to the EU has fallen every year.
The top news brief on it at the moment, though, just says “under a previous government”.
So are you paying less or more? If it’s less, you can thank Blair, not Call Me Dave?
Robinson writes…..”David Cameron has always insisted that Britain’s EU rebate was non negotiable. Nevertheless the value of it has been falling thanks to the last budget deal done by Tony Blair.
The result is that in the looking glass world of EU budgets the EU’s total spending may fall whilst Britain’s payments actually increase. ”
Now why didn’t he say “David Cameron has always said Britain’s rebate is non-negotiable, but the previous Labour government gave away more than Mr Cameron was able to negotiate as a reduction in the EU budget over the next 7 years, and because of that, we’ll pay more.”
The way Robinson has put it can be very confusing.
Mr Blair gave away Britain’s money this year and every other year hereafter, by agreweing to reduce our rebate – for NO gain.
And I have just read the other BBC article, where the claim that the hefty chop in the UK rebate “was negotiated by former Prime Minister Tony Blair, to help fund the EU’s eastward enlargement. ”
In other words, Mr Blair completely failed to get other members to cough up more money alongside ours, so he unilaterally gave away the UK’s money to fund a shortfall in the EU budget for a specific event, but he gave it away not just for one event in one year, but every year forever after ! Another Labour timebomb – well done, Tony.
Jeez, this BBC obfuscation drives me mad !
Have just read the BBC website on this topic. Hmmm….The BBC doesn’t actually give Mr Cameron much credit for negotiating a deal which would have resulted in a lower net payment if the Labour Party/Mr Blair hadn’t given upso much money to the EU previously. In fact, the BBC didn’t even bother to get the calculator out, it just reported that Mr Cameron “blamed this on rebate negotiations agreed by the last Labour Government….”
And, of course, it had to give an opportunity to the Labour Party to comment in which, incredibly, it basically tries to claim credit for the whole deal :
“Labour said the outcome had vindicated its surprise backing for a real-terms cut in a debate in Parliament in November.
“It seemed at times that David Cameron was ready to throw in the towel and aim for a freeze, but today’s deal proves that a cut was worth voting for in Westminster and worth negotiating for in Brussels,” said shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander.
“As Labour we called not only for a reduction, but also reform, of the EU budget. The EU had an opportunity to focus the budget on growth and jobs and it will be a matter of deep regret if that was not achieved, but we will continue to scrutinise the details as they emerge.”…..”
Wee Dougie actually believes that the Labour Party would have stood up to the EU…… what the heck precedent does he base that nice little bit of hypocrisy on ? And wasn’t the Labour Party the one that was screaming, not that long ago, about Mr Cameron being uselessly outside Europe, and unable to influence things.
Yup, it was Labour wot done it ! Bankers !
For the censoring BBC-NUJ:
“You Can’t Read This Book: Censorship in an Age of Freedom ”
By Nick Cohen.
[‘Look Inside’]
Is Murdoch right wing?
He’s a globalist, in that he’s in favour of everything that helps his global business. He’s pro-Israel but only because that’s where he gets his encryption technology (and where his rival’s technology was, allegedly, cracked). He’s anti the BBC because of their competition, not their politics.
He’s certainly not a nationalist, a Royalist or a traditionalist.
He’s the Rights’s false flag. (He was Blair’s best mate FFS). Beware Globalists.
Of course, in contrast, INBBC is quite approving of the Al Gore-Al Jazeera media sale.
“Al Gore’s ‘Global Mind’ Ripe for Jihad”
by CLIFF KINCAID.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/al-gores-global-mind-ripe-for-jihad?f=must_reads
Gore’s new book: soon to be praised lavishly by Beeboids?
“The cowardly and hypocritical media abandons Lars Hedegaard”
By Douglas Murray.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2013/02/the-cowardly-and-hypocritical-media-abandons-lars-hedegaard/
I made the same point on Twitter last week:
Murray mentions that the BBC had to update its article with a correction pointing out that Hedegaard’s conviction was overturned on appeal. That was down to me:
They did a crap job of it though. They stuck this paragraph into the article:
“Mr Hedegaard was fined in 2011 for making insulting statements about Muslims but Denmark’s supreme court dismissed the judgment the following year.”
However, further down the piece they’ve forgotten to remove the original offending segment:
“Mr Hedegaard was fined 5,000 kroner ($905; 670 euros) in 2011 for degrading statements about Muslims.”
Pisspoor, really.