Chavez is gone. And the BBC are gutted that one of their lions of socialism has gone to join the choir invisible. Did you catch their coverage of the tyrants “career”? Shocking.
MISSING VICTOR
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
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
Sickening beyond belief. No mention of his brutal dictatorship’s negative impact on that country, just triumphalism as though it came from his office, or Pyeongyang.
Oh come on! He didn’t murder that many.
Yes but on the positive side, he told Bliar to go to hell….
Not sure what you mean David…Chavez was a ‘colourful character…he is widely credited with bringing a leftist revival to South America…and controversially called George Bush a donkey’.
Justin Webb had it about right….surely? I guess that’s why they had a picture of Hitler up on the wall in the BBC newsroom…..firm leadership is needed in a crisis….and the BBC seems to admire that……China now being the favourite ‘system’ that perhaps we could learn from.
What was shocking about it?
Couldn’t you haver written this regardless of what the coverage is actually like?
Just preparing for Castro.
and then nissan maindealer-black armbands and a week of mourning followed by a month of insightful and respectful documentaries
pass the vomit bag
‘Nissan Maindealer’, haven’t heard that one in ages! The man is no better than Adams and McGuinness: terrorists who realized they could no longer achieve their goals through violence. Truly, the ballot box is a more dangerous weapon than the Armalite for men like them.
‘Nissan Maindealer’?
I was about to ask for a translation but the decided that was too lazy and looked it up.
Thank God I didn’t forget my corset today … 😉
Obit:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13928049
‘But to his political opponents he was the worst type of autocrat, intent on building a one-party state and ruthlessly clamping down on any who opposed him.’
Judging by the obit it was just the ‘evil’ middle-class that opposed him.
Really? So it’s his opponents who ‘say’ he was ‘building’ a one-party state?
That’s funny, because it’s actually an objective fact that, for example, judges who based their rulings on the law rather than what the Dear Leader wanted were themselves thrown in jail.
That sure sounds like a lot more than merely ‘trying’ to build a one-party state. What does the ever-objective BBC think we should call it?
Of course, we can expect the BBC to be a little sensitive when someone mentions state broadcasters acting as propaganda outlets.
Chavez closed down media stations that disagreed with his world view, you would think another broadcaster would disapprove.
Not if they share that world view
Was Chavez on that Leveson panel, alongside the Media Standards Trust?
Well, that’s what the beebyanka’s been trying to do to Sky for long enough…
“In order to stay in touch with his people he set up weekly shows on radio and television where he explained his policies and encouraged citizens to phone in and question him directly.”
Or, to you and I, propaganda. But just normal everyday life at the BBC.
Nick Clegg does that on radio
yes
a bit of specificity as to who these “opponents” were
and of course,Hugh the Chav was a big supporter of Argentina “getting the Malvinas” back,so extra points there,and an opportunity to get a kick in at fatcher at some point,no doubt
Some time around the 8:00 news this morning on Today there was a piece from a reporter, whose name I didn’t catch, but she had an unusual accent. She described the news of Mr Chavez’s death as “tragic”. Although she qualified that, saying it wasn’t tragic to everyone, it seemed to me a strange phrase to use in the first place regarding such a divisive figure and implied that she thought it was tragic. Well, strange if you’re trying to be impartial.
oogo shavez
fine example of the linguistic backflips the beeboids perform to get certain names just spot on
They can be quite weird in that respect: they could have called Megrahi, Megrahi but with BBC newscasters it was always Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi, all done with the best Arabic pronunciation.
Aló Presidente !
What could it have been about the Banana Republic anti-US Marxist dictator that rang bells at the BBC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al%C3%B3_Presidente
‘…a largely unscripted talk show that was hosted by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. It was broadcasted on Venezuelan state television and radio stations every Sunday at 11:00 AM. The program did not have a fixed ending time, but usually ended by 5:00 PM, or as the program dynamics permit.’
‘It featured Chávez addressing topics of the day and touring locations where government social welfare programs are active. The first broadcast was made on May 23, 1999 (about three months after Chávez took office) on radio. Since then, over 330 shows have aired.’
‘Government ministers were required to attend the program. They may be questioned by the president about anything, and sometimes policy — even military policy…’
‘Chávez has also in the past frequently used the program to discuss US foreign policy.’
Oh, I see. Looking forward to 2015 when the BBC begins airing : ‘Allo Miliband
And the weather? Scorchio!
