The report states that Auntie, despite its vast budget and massive staff, is ‘punching well below its weight in the digital world.’
That was what Sir Howard Stringer’s report, published today, found. The fact that Buzzfeed gets 10 million more pageviews than the Beeb every month seems to be a particularly sore point:
‘Given Buzzfeed, for example, was only founded in 2006, this raises the question of why the BBC’s global digital reach is not more significant. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the BBC is punching well below its weight in the digital world.’
Stringer’s report was flooded with ‘bold’ and ‘innovative’ plans so that the BBC can ‘reach’ an online audience online of half a billion people around the world.
What Mr S can’t work out is why the licence fee payer should fund this cultural imperialism? Aren’t there improvements to be made closer to home that, you know, might benefit the licence fee payer? And why does the BBC feel compelled to compete with Buzzfeed? An organisation, which, I might add, has won global success by using nothing more than private money and popular support; no levies and court threats for them.
These questions never even enter the minds of executives at the BBC. To them Mr S says this: the clue’s in the corporation’s name.
Stringer says the current BBC News digital approach – which is in large part based on the traditional hard news values of newspapers – needs to offer something different to these young, mobile readers. So the traditional 500-word write-up of a story that people could easily find elsewhere could be under threat,
“The young aspiring classes are more interested in softer, or ‘near news’ content which has social currency, such as entertainment, technology trends, health, and accessible business stories. The publishing cycle should be continuous and the writing of the stories should be punchy and concise, reflecting the way the audience reads stories on mobile,” says Stringer.
Stringer is at pains to say that “this is not about dumbing down”, but about making stuff people will enjoy, adding more character to its reports and artitcles.
In other words……Something for everybody…..here’s something for our very own Scott….
In his conclusion, Stringer says the BBC’s cultural dominance is at stake.
For many years, it was dominant in a world of analogue broadcasting on radio and television. The biggest challenge the BBC faces is whether it has the capacity to evolve from being an analogue behemoth into a corporation agile enough to respond with speed and dexterity to the demands of the digital world.
Yes…wouldn’t want the oxbridge Tristrams to lose a grip of the narrative and let us decide the way we want to live and who we want to live next door to.
Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. —Job 38:2-3
Why is the James O’Brien interview with Farage important and on a blog about BBC bias? LBC isn’t the BBC but O’Brien’s opinions, and they are merely opinion with a good dollop of prejudice, typify the attitudes and values of that media and political ‘elite’ who are conspiring to close down debate about immigration and who have launched an astonishing blitz against Farage for having the temerity to raise the subject…..and worse, be popular with it.
The great problem for that ‘elite’ is, as shown by Guido’s tweet, that Farage’s arguments resonate loudly with the Public, including previous immigrants….to call Farage racist is to call them racist.
O’Brien says in the interview that there has been an ‘avalanche of bigotry from UKIP…and the problem with that is that people do not recognise the deeply divisive and racist ideas.’
So you know exactly the premise from which he starts the interview, his sole intention to put Farage in the stocks to throw abuse at him and humiliate him, and O’Brien’s attitude towards the Public…they’re stupid, ignorant and racist.
The mask has slipped
The ‘elite’ have lost the plot completely and the ‘mask has slipped’ to coin a phrase popular in current usage. The so-called democracy that we live in is not a democracy at all and is run for the benefit of that media and political elite who are attempting to steamroller over an opposition which has called their bluff.
Miliband talks of attacking those with privilege and making a more equal society but you can see he is just as entrenched with that privileged ‘elite’ as Cameron…and Cameron has revealed he is totally untrustworthy….his promises on a referendum on Europe and promises to cut immigration aren’t worth diddly squat…he’s a liar and people know it…which is why he didn’t get a majority at the last election when he reneged on his promised EU referendum.
[The attacks on Farage] have permanently installed the idea that the political class are a united vindictive force which regards the anxieties and concerns of a large proportion of voters with contempt. The people will not forget this lesson. Even when they return to the fold of the mainstream parties – as I have no doubt they will – in the general election, they will recall this vendetta, and it will leave a bitter suspicion about how seriously their opinions are taken by the governing elite.
A perfect example of that contempt is this ironic Tweet from a BBC editor (H/T Guido and Is the BBC Biased?):
Car Crash Interview?
