A Biased BBC reader notes…
“Reporting on the grilling of the three intelligence chiefs before a Parliamentary Committee these were the newsworthy headlines reported under that heading immediately after, on three web sites:”
BBC’s top headline:
Web inventor criticises spy agencies
Sky News headline:
Leaks by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden have played into the hands of terrorists, say Britain’s spy chiefs.
ITV’s top headline
Spy chiefs believe Snowden leaks caused damage…
No bias whatsoever, right?
Thanks to the unique way the BBC is funded, by you the general public to hoodwink the general public, we can afford to make the news what we want.
As a follow-up to politically obnoxious Greenwald on ‘Today’ this morning:-
“Robert Spencer in FrontPage Magazine:
“Does Glenn Greenwald Hate America?”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/11/robert-spencer-in-frontpage-magazine-does-glenn-greenwald-hate-america.html
‘Daily Mail’:-
“‘Al Qaeda is lapping it up’: Terrorists boast that Snowden leaks are helping them avoid detection but spy chiefs insist Britain’s secrets are better protected than America’s.
“Terror groups in Afghanistan, Middle East and ‘closer to home’ using leaks.
“GCHQ picks up ‘chat’ from specific groups on how to avoid detection.
“MI6 boss Sir John Sawers: ‘Adversaries are rubbing their hands with glee.’
“Grilled by MPs with MI5’s Andrew Parker and GCHQ’s Sir Iain Lobban.
“Intelligence and Security Committee holds unprecedented public hearing.
“Debate rages about dangers of Edward Snowden leaking US secrets.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2489957/Britains-spy-chiefs-grilled-MPs-television-time.html?ico=news^headlines
‘Sky News’:
“Spy Chiefs: Terrorists ‘Rubbing Hands In Glee.’
Leaks by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden have played into the hands of terrorists, say Britain’s spy chiefs.”
http://news.sky.com/story/1165220/spy-chiefs-terrorists-rubbing-hands-in-glee
No mention on any of the websites on the role The Guardian played in disseminating these secrets. No prosecutions either, not for trying to smuggle secrets or aiding terrorists
“John Bolton:
Israel can serve as a model for American security” (and British security).
http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/John-Bolton-Israel-can-serve-as-a-model-for-American-security-330952?
It’s not the security chiefs who should be grilled it should be the bloody ‘Guardian’. Why no mention of the Beeb journalists fave rag today on the Balkanising Britain Corporation’s news?
Being fair, as we try to be, on PM Eddie Mair did grill the editor of the Guardian. It was a reasonable interview, but there was no-one from the other side of the ‘debate’.
However, still conspicuously lacking from the BBC coverage ..
Chinese spying on its own citizens and foreigners (ironically where Snowden first disclosed his information)
Russian spying (where Snowden went next, but he has promised not to tell them anything harmful to the US)
Iranian spying on its own citizens
Saudi spying on its own citizens
What Blackberry had to do to operate in India and Russia
etc etc
This just in for the BBC. The NSA and GCHQ are not the only organisations intercepting communications.
Am I the only one who finds it rather interesting that of all the places in the world where Snowden could safely have fled to, and indeed welcomed, his first choice was China followed closely by Russia? I suspect that says far more about his motivation, and that of the Graudian and the BBC, than the nonsense pushed by those two that he is on some kind of conscience driven moral crusade.
Every BBC radio news summary that I have heard this evening has reported this story as heads of the security services defending themselves from the scrutiny of the commons security committee.
Here is yet another Newspaper who treat the story differently.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10434196/Terrorists-are-rubbing-their-hands-with-glee-after-Edward-Snowden-leaks.html
The BBC must be made to account for their wilful refusal to treat this in the balanced and truthful way that is required of them by their Charter obligations.
Anybody else feel that the BBC is completely immune to irony? Compare and contrast the blanket coverage of the show trial of Coulson – Brookes, their crime – not stopping a sleazoid hacking some celebs phones. Outcome some hurt feelings and a few cocaine/prostitute sampling celebs embarassed
Horror.
Snowdon and Assange stealing secret documents with the potential to destabalise out intelligence defences and permit islamonutter attacks on our cities….
heros.
Can anybody explain how stealing and publishing secret defence related documents is morally superior to hacking the bedroom tittle tattle of a few football managers? sn’t there an equivelence in the act of taking privalaged information isn’t the potential damage of the Snowdon act much much greater?
I head a fantastically conceited bastard on the radio yesterday telling – well hectoring – me about the checks and balances in the journalistic process and how they – the campaigning journalists – were best placed to see all the secret information and decide what should be published.
So absolutely no journalists at the Guardian / New York Times grind any axes then. And threy are completely accountable to – well themselves and their inflated sense of moral self worth.
Meanwhile the BBC is completely obsessed with most trivial details of the management of the News of the World because they are evil…
The liberal left double standards of the BBC, are on excellent display on Snowdon and Hacking stories. In the former stealing secrets vital to the national interest and then publishing them, is admired as defending liberty.
In the latter, hacking a few celebs phones and publishing the resulting tittle tattle , is seen as a crime against humanity and worthy of filling the news headlines for weeks on end.
Clearly, as well as the cockeyed values of the liberal left, there is a strong desire within the BBC to damage Murdoch. It will be interesting to see if they go for the Mirror with equally persistent ferocity.
This may prove interesting, not least how the ever impartial BBC reacts in its ‘reporting’:
http://order-order.com/2013/11/08/mps-demand-yes-or-no-answer-from-rusbridger/
Maybe Mr. Rushbridger can wangle an excuse not to answer, though the FOI precedents and ironies may stack up whatever he does.