BBC has been been completely objective. Chavez is a key figure in the revival of South America and whether you agree with him or not deserves some respect.
It’s clear most of you haven’t a clue about the transformation of South America in the past 20 years.
“some say” he was an arsehole
And others say, he’d had an arsehole transplant. Unfortunately, the arsehole rejected him !
(Apologies to Monty Python)
I have a clue; I am willing to hear and debate what you have to say about this ‘revival’.
Read what’s happened in Brazil, Bolivia, Chile et al in the past 20 years as democracy has taken root, wealth is being shared, education and health improved and the economies grow.
Oh, and standing up to US manipulation. Amazing that Latin american nations like the Brits want self determination and not being told what to do.
Could have sworn you anted to debate Chavez and Venezuela.
OK, both Brazil and Chile, clearly and indisputably, have taken the commendable steps of moving towards the centre, especially impressive in Brazil was Lula and now Rousseff due to their leftie union past. This is because they KNOW that lefty twatishness is not the way forward. Their success speaks volumes and is a world away from matey boy Chavez Frias.
Bolivia is pretty much two countries torn by cultural and racial divide. I don’t deny it’s an improvement but every time I have been there is ALWAYS political strife, roads blocked, demonstrations, counter demonstrations etc; a country with 85 different leaders in a hundred (coup, counter coup, counter counter coup) years isn’t hard to improve but like Chavez Evo only rules for ‘his’ people, not for the all the country (that said even he isn’t as bad as Chavez).
Didn’t countries like Bolivia measure their political history in r.p.m. ?
but every time I have been there is ALWAYS political strife
then perhaps you should stop going … 😉
LOL…d’oh!
“Wealth is being shared”?? How can you write that without laughing? Notice that as soon as the US manipulation dwindled, the Left-wing bosses got elected in those South American countries, although the BBC studiously avoids drawing that connection out loud. Then, equally curiously, as the extreme Left-wing economic policies started their inevitable destruction, suddenly many started shifting away from the Chavez/Mugabe model.
When the BBC writes that Lula managed to “lift millions out of poverty”, but “without alienating” the business world, is there any conclusion you might think logically follows? The BBC wants you to draw one, that’s for sure.
How’s Argentina working out? How’s Bolivia doing? Did you notice which countries the BBC cites as wonderful Left-wing victories inspired by Hugo the Hero have been more successful the more they move to the center? Then have a look at what Colombia is trying to do, and ask yourself if Hero Hugo’s influence was as wonderful as you seem to think. The BBC seems to think it’s only the fear of alleged support for FARC which made the Colombians not want one of his acolytes in charge of them as well. Never mind the newly revitalized business sector which wasn’t possible under Left-wing government, I guess.
But wealth was shared to a far greater extend under Chavez.
Trust a Yank to want to keep the poor poor.
racist
Your bigoted comment aside, colditz, it’s a sad world when one defines forced redistribution as “sharing”. And not caring about the destruction of an economy and the withering of a society really isn’t a caring, compassionate position at all.
That transformation, in parts not the whole, of South America has been the move from dictatorships to democracies something Chavez hardly helped.
If the BBC was being objective it would call someone who closed down critical broadcasters, arrested critics, and supplied oppressive regimes with cheap oil what he was and not be sad about his death.
Like Jihadi Ken’s GLA.
You really don’t follow South American politics. You have no understanding of his impact on building up confidence and pride in Latin America.
Of course he was flawed. South America is not Western Europe. But compared to the age of generals! He’s a saint.
Fortunately for heroic Hugo, he never blocked the BBC website like the Chinese keep doing. The Chinese could get in the BBC’s good graces by a demonstration of public support for Fidel Castro before he’s promoted to glory as well, but I don’t think they’re that clever.
“the transformation of South America” Coldtits?
Strangely neutral way to describe the downward spiral of a country in the grip of a dictator full of bankrupt Marxist claptrap.
Bit like “Climate Change ” includes it getting colder when it goes off prediction?
totally totally O/T but the Open thread is disappearing into oblivion
not a mention of this so far on al beeb,but sky news app had this this morning
http://news.sky.com/story/1060436/gaza-marathon-axed-after-hamas-bans-women
Gaza Marathon Axed After Hamas Bans Women
UN agency UNRWA, which sponsors the annual Gaza marathon, calls off the race after a disagreement with the territory’s rulers.