In the immediate aftermath of the interview there was a unanimous chorus from the anti-UKIP Front competing to decry UKIP as racist and to claim that the interview had been a ‘car crash’ disaster for Farage.
It certainly was a car crash but not for Farage…he came off sounding reasonable, keeping his temper under a barrage of suspect claims against him designed to paint him either as some sort of crook, fool or Fascist.
O’Brien on the other hand came across very badly. If anyone had a ‘car crash’ it was him. He came to the interview with his prejudices fully intact having already decided that Farage was a racist and he proceeded to try and confirm those prejudices by accusing Farage of a long list of supposed crimes against the Liberal Orthodoxy….O’Brien wasn’t shy of using lies, innuendo, rumour, damning by association and the ever useful ‘what iffery’ to try and pin something on Farage…..but he couldn’t.
Farage was able to rebut each claim as they came up though O’Brien more often than not ignored the explanation and ploughed on with the accusations regardless.
The interview went on for twenty minutes until UKIP’s communications director spoke up to say that O’Brien was over running the agreed time for the interview….He did not interrupt to stop the interview because of embarrassing questions about alleged racism as the Press gleefully claimed…the interview had been 20 minutes of such questions with no challenge from Farage or his aide and had moved on to ask about expenses…..O’Brien himself acknowledging before the interruption that he was over running.
Hatchet Job
O’Brien then slunk off to the Mail on Sunday which teamed up with him to publish his imaginative and self-serving commentary on the interview…..it should be filed under ‘fiction’ and treated with caution as it is nothing less than one long smear against Farage that bears little resemblance to the actual interview….a more dishonest and devious piece of spin would be hard to imagine.
But O’Brien is now the blue-eyed poster child of the anti-UKIP mob and no doubt his interview will be legend.
Giving the Establishment a bloody nose
The consolation for Farage is that those opposed to him maybe a very powerful and influential group, including now the turn-coat and hypocritical Mail, Sun and Telegraph, but the people quaffing down their Lattés as they read of the ‘Glorious Rout’ of UKIP in the Guardian with gloating approval only have one vote each….and the polls indicate that more reasoned and fair-minded people have quite possibly heard the interview and dismissed it as the dishonest and unscrupulous assassination attempt on Farage that it is and made them all the more determined to vote UKIP if only to rub the ‘Establishment’s’ nose in it.
Here is the Sun’s latest spin on the interview:
Nigel Farage was challenged yesterday over whether Ukip is racist. He put a gun to his temple and fired. The dictionary definition is judging another race to be inferior because of a prejudice that all its members have the same characteristics. Farage told a radio interviewer people would be worried if a group of Romanians moved in next door. Asked what the difference would be between them and some Germans, Farage, whose wife is German, said: “You know what the difference is.”
It is not racist to worry about the impact of millions of migrants on Britain, as we have argued for years. It IS racist to smear Romanians for being Romanian. Nigel Farage, Ukip leader, did just that.’
One problem is that O’Brien didn’t compare a group of Romanians to a group of Germans…he compared them to a group of German children.
So yes, I think I know what the difference would be as Farage did…the Sun obviously did as well and decided to change things to make it look bad for Farage….
Strange that the Sun forgets it published this just last November:
A GANG of Romanian thieves and beggars told last night how they can’t wait to move to Britain for an “easy” life of crime. Join Sun+ to find out more…
As the Sun says then: It is not racist to worry about the impact of millions of migrants on Britain, as we have argued for years. It IS racist to smear Romanians for being Romanian. The Sun did just that.
James O’Brien Gossip Columnist
To get a taste of LBC’s shock jock interviewer, James O’Brien, in action have a listen to Frank Lampard’s reaction to the smears and personal attacks that former gossip columnist O’Brien feels he is entitled to assail Lampard’s reputation with (H/T Jeff)…in the name of ‘Democracy and the Public Interest’:
O‘Brien was torn apart by Lampard for his self-righteous, sanctimonious and just plain wrong judgements on how Lampard was raising his kids…..O‘Brien‘s lame excuse was that ‘I was only going on what’s printed in the papers…merely describing a news story.’
Not true…he was pronouncing judgement on Lampard.
But O’Brien then went on, after refusing to apologise, to justify his comments and prurient interest with this:
‘To comment on stories in the news is a very important and intrinsic part not only of what we do as journalists but of democracy and the public as a whole.’
