Something about bears and woods…
“The BBC gives too much weight to pro-immigration voices and ‘almost totally ignores’ the negative social impact of multiculturalism, a new study has claimed.
The corporation suffers from left wing ‘groupthink’ that prevents its journalists from challenging institutional bias and results in pro-immigration ‘propaganda’, according to the research published yesterday.
It was also accused of ‘downplaying’ violence by Islamists while being happy to criticise Christianity and report on the activities of other violent extremists.
Spot on. The BBC has disgusted me in recent days as it does EVERYTHING possible to downplay the Woolwich Jihad. It has gone along with the “lone wolf’ theory, it has suggested that Islam is REALLY the true victim here, it has implied that the hostage taking in Sutton Prison was non-Islam related, it has implied that the Parisian stabling was also non-Islam related.
Good to see them getting a kicking in the press for their appalling lack of judgement in giving major air time to muslim apologists after Woolwich.
Do we need two posts on the same topic?
Don’t read the duplicate post then?
The BBC have an intrigining angle on the killing of a Dutch soccer linesman
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22698354
‘Dutch linesman death: Trial opens in Lelystad ‘
‘It made the country question whether pushy parents and professional footballers could do more to prevent aggressive outbursts linked to the Netherlands’ most popular game, says the BBC’s Anna Holligan in The Hague.’
Yeah… pushy parents… that was my first thought when I read this story.
Of course the legal niceties prevent the names of the teenagers being reported.
But the BBC decides to withhold the name of the adult.
No problem for other news providers
http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/index.php/sid/214831845/scat/ec440608e2050e3b
‘The boys, aged 15, 16 and 17 and one of their fathers, identified only as El-Hasan D, 51, are charged with manslaughter, public violence and brutality’
Now I wonder are the BBC being racist here? Were the father named Van Eyke, Van Dyke or Smit would they name him?
Denial: an underground river that surges beneath Broadcasting House.
“Eau de Nile” (or “O-Denial”) = the colouring of reports concerning President Obama.
Too often “Eau de Nile” turns sour into “Eau secours”.
‘Eau’ (= water) is apposite, as in ‘Eau-bama’ and ‘Water-gate’.
There’s little doubt that in his short time on office, new BBC Director General, Tony HALL has turned the BBC into an even more explicitly biased political organisation than ever.
His quick appointment of Labour Party’s James PURNELL as key adviser set the immediate example in political bias.
“A gurning DG and the question of bias”
(April, 2013.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2303134/Tony-Hall-A-gurning-new-BBC-Director-General-question-bias.html
D.G of BBC, Mr HALL has certainly set the clear example of political bias.
It is no surprise to see Beeboids enthusiastically following his example in their daily ‘reporting’.
Hall came in saying he didn’t think there was even a problem with bias at the BBC, and he’s there to restructure the management and restore trust. Meaning he’s reassured the working journalists and producers that they’re getting it about right, and everything will be fine once he reshuffles the mandarins a bit. How’s that working out, anyway?
I began this week, as I have done for all my life: Using the BBC, liking the BBC… but their none coverage and evasion of possibly negative Islamic news has really shocked and upset me.
I was in a car listening to the news on Lincs FM about the vandalism of the war memorials. When I returned I checked out the story on the BBC website…. It took me a good while to find and was hidden under local / london news with a text only link half way down the page. Still, it had been shared 3500 times. Looking on the ‘most shared’ link list to the right this story was nowhere to be found even though after a cheese rolling story shared 4000 times the next one down was shared 1800 times. The BBC are obviously not only biased but are actively hiding their own statistics from the populace. Having a left bias is one thing but I find this as pretty sinister.
I have as much derision for the idiots who bombed the mosque in Grimsby as those who spray painted these monuments but shouldn’t we be seeing all sides equally and make up our own minds? After all we are paying these people’s wages.
While it’s what we already knew, and even the previous BBC director general Mark Thompson admitted to, it’s always good when an independent study monitoring its output since 1997 on this particular subject proves it to be the case.
I disagree though with this assessment by the person writing the report who perceives the cause as ‘BBC bias was often unintentional or provoked by ‘basic decency’ and a desire to protect the underdog.’
Labour desired this mass influx of immigrants to secure votes for themselves, and the BBC were a very willing conspirator, aiding in that propaganda. Also ‘basic decency’ doesn’t downplay Islamic violence, but fear and dhimmitude does.
Considering the negative impact to this country by the BBC having skewed its reporting on this important issue, can we expect any due repercussions?
My guess is it will be a case of ‘lessons have been learned’, ‘time to move on’, ‘yuda yuda yuda’…’trust has been restored’.
“it’s always good when an independent study monitoring”
I think you would be hard pushed to say that the NCF is independent. In its own aims it declares it supports centre-right voices.
When you look at the report’s author, Ed West, he is a right-wing commentator who writes for the Telegraph which has a long history of antipathy towards the BBC on both commercial and cultural issues.
When you look at the staff of the NCF there is a strong representation from authors associated with the centre-right.
Peter Whittle (Founder and Director) is a journalist and broadcaster. … He has contributed to the Spectator, the Sunday Telegraph, the Daily Mail
Marc Sidwell (Research Fellow) is a freelance writer, a member of the Organising Committee for the Henry Jackson Society
Elizabeth Drury (Head of Press) has been a journalist and broadcaster for over 13 years. In addition, her career has included working for Conservative Central Office …
Ed West is an author, journalist and blogger, who writes mainly for The Catholic Herald and The Daily Telegraph.
