ON THE BILDERBERGS

By | |

A Biased BBC reader sent me this and I am simply sharing. It concerns how the BBC covered the protests against the recent Bilderberg conference.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22832994

use of clearly biased label ‘Shock jock’ to describe Alex Jones, and subsequent editing and highlighting of certain aspects of his interview on iPlayer (see attached screenshot) “Andrew Neil described him as ‘the worst person he’d ever interviewed'” Andrew Neil’s concerted effort throughout coverage of Bilderberg on the Politics show on BBC to scoff at, discredit and devalue the opinions of opposition to Bilderberg.  At the end of the interview he does a crazy loopy hand signal to viewers, insinuating that his guest is crazy.  This is clear, unacceptable bias.

See this interview with Bilderberg researcher Tony Gosling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObQdARkFbNs

See this BBC reporter (quite difficult to hear her questions but they are clearly biased, she was briefed to antagonise Jones clearly)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzfaCfXeea4

I was at the Bilderberg Fringe Festival (a space for peaceful protest and platform for opposition of the group’s meetings to publicly state why they oppose it) where I saw firsthand how the BBC was biased in it’s coverage.  It’s really opened my eyes, before I trusted the BBC to an extent. One of the speakers at the Bilderberg fringe festival was child actor Ben Fellows who has been involved in a criminal investigation into Kenneth Clarke’s alleged link to the paedophile ring as uncovered in the BBC via Saville-gate.  I can only imagine that the BBC are concerned that further evidence is going to come to light about not only their ingrained corruption but it’s links to Parliament.  It’s a total can of worms.”

Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to ON THE BILDERBERGS

  1. Mr Bilderberg says:
    June 13, 2013 at 11:38 am

    He is a ‘shock jock’ isn’t he? would he object to that description?

    Ususally the complaint is that it isn’t covered at all, part of the conspiracy of course, so I think the coverage has been pretty measured, tongue in cheek as the Andrew Neil’s show sometimes is overall a decent look at the subject.

    Some scoffing at the opposition to Bilderberg is only fair, a lot of them are bonkers.

    In terms of the interview with Jones, its quite clear from it, and his own video afterward that it was his tactic to disrupt the whole thing. I’m not sure what you mean by editing and highlighting the interview on iPlayer , the link you give their is to a new article report, which yes, would tend to be an edited, highlighted version.

       5 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:
      June 13, 2013 at 3:01 pm

      Who said anything about a conspiracy of silence about the Ed Balls interview?

         5 likes

    • Common Purpose says:
      June 13, 2013 at 3:29 pm

      Strikes me, from examples you give, that the people wearing the tin foil hat are you and the BBC

         2 likes

  3. David Preiser (USA) says:
    June 13, 2013 at 2:58 pm

    The term ‘shock jock’ is a value judgment, which the BBC isn’t supposed to make, whether he is one or not. But Jones has unapproved thoughts, so it’s okay. He is a phony, and a stage performer, and was there to put on a show. Trying to shut him up is just like a straight line to a comedian.

    Of course, the BBC knew all about him, which is why they had him on. The best way to discredit a message is by having it brought to you by the worst messenger possible. No need to debate at all, just let him put people off, and they’ll associate the message with their dislike of the messenger. A very old tactic, but usually works well.

    Neil ought to be pissed off at his producers for inviting Jones, really. Complete waste of his time.

    Although Jones’ website does report real stuff amidst the conspiracy moaning, things that the mainstream media – followed by the BBC – refuse to report until reality forces them.

       8 likes

  4. A Lawyer says:
    June 13, 2013 at 10:29 pm

    Brave of you to repeat the Kenneth Clarke allegation. You may be wondering why it’s not been reported in the MSM. There are three possible reasons:

    1. It’s unprovable in court and therefore libellous
    2. It’s untrue and therefore libellous
    3. There is a media conspiracy of silence in order to protect a prominent member of the Establishment

    I’ll give you a clue. It’s not 3.

       9 likes

  5. Mr Bilderberg says:
    June 14, 2013 at 10:35 am

    So if he is a shock jock, its wrong to call him that? Even if he is one? What’s the value judgement then? Reality?

    His thoughts are unapproved but he’s also a phony? Excuse me for saying so but your comments seem a bit schizophrenic.

    As I said, there was quite a bit of coverage , and he’s a major figure, yet having him on is a tactic? Seems the BBC can’t win either way. Jones himself says he has consulted media experts and he thinks his interview ‘tactics’ are the way to go.

       1 likes

  6. Mr Bilderberg says:
    June 14, 2013 at 10:40 am

    The link to the Balls interview is an online news report, an edited version of the full interview, the same as the interview with Jones – the insinuation in the OP being that this was biased.

    Except I presume its not being suggested the BBC is biased against Balls… ..except by the same logic?!?

       1 likes