Now that’s a pretty interesting comment and explanation of things…..because of course it could be applied to Farage and his referencing of crime statistics for Romanians….and that doesn’t make O’Brien a journalist but a scavenger picking over the work of actual journalists who do the legwork.
However, as you will see, O’Brien has decided that Farage is a dangerous racist leading the simple and credulous folk of this country on a merry dance…his revelations do not play into the democratic debate or serve the public interest as O’Brien claimed for his own sleazy ‘journalism’.
Unique Insight
O’Brien claims he is the only one who can see the apparent danger that Farage represents as he reveals in the Mail hatchet piece:
For some time now, I have felt like the only person in the theatre not laughing at the antics of the actors. As much of the nation and my media colleagues were being seduced by the blokeish bonhomie of UKIP leader Nigel Farage, my work as a radio phone-in presenter on LBC had made me question if something uglier lurked behind the cultivated ‘pint and a fag’ facade.
Clever bloke that O’Brien, we’re lucky to have him putting us right.
But O’Brien is not the only one who has decided to comment on Farage.
I am not convinced that condemning the many voters thinking of voting Ukip as stupid racists is a good electoral strategy.
Firstly, the posters themselves are not racist. In fact some of them reflect our policy what should our response be?
We should spend a lot less time talking and writing about Ukip.
Then of course we get to the point of this blog…the BBC and its bias.
Farage placed an open letter explaining his beliefs in the Telegraph and Victoria Derbyshire decided to give us her take on things (10:46:30). Unfortunately 5Live brought on a UKIP representative, Suzanne Evans UKIP’s Communities Spokesman, who had only 10 minutes notice and was sent the wrong ‘open letter’ as a reference by the BBC. Derbyshire ignored all the awkward points raised by her and went on to try and dispute the crime figures given by Farage even though they are from the Met. Police and Interpol:
Criminal gangs from Romania are targeting European cities by flying in on low-cost airlines to commit their crimes before returning home, the director of Europol has warned. Rob Wainwright described the gangs as “petty criminals operating across multiple jurisdictions”, adding that they are active across Europe, it was reported today. The main crimes being carried out are thought to be card-skimming and pickpocketing, with Romanian and Bulgarian gangs thought to be responsible for 90% of all card-skimming crimes in Europe, according to Europol. Europol has identified 240 organised crime gangs from Romania, which account for 6.7% of all criminal networks active in Europe, the Times reported.
As we have already had a look at, the BBC’s Nick Robinson had a go at smearing and undermining of Farage….
And of course there has been relentless ‘fun’ on ‘Have I Got News For You’, ‘The Now Show’ and now this from 5Live on Sunday: (39:30)
Al Murray was joined by Andy Zaltzman, Tiffany Stevenson and Lloyd Langford to take a lighter look at the week’s news. ….in which Farage is denounced as ‘pointless and wrong’ and there is a childish delight in pronouncing his name ‘Farridge’
Then there is this from the BBC which dredges up old and false allegations about Farage’s opinions as a schoolboy…no such searches into the past of Labour‘s ex-Communists and Trotskyites though…note how Farage completely destroys the BBC narrative but the interviewer carries on regardless trying to paint him as a schoolboy Hitler:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idxUlYsSqKo
The BBC takes a look at the O’Brien interview which lasted 20 minutes, two to three times the normal length of a political interview by him…and concentrates on the interruption by UKIP’s comms chief…..
The BBC then regales us with tales of the ‘concern’ over Farage’s comments…and manages to get in just about every derogatory comment about him that they can….
I don’t like interviewing politicians. It’s not a party political position, I don’t like interviewing any of them. They are so cossetted and insulated and briefed and adept at distraction and prone to waffle that, as a radio presenter ordinarily offered five or six minutes tops, it rarely seems worth my while to let them read their PR notes out loud, answer any questions but the ones I ask and glide glibly over any attempts to root the exchange in reality. And besides, I genuinely prefer talking to ‘real’ people.
He likes talking to ‘real people’…the trouble is the ‘real people’ almost certainly hold many of the views that Farage does….which kind of puts a lie to O’Brien’s claim to be a man of the ‘real people’ when he then goes on to claim such views are racist and bigoted.
For some time now, I have felt like the only person in the theatre not laughing at the antics of the actors. As much of the nation and my media colleagues were being seduced by the blokeish bonhomie of UKIP leader Nigel Farage, my work as a radio phone-in presenter on LBC had made me question if something uglier lurked behind the cultivated ‘pint and a fag’ facade.