The New Culture Forum will
*challenge the discredited left/liberal cultural orthodoxy and change the terms of debate
* provide a strong basis for mutual support and association for centre-right and other dissenting voices who work in the broad cultural arena of the media, academic, educational and cultural worlds
* affirm and celebrate the canon of Western cultural achievement and our own national history, rather than resile from them in ill-considered shame and embarrassment.
None of that is to say the report is not without merit, but there are substantial conflicts of interest.
Yes you are right these people have an agenda and this report will get no air time by the BBC. Unlike, of course, all those totally non partisan reports and surveys that fill their news schedule and define the narrative. The BBC never cozies up to pressure groups and never allows them to use its broadcasting muscle to advocate does it.
The BBC in not really shy of publishing partisan tendencious reports when it suits their agenda. Have a read of my post on the History curriculum for an illustration of us receiving 25% of the story.
The issue is it that it is blatantly apparent that the BBC only ever covers one part of the spectrum of opinion. When was the last time a report saying “wind turbines are a farcical waste of money that generate less energy over their life time than they consume” formed the basis for a week long narrative arc with comprehensive involvement of prominent energy specialists and people forensically deconstructing the ludicrous green energy agenda? Yet we get emotive unscientific crap like this, telling us that 20% of children in Britain live in “poverty” on a regular basis
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21511583
No issue of conflict of interest here are there
I am not sure that “he did it first” is a very strong defence.
The problem with a report coming from a body like this is that whatever they say their case is automatically weakened because of their background.
Had a truly independent survey found evidence of bias then that would be telling but a group with such obvious conflicts doesn’t really tell us anything.
And isn’t this report exactly what you say – picking a team and getting the outcome you want, something you castigate the BBC for?
Yes it is from a biased source, but that is not my point is it. The point is that the BBC consistently uses partisan reports that suit its narrative to create a desired news agenda.
I am all for proper impartial analytical work but this seldom forms the basis of BBC Journalism. What I get is plenty of reproduced press releases from advocacy and single issue groups.
The example I quoted shows the coverage achieved by one organisation that depends on finding child poverty writing a report that, based on assumptions, astonishingly, finds that 20% of children in Britain live in poverty and this is duly reported by the BBC. So, how many kids have you seen in the last month in rags with no shoes? None, that’s because it’s not that sort of poverty, they are in ‘relative poverty’, something that can never be addressed. By this logic people in Lichtenstein on a wage of less than $72,000 pa are pretty much living in Dickensian squalor……
I don’t particularly “want” something to confirm my ‘prejudices’ (although it is nice to see some people attempting to print the truth) but selecting ‘research’ material to meet an agenda is what the BBC does on a weekly if not daily basis.
Of course there are ‘conflicts of interest’, that’s precisely why they set up their website, and we all contribute to this one –
1. To highlight the real interests of the left wing mindset – contrary to the propaganda they put out, and
2. To put forward a far better way of dealing with existing issues.
Do you want an example of what the BBC call an independent panel?
or to put it another way = ‘pick a team that will bring the outcome you want to have, and call that independent’.
Peter Sissons and Dennis Sewell are both 20+year veterans with the BBC and recorded the extensive bias they encountered.
It’s almost got to the stage where the BBC deny that Islam is actually Islam-related!
Good comment Alex. Only too true.
Surely you mean The BBC gives too much weight to pro-immigration voices and ‘almost totally ignores’ the negative social impact of multiculturalism, a new study by a right-wing think-tank has claimed. (c) bBBC
No, I think he got it right first time.
Irony doesn’t come across very well in this blog, does it?
(Sorry clicked first on report comment by mistake – can I suggest a greater separation between them)
I strongly suggest everybody look at the final report , it’s really a great effort and chronicles a host of separate items that we too have documented over the years.
As for ‘right wing think tank’:
About the author
Dennis Sewell is an author, broadcaster and contributing editor of the Spectator
. He spent more than twenty years on the staff of BBC News, where he presented Radio 4’s Talking Politics, BBC World Service’s Politics UK, worked as a reporter for BBC 2’s Newsnight and was an award-winning documentary maker.
His latest book is The Political Gene (Picador, 2010).
One could say he’s somebody that knows the BBC very well indeed, from the inside out. Funny the BBC didn’t want to tell us that – and part of their disease.
Sorry – that was another report, that is simply brilliant too.
The one for this topic is here:
Groupthink: Can We Trust the BBC on Immigration?
But is not yet published for download yet.
I notice they list this site on their Blog index, but at the old website. Well worth sending them an update DV or Alan.
It’s really quite frightening how the BBC closed the issue down and then pulled out all the stops to promote and protect Islam.
Can you imagine the utter meltdown that the BBC would have gone into if it had been done to a Muslim….?.
I see the latest wheez is that some Mosque “reached out” to a group of protestors with tea and cake. How wonderful. Not. It’s sick and smacks of bad judgement in light of what just happened a week ago.
I’m not sure if this would work and it’s just a suggestion, but perhaps Biased BBC needs a Facebook page where the awfulness of this organisation can be made known in a bigger and wider way.
these lone wolfs always seem to have alot of young cubs in there terror cell packs as proved this week.the lone wolf theory is just a cop out from those who want to hide the true extent of this terrorism problem in this country.
“New report highlights the BBC’s Islamism and immigration bias.
A report released today by the New Culture Forum finds that over the past 15 years, Britain’s public broadcaster has given ‘greater weight to pro-migration voices.'”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3646/new_report_highlights_the_bbc_s_islamism_and_immigration_bias