This year’s Gaza Marathon has been cancelled after the territory’s governing Hamas movement banned women from taking part in the annual race.
UN aid agency UNWRA, which assists Palestinian refugees and also sponsors and organises the event, said “this disappointing decision follows discussions with the authorities in Gaza who have insisted that no women should participate”.
Taher Nunu, a spokesman for the Gaza government, said Hamas regretted the cancellation of the marathon, but that it had told the UN agency that local traditions must be respected.
“We emphasise that the government had informed UNRWA about its approval to organise this event … maintaining certain matters related to the customs and traditions of the Palestinian people,” he said.
LMAO
where all the faux outrage and righteous lefty ire
and where is al beeb on this?
at time of posting…….nowhere.
maybe the news wires-normally so reliable when it comes to reporting anything even slightly perceived to show anything Israeli in a negative light-aren’t working properly
or something like that………probably
They did mention this yesterday on Radio 4. They blamed the ‘conservatives’ in Hammas. But surely banning woman from marathons should be seen as progressive.
Did Mossad do it?
What is it about these communist dictatorships (North Korea, Venezuela) that makes people take to the streets and cry when their ‘dear leader’ croaks? Presumably they’re afraid of the reaction if they don’t seem upset.
Although I did notice that the bBBC’s report on Chavez does include the ‘controversial’ as its second word and they do comment that some were lighting fireworks to celebrate his death.
They’re probably practising so that they can report the same when Mrs Thatcher dies.
Someone with a different view:
Death of Hugo Chavez: a Venezuelan artist writes
I haven’t heard Shouty Owen Jones eulogising Chavez yet. Normally the bBBC only has to hear ‘chav’ to reach for Shouty’s speed-dial.
The BBC allowed Ken Livingstone to emulate this tribute to another beloved leader and thug: this encomium to Stalin is from cultural collossus Paul Robeson, yet another admirer of left-wing state murder. And the BBC opted to spend 30-40% of its Radio4 8:00 News output on Chavez: 15 seconds would have been quite enough for a genuine news item.
I’m not sure how much of the news was devoted to the demise of Pinochet but if Pinochet was responsible for the death/disappearance of 4,000-5,000 in Chile over, what, 10 years, under Chavez the murder rate in Venezuela reached an annual 120,000. Thus Chavez enabled mass murder but, hey, he tweaked the tail of the US so he’s up there in lefty (and BBC) heaven with Che, Mao and Uncle Joe. Mind you, as someone else commented, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Just wait for the BBC to clear all programming when Castro hangs up his boots.
“So here one witnessed in the field of the arts – a culture national in form, socialist in content. ”
I only read part of that sick tribute from Robeson, one of the greatest voices of the 20th Century but who was wilfully blind as to what his socialist heroes were actually doing, before coming uopn the above sentence.
In talking about a great parade in honour of Big Brother Stalin he managed to easily link nationalism with socialism. Yet more proof that there is little difference between all types of the sickness known as Socialism.
Not strictly connected with BBC bias, but Guido lists some of our lefty movers and shakers weeping at the grave of the recently departed Dear Leader.
You could predict which of the low-lifes would be praising this mass murderer to high heaven. Some of the window-licking left wing loons were saying that it is wrong to talk ill of someone when he was dead (doesn’t stop them talking ill of the dead nazis!) and that the right should expect the same, and not complain, when “Thatcher” dies.
How these stupid lefties could adjudge the two as the same is frankly mind boggling.
Funny so the left batters are whining because we are talking ill of the dead ? remind me who has been printing up ‘T’ shirts and celebration packs for years in the hope of Thatchers loss ? not new though they tried this when Foot kicked the bucket but yet when asked to back up their cry s couldn’t give any evidence of the right wing joy they kept bleating about !
Speech by Vice President Maduro:
http://caracaschronicles.com/2013/03/05/elections-no-later-than-april-4th/
“We have no doubt, the time will come in history when we can create a scientific commission to show that Comandante Chávez was attacked with this disease…We have no doubt that our fatherland’s historic enemies looked for a way to harm our Comandante’s health… We already have plenty of clues about this, it’s a very serious matter that will have to be investigated by a special committee of scientists.”
He looks like another darling of the Beeboids and Guardianistas.
Far Left wing – check
Hates America – check
Batshit crazy babble – check
Against press freedom – check
Oppresses the people – check
Maduro looks like a Latino Saddam clone !