Why was I disturbed by the surging popularity of [Farage]? Was I mad – or was he really that bad?
The more I read, the more I heard and the more I learned about Farage, the more they seemed to me to be dancing blindly behind a political Pied Piper.
So there we have the truth…O’Brien’s arrogant, elitist, patrician view of the Public….they are too stupid to realise they are being led by the nose by a racist charlatan.
During the actual interview he reiterated that opinion of the Public saying that we have had ‘an avalanche of bigotry from UKIP and the problem is that the Public does not recognise the deeply divisive and racist ideas’
So once again it is the ignorance, stupidity and racism of the Public that allows them to be fooled by Farage.
The Romanian neighbours from hell
O’Brien tells us what really angered him:
It was, though, the Romanians that tipped it over the edge. As he attempted to defend feeling ‘deeply uncomfortable’ about the prospect of having some live next door, I wondered why it would be any different from having, say, German neighbours. The mask slipped. ‘You know what the difference is,’ he said, before embarking upon an aside about people-trafficking. I asked about Romanians, he talked about people-traffickers. I asked about Germans, he talked about easily identifiable ‘difference’. I have no explanation for this save a conviction on Farage’s part that one’s country of origin or ethnicity determines one’s values and decency.
In his Mail article O’Brien tries to play down what Farage was asked…which had been would he like to have a whole house load of Romanian men move in next door?….O’Brien here merely saying ‘having some live next door‘….and changes the comparison to ….as opposed to say some German neighbours.
O’Brien in the interview itself asked Farage what would be the difference between a house load of German children and one of Romanian‘s…..
‘What about the line about not wanting to live next door to Romanians [so not emphasising a house load of men]….what about if a group of German children lived next door…what’s the difference?’
Farage states ‘You know the difference’and O’Brien dishonestly claims ‘I honestly don’t know.’
O’Brien claims that Farage’s concerns are racist for picking on one nationality however what about O’Brien’s own wife?
Has he questioned and pilloried her for her prejudices against men?
Sometimes it seems hard to be a parent in the UK. Hard to get your kid into a decent state school; hard to be a working mum; hard to be a stay-at-home mum; and hard to protect your children against the paedophile who – according to newspaper headlines – is probably living next door but one. Sometimes it makes me start to panic. Widely publicised cases involving British children such as the Soham murders or the death of James Bulger have helped us lose trust in one another. Although these incidences are as rare as they are shocking, they have surely influenced child-rearing in our country to a disproportionate degree.
So let’s be clear….Lucy, O’Brien’s wife, has an innate prejudice against male neighbours believing they could be paedophiles the thought of which makes her panic. She has lost trust in men because of crimes committed by men on children.
What is the difference between her position and Farage’s who bases his concerns on information supplied by the Metropolitan Police and Interpol?:
Criminal gangs from Romania are targeting European cities by flying in on low-cost airlines to commit their crimes before returning home, the director of Europol has warned. Rob Wainwright described the gangs as “petty criminals operating across multiple jurisdictions”, adding that they are active across Europe, it was reported today. The main crimes being carried out are thought to be card-skimming and pickpocketing, with Romanian and Bulgarian gangs thought to be responsible for 90% of all card-skimming crimes in Europe, according to Europol. Europol has identified 240 organised crime gangs from Romania, which account for 6.7% of all criminal networks active in Europe, the Times reported.
Ze Children
O’Brien then went on to attack Farage for his statement that travelling on a train on which he heard no English spoken made him uncomfortable….
In the Mail article O’Brien claims….. Later, the tale of feeling uncomfortable on a train when foreign languages are spoken caused him to squirm. This was due to the simple expedient of pointing out that his own wife and daughters speak ‘foreign’ and presumably do so in public.
Well listen to the interview and Farage does not squirm in the slightest but answers clearly and concisely.
Farage explained he was uncomfortable because he was concerned about the extraordinarily fast pace of change forced upon the country with no say in the matter by the native population.
O’Brien then starts to talk about Farage’s children and claims they speak English as a second language, claiming their mother tongue is German…O’Brien tries to claim that they too must be therefore adding to the difficulties in schools created by immigrant children who have English as a second language as claimed by Farage.
As far as I know Farage’s children are English, born and raised here with his German wife who speaks perfect English. English in other words is their native language…their ability to also speak German does not make them German.
Just more lies and spin by O’Brien.
Breivik
O’Brien then gets onto Farage’s links in Europe to what O’Brien categorises as extremists.
He asks how Farage can work with someone like Francesco Speroni, a leading member of the Northern League. O’Brien tries to smear by association and a very dubious link to Breivik…..
Speroni said. “If [Breivik’s] ideas are that we are going towards Eurabia and those sorts of things, that western Christian civilisation needs to be defended, yes, I’m in agreement,” he told Radio 24.
Speroni suggests Breivik’s thoughts on the importance of preserving Western democracy, civilisation and culture are along the lines he thinks….what he is not doing is saying he agrees with Breivik’s terrorist actions.
If Breivik said he liked Fish and Chips does that make anyone else who likes Fish and Chips a potential mass murderer? It’s a daft premise.
Immigrants who come to live in Britain need to learn to speak English and to “respect our way of life”, the culture secretary, Sajid Javid, has said. Javid, the son of Pakistani immigrants and the first Asian secretary of state, said people were entitled to expect immigrants to make a contribution to society. “People want Britain to have more control over its borders, and I think they are right,” he told the Sunday Telegraph. “I think it’s perfectly reasonable for British people to say, look, if you’re going to settle in Britain and make it your home, you should learn the language of the country and you should respect its laws and its culture.”
Or those of Dominic Grieve:
Politicians need to ‘wake up’ to corruption in minority communities Attorney general Dominic Grieve cites cases of electoral fraud and singles out Pakistani community Citing electoral corruption as a particular concern and singling out the Pakistani community, Grieve said that the problem was on the rise because some minority communities “come from backgrounds where corruption is endemic”. Many immigrants, he said in an interview with the Daily Telegraph, “come from societies where they have been brought up to believe you can only get certain things through a favour culture”. “One of the things you have to make absolutely clear is that is not the case and it’s not acceptable. As politicians, these are issues we need to pay some attention to.”
A claim backed up by recent police actions:
Police patrols to crack down on vote fraud: Officers to be stationed in areas deemed to be at risk of rigging
Police are to take the extraordinary step of mounting patrols at polling stations in areas at high risk of electoral fraud in this month’s local and European elections.
The Electoral Commission has been in talks with officers about operations in areas it deems vulnerable to vote-rigging, which mostly have large south Asian communities.
Right Wing Groups
O’Brien then wanted to know why he was associated with so many right wing groups
When I brought up the subject of his meeting with a particularly repellent resident of the far-Right in 1997, he trotted out the familiar line about the media ignoring the skeletons in other parties’ closets – so we moved on to people he consorts with at the European Parliament.
Breitbart reports that: “In 2006, Newham Conservatives lined up alongside the Islamic Forum of Europe, the Islamic Society of Britain, CagePrisoners, Hizb ut Tahrir, the Islamic Human Rights Commission, the Muslim Association of Britain and the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, as well as Stop the War in opposing counter-terrorism raids in the area. All of the so-called ‘Muslim’ organisations mentioned above have had links to radical Islam, or in some cases, terrorism. None are (sic) considered to be genuinely representative of Britain’s Muslim communities.”
O’Brien then says in his Mail article…
‘a listener had forwarded me some comments from a UKIP council candidate in which he spoke of wanting to ‘shoot’ a ‘poofter’. Farage promised an investigation. I pointed out the comments had been made in February. He went quiet.’
Farage went ‘quiet’? No he didn’t, again he answered fully and clearly.
O’Brien then raised the claims that Farage had once said ‘You needn’t worry about the nigger vote. The nig nogs would never vote for us.’
O’Brien gave the impression that this was heard by several witnesses….the truth was this claim came from one person, Alan Sked, the ex-leader of UKIP who has been running a relentless campaign to vilify Farage for years….which he admits:
“I sometimes think of myself as Dr Frankenstein,” says Alan Sked, professor of International History at the London School of Economics. “So far I think ‘it’ can be contained. I attack ‘it’ in the press all the time. The “it” Sked refers to is the party he founded some two decades ago, the UK Independence party (Ukip)
Here he expresses his contempt for anyone who votes UKIP:
“Some people vote for them because they think they are anti-immigrant, anti-Europe, anti-foreigner — it is just people who are against life. People who just think everything sucks.”
Dr Sked also claims that Mr Farage admires Russian president Vladimir Putin because ‘Putin is clearly a nasty piece of work and Nigel probably identifies with that’.
How credible is Sked as a witness? Just how honest is he?
“It’s obsession now is on immigration, race and Islam, all of which I deplore.”
But Sked himself has led many debates on Islam indicating he acknowledges there is a problem. In this video his debate is entitled ‘Islam or Liberalism: The way forward’:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HReIeH165EI
He explains his thinking behind the debates:
‘I thought this was a debate we should have so that we can come together and debate about the differences we have in the modern world.’
He was debating with the radical Islamist Hamza Tzortzis who explains his world view:
It’s a debate about politics…because it [Islam] effects all your life, we must have a serious and nuanced debate on the subject.
Liberalism has failed the economy, socially and on foreign policy. Islamic political values do not resonate anywhere at state level in the world…even Saudi Arabia does not operate in line with Islamic political philosophy.
All rules of Islam interconnect, you cannot implement one rule in isolation, it must be all or nothing.
Sked is one of those who lie to portray Islam as a religion of peace regardless of the evidence to the contrary……he tells us that the Koran is a book of peace, mercy, compassion and forgiveness and that for centuries Christians have taught that Islam is a violent and unforgiving faith, this simply isn’t true….He says he has no doubt that Islam, properly practised, is the way forward.
However, paradoxically, he goes on to reveal that all is not so peaceful and forgiving in the world of Islam saying:
‘Just because it is in the Koran doesn’t mean that if you implement it you won’t get anything other than dictatorship, murder and secret police, hangings…look in Tehran innocent children hang from cranes…..under Islamic scholars in the end you get theocratic dictatorship.’
And that:
‘The reason why Turks were so keen to join the EU was because they believed they would have stronger democratic rights than in an Islamic Turkey.’
Sked then makes a statement that reveals that he is prepared to lie in order to support his message about Islam ‘quoting’ from the Koran…..
‘Whosoever killeth a human being…” says the Koran, in the 32nd verse of its fifth chapter, “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.”
Unfortunately that is not what it says in the Koran and he knows that….that quote is about the ‘Israelites’ and not Muslims.
Mehdi Hasan and other Islamists are also prone to misquoting that verse.
And what about this:
‘We are not a pacifist religion. We don’t turn the other cheek. We hit back.’
Dr. Kalim Siddiqui, director of the Muslim Institute in London
Rather confirmed by this…..Sked asks his audience ‘What if someone leaves Islam…what would you do?’
They reply ‘Nothing.’
Sked then tells them he asked the same question to 100 Muslims the previous year and they all replied they would kill an apostate.
Sked then states that he is ‘all for Islam…I have the greatest possible respect for it.’ Though he went on to say he maybe against the political consequences that people drew from Islamic teaching and doctrine.
Further examples of his delusions or dishonesty:
‘We are not debating against Islam’ he said, going on to say ‘How wonderfully inclusive Islam is teaching that no one shall harm a Christian or Jew, there being no distinction between Muslims, Christians and Jews and there being no violence and no coercion in matters of faith.
The Muslim was not considered superior in any way in the Koran, God likes competition.
God does not want a caliphate.
The Koran is like the bible it teaches that you should turn the other cheek.
God is not interested in politics, God doesn’t want the world to be all Muslim, he wants the religions to compete.
Conversely he says…God wants you to live in peace.
A Muslim in the audience contradicted Sked saying that Islam is not about peace and it does want a caliphate and that Islam encompasses all…politics, justice, morality and religion.
So Sked is aware that there are problems with Islam just as UKIP is….but he is prepared to brush them under the carpet despite knowing of their existence…..just an example of how he is prepared to twist the truth in order to persuade others to side with his views…..and hence it is questionable whether his claims about Farage are based on fact or are merely an attempt to blacken Farage’s name and reputation y making accusations of racist language that no one can prove or disprove….however we can judge Sked’s character and the likelihood that he might lie by his actions.
There is absolutely no chance that Sked could be called an unbiased, impartial, disinterested character witness. He hates Farage and relentlessly does everything he can to smear him in the Media….as he admits himself.
So that’s yet another one of O’Brien’s anti-Farage attack points biting the dust.