Definitely a Mossad job!
Just wait to Mandela & Mugabe get called in by their maker, we will have wall to wall coverage , for weeks , the whole news output will come from Joberg , Cape Town & Salisbury, er Harare ! BBC 1 will become the Mandela Channel ! You ain`t seen nothing yet !
Bet there’d be no mention of the Mandela United Supporters’ Association.
Oh , I forgot Barbara Plett will be the BBC`s Mourner in Chief , constantly turning on the waterworks ,with all the other NUJ mob, providing a Pretorian Guard of backing wailing voices as the coffin is lowered into its tomb !
Utter codswallop. The murder rate has nothing to do with the state. Sadly it’s high because of readily available firearms.
http://laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=10717&ArticleId=363879
Why let truth interfer with Bias! Or proper research. I suppose you are the kind twit who believes 4 million Bulgarians are on their way. (UKIP propaganda: only 8 million Bulgarians!)
It has a lot to do with the State: when the state is seen not to react (see murder rate trend), when the police are notoriously corrupt (probably due to them being sueldo-minimos)when the prisons are no-go areas for any law enforcement, when drug running, car-jacking, kidnapping are left to grow, where armed militias (all party members) are formed in every city, etc etc etc…of course it is because of the State. the only codswallop is yours.
Lol so er cadblantz who is the enforcers of the states laws ? would it be that arm of government called the >POLICE < ?
“The murder rate has nothing to do with the state.”
I must keep that one for future use.
But colditz truly great leaders are those who encourage the demographic displacement of there own people.
If you can confirm that during Chavez’s rule the native Venezuelan population of Caracas fell from say 95% to less then 45% then I will light a candle to him in my window this evening. If not then why would one celebrate a ruler who did not lead his people from the despair of monoculturalism to the sunny uplands of enriched vibrancy.
Chavez was keen on encouraging multiculturalism in the form of Iranian military influence in Venezuela.
But were they blowing people up on the public transport system in that oh so enriched and vibrant way?
Forget the Bulgarian distraction, consider the 800 million people in sub-Saharan Africa for whom the “Commonwealth” door into Britain is left unbolted, by both Blair and Cameron (though apparently it’s racist to mention it) . You aint seen nothing yet.
The question I have to ask more than any other when I come to this site is, where are your facts? You state that “under Chavez the murder rate in Venezuela reached an annual 120,000”. And your source for this is?
I’m not asking you to like the man or his politics. I can’t say that I approve of everything he’s done. But making up statistics out of thin air serves no useful purpose. Just do a tiny bit of research first.
Hey, Dan, you haven’t asked me where my facts are regarding the President and the Sequester, and you haven’t asked anyone here where our facts are regarding 28-Gate or Will Self and Radio 4 or the Fogel family tragedy or the BBC’s bias regarding the Jews of Malmö, to give just a handful of examples. You seem to have a highly selective demand for facts.
It was clearly a misreading of the statistic 19,336 (nearly 20000) for 2011 – but you knew that already and just wanted to indulge in a bit of rhetorical posturing. God what a bore .
And how was I meant to know that you’d made a typo rather than engaged in statistical hyper-inflation? I presume another thing you hate about people you disagree with is that you believe we’re all mind readers.
We’re talking of Castro, Mugabe and Mandela here, but there is one far more insidious ‘bogeyman’ who is the real danger. Clue, he’s an American ‘intellectual’ of whom Chavez was particularly fond.
So this morning, on Toady, there was a passing reference to the suggestion that the Yanks had done for Chavez a la Yasser Arafat.
The expert says of course they didn’t and the US say ‘no’ they didn’t, anyway.
Cue Grumpy Humphrys: ‘Uh…they would say that, wouldn’t they?’
What part of the Charter does that comply with, Humphrys? The bit about accuracy, fairness and impartiality?
I thought he implied Chavez supporters would say that…but then then I’m nor biased!
Says the defender of the multi billion pound corporation !
Jezus bud at least the nasty gits from JP Morgan and Enron didn’t lie about who they worked for !
#88 is completely correct. In fact if I remember it was Bridget Kendall who said that ‘The Americans have said the claim (murdering Chavez) is absurd’. To which Humphrys interjects in that pompous and dismissive voice ‘well they would wouldn’t they’.
Even if Humphrys was trying to be dismissive toward the Chavez supporters it was so kack-handed as to make one question if he should ever be allowed on air again.
colditz do you realise you are a reactionary in the proper sense of the word. Someone makes a truthful statement which you dislike, and instead of taking it onboard or at least ignoring it you simply have to contradict it as a matter of form, i.e. you react.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100205652/hugo-chavez-a-venezuelan-sparticus-a-latin-american-kim-jong-il-more-like/
I’m surprised the Beeb didn’t get a name check in Toby Young’s litany of loose-screws:
“Tributes to Hugo Chávez have been flooding in today from all the usual suspects. According to Diane Abbott, his death is a “tragedy for Latin America”, while Ken Livingstone hails him as a “friend and comrade”. Len McLusky, the leader of Unite, expresses his “deep sadness” on behalf of his union’s 1.5 million members – not so much a block vote as a block emote – and John Snow of Channel 4 News (shock!) credits Chávez with putting a stop to CIA-sponsored Latin American death squads. Meanwhile, Owen Jones and Mehdi Hasan have been going mental on Twitter, attacking anyone who dares to question the Comandante’s Left-wing saintliness.”
Not all media outlets riddled with extreme Left ideologues are quite so hesitant to be honest about Hugo the Hero’s legacy.
The Ghost of Hugo Chávez
How his economically disastrous, politically effective ideology will haunt the country he ruined.
That’s from Slate,, which is a Left-wing site owned by the Left-wing Washington Post, not Fox News, not Breitbart.
that’s a great link David. I have added it to the many very good articles in my post updates.
Funny how colditz isn’t over there insulting Yanks.
Always a joy to see so many people above who do NOT bow the knee to Baal…or Baloo as the BBC are keen to prostrate themselves before…
Run up to the 7a.m news this morning on Toady?
“and in the next hour, what does Ken Livingston think of Hugo Chavez?”
Well-that` s what we teachers call a closed question…wonder why the current Mayor Of London was not asked to give a view on the death of this Commie Caracasjack?
So…if there was anything even more predictable of Toaday than what Red Ken thought of his dear departed chum, I`d be pleased to hear it…bloody Bolan and his “Children of the Revolution”….
Can anyone here explain how the BBC coverage of the death differs significantly from C4’s or Sky’s? Thanks.
We pay for the BBCs version of the Guardian.
WE also subsidise those BBC wannabes like bloody Jon Snow and wee Krishan.
Rupert buys his own round, so if he wants to allow wet liberal tropes to thugs and plasterboard lefties like Boss, then he`s free to do so.
One world, Commonest Purpose emoting crap-Mandela, Chavez, Hobsbawm, Lady Di…all Kim Jong not-very-wells!
So Dan…the BBC are paid by us to be impartial, not play at pocket revolutionaries that interview Ken, not Boris…
ChrisH.
You obviously despise C4 almost as much as the BBC. So let me ask, how does the BBC’s coverage differ from Sky’s? Please, some facts.
Also, have you listened to the TODAY interview with Ken Livingstone? He gave one perspective, a former member of George Bush’s administration gave another. What is wrong with that?
Well, there you go. That’s a good example. It’s that BBC genre of interview I think of as ‘The Nerd Vs The Turd’.
What happens is we have a leftist firebrand like Livingstone up against some ex-bureaucrat, or to put it another way, we have an experienced demagogue ranting about CIA mind-control satellites while the other guy mentions how Chavez failed to respect Article 531b of the Santaigo convention, in so far as it applied to the rights of journalists to carry out investigations relating to the disposition of public….[cont’d Page 94]
The BBC was never, ever going to put Komrade Ken up against someone like Dan Hannann (who, incidentally, really is from South America).
Extraordinary. You dismiss the co-interviewee as an “ex-bureaucrat”. In fact Colleen Graffey is a leading Republican and a lawyer who has worked at the highest levels of American government. She is well versed in dealing with the media. To imply that she’s some of light weight is an insult to her. Or is it that you’re in awe of Livingstone’s brilliant debating skills?
Either way, it highlights perfectly the stance of this site. In your eyes the BBC can never, ever do anything right.
Actually, maybe you would have congratulated the BBC on it’s coverage if it’s correspondent had filed a report while dancing on Chavez’s grave. Even then I would hazard to guess, you’d complain the stomping wasn’t hard enough.
Apparently the staff at the bBBC admire Hugo Chavez so much that they have had his initials engraved on the taps in their washrooms.