James O’Brien had two bites of the apple in his attempt to traduce Farage’s reputation and smear him by a very loose association to Breivik, to make false claims about Farage’s business dealings, to make dishonest claims about Farage’s children, to make accusations of racism based on the highly suspect and bitter claims of Alan Sked, to make allegations of racism based upon his claims about Romanians.
O’Brien’s interview started from the premise that Farage was racist and Farage had to defend himself throughout against these baseless claims which were more often based on innuendo, lies, rumour and the prejudice of the interviewer.
O’Brien was not a credible or honest interviewer and his attempted follow-up ‘coup de grace’ in the Mail demonstrated just how dishonest he was prepared to be in order to smear and demonise Farage. Compare the actual interview and O’Brien’s write up in the Mail and the difference is clear.
Farage was pilloried by James O’Brien’s kangaroo court at LBC, the result of which was a media feeding frenzy with politicians queuing up to join in the lynching.
But as shown above O’Brien’s case against Farage was based upon rumour, innuendo, hostile ‘witnesses’, contorted thinking and deliberate mis-reading of events and a wilful intention to damage Farage as much as possible.
As you can also see, the BBC readily joined in the lynching with even an editor of its news channel urging voters not to vote for UKIP.
With every newspaper hounding Farage, all political parties also actively demonising UKIP and its voters, and the supposedly neutral and balanced BBC giving valuable support to the antis you have to ask what price democracy?
£145 seems to buy a bunch of little Hitlers grandstanding on our screens.
Our new friend ‘Hendy’, who also posts comments under the names of Rodrigo, Leonard, Marvin, Benji and Harvey, amongst many others, posts this bold claim:
Alan, you become more and more ludicrous with each post.
You must be the only one left defending Farage’s comments. Even the man himself isn’t anymore. You must be really, really tired in that case!
No one is defending Farage’s comments you say Hendy(et al)?
Romanian Mariana Gordan came to the UK 30 years ago as a refugee. Known left-wing sympathiser and Channel 4 interviewer Jon Snow “cut to the quick” and asked Ms. Gordan, who escaped imprisonment under Romanian tyrant Ceausescu, “How would you feel if somebody told you you would have to live next door to Nigel Farage?”
Gordan replied, “I would say he wasn’t far wrong about his… you know… I wouldn’t want to live next door to a bunch of unruly Romanians myself, whether in England or in Romania.”
“So to some extent he’s right?” probed Snow.
“Of course,” said Gordan, “…he was right, Romania is not a civilised country… this is not a race issue, I do not think Nigel Farage is racist. I think he’s learned something from this influx of Romanians, some of them because are mixed up with gypies… it’s just politically incorrect to call them gypies anymore… you can’t… we can’t even tell them apart. They have bad habits of exploiting their women and children and they are unruly”.
Challenged again by Snow, who was clearly seeking a different response, Gordan said: “My argument is not about race, it is about right and wrong. Britain is the most civilised country in the world and if people come here they should be civilised.”
‘Hendy’….you’re right…as always.
The real problem is ‘Hendy’ that you don’t understand the role of this site….it is after all called ‘Biased BBC’.
This isn’t about defending Farage per se, it’s about drawing attention to the contempt the media and political elite has for the Public….and the BBC has played a large role in the demonisation of UKIP and vilification of Farage…if only by staying quiet and not exploring the issues…such as O’Brien’s aggressive and dishonest interview.
That interview has achieved what O’Brien wanted…labelling Farage racist regardless of the facts and will now be part of the leftwing iconography allegedly providing proof positive that UKIP is a racist party.
The BBC should provide a balanced view of the parties but instead has joined in with the general vilification of UKIP.
Hi everyone. I have been away for a short break and even better, a complete break from the BBC. Just back in time to listen to the lead story on BBC Today this morning trot out some asinine excuses for Boko Haram’s actions in Nigeria. It appears that “Poverty” and the acts of the army are to blame for the savagery carried out there. Nothing to do with Islam, oh no…..
The most damaging (They hope) attacks on Nigel Farage were as a result of him being asked if he would like to have a house load of Romanian men move in next door to him…he said he wouldn’t appreciate that based on the evidence….this was leapt upon as proof of his racism when James O’Brien in his LBC interview with Farage raised this previous interview but added in his own little twist asking what would be the difference between a house load of Romanian men and one of German children? Farge said ‘You know the difference’.
It was clearly a nonsense comparison chosen because Farage’s wife is German and because Farage is unlikely to complain of children living next door…the difference between adult Romanian men and German children is stark and obvious.
What if Farage had said ‘students’? Would that have been more acceptable….given their well known anti-social behaviour? Surely you can object to certain groups living nearby based on evidence?
O’Brien claims that Farage’s concerns are racist for picking on one nationality, however what about O’Brien’s own wife?
Has he questioned and pilloried her for her prejudices against men?
Sometimes it seems hard to be a parent in the UK. Hard to get your kid into a decent state school; hard to be a working mum; hard to be a stay-at-home mum; and hard to protect your children against the paedophile who – according to newspaper headlines – is probably living next door but one. Sometimes it makes me start to panic.
Widely publicised cases involving British children such as the Soham murders or the death of James Bulger have helped us lose trust in one another. Although these incidences are as rare as they are shocking, they have surely influenced child-rearing in our country to a disproportionate degree.
So let’s be clear….Lucy, O’Brien’s wife, has an innate prejudice against male neighbours believing they could be paedophiles, the thought of which makes her panic. She has lost trust in men because of crimes committed by men on children and reported in the Media.
What is the difference between her position and Farage’s who bases his concerns on information supplied by the Metropolitan Police and Interpol as well as reports from places such a Sheffield where community tensions are high due to ‘neighbours from Hell’?
Attacks have confirmed Ukip leader as anti-establishment candidate, according to telephone polling and focus groups
Labour and Conservative polling is showing that attacks claiming Nigel Farage is a racist have backfired since voters do not regard him as such and see the assaults as a sign members of the political establishment are ganging up to undermine him.
The apparent backlash is coming to both parties from telephone polling and focus groups, which say that the attacks have raised Farage’s profile and confirmed him as the anti-establishment candidate. It does not tally with published opinion polls that show the Ukip lead in the European elections narrowing slightly.
One source said: “Calling people names does not work. It confirms the old politics.”
I don’t like UKIP or its leader, Nigel Farage. They are the Dad’s Army of British politics, doddery, farcical and very unclear about what they are actually for.
But they have Captain Mainwaring’s virtues too. They are absolutely certain about what they are against, in this case an aloof political establishment that despises the concerns of normal human beings.
They are also indomitable when under attack. And they need to be. I have taken a close interest in British politics since I was a schoolboy, and I have never seen a more disgraceful alliance between politicians and their media toadies than the one that has been secretly made to do down UKIP.
On one day last week, almost every unpopular newspaper carried a cartoon portraying Nigel Farage as ugly, stupid or embattled, or all three.
Last Wednesday, the insider magazine Private Eye also claimed that the Leftist daily The Guardian had made a secret deal with the Tory Party, which claims to be conservative.
The Tories, it was alleged, had promised the favourite newspaper of the liberal elite a steady supply of damaging stories about UKIP candidates saying daft things (Tories, of course, never say daft things). In return, the newspaper had promised to avoid identifying the source.
Such stories are immediately picked up by BBC radio and TV news channels, which view The Guardian as sacred text. Asked about the allegation, The Guardian drew itself up to its full height and snapped: ‘The Guardian does not disclose its sources.’ (A certain Sarah Tisdall, who went to prison 30 years ago after The Guardian handed over documents that disclosed her as its source, might disagree.)
Well, there you have it. The Tory Party and The Guardian (and the BBC) are all united against UKIP. That would seem the best possible reason to vote UKIP. It also tells you who and what the Conservative Party really is.
The BBC in its news brief on Sunday (5mins 15 secs) was highly slective in its quotes…..it quotes the Mirror on UKIP saying it has uncovered ‘Racist, anti-Semitic and anti-gay rants’
They then select this quote from Hitchen’s piece: [Ukip are] ‘doddery, farcical and very unclear about what they are actually for.’
And then quote the Sunday People calling UKIP ‘a bunch of racist loonies’
It the goes on to reveal that the Observer (The Guardian) wants you to know how the wonderful EU has brought us equal pay, improved human rights and parental rights at work.
Nice final touch…a bit of pro-EU propaganda.
Hitchens then complained about his views being misrepresented:
I invite readers to follow the link (below) to today’s news Briefing’. At about 5.40 a.m., it quotes from my column item about UKIP, which (as you can see from the blog posting immediately before this) concerned the ganging up of the Tories and the left-wing media to attack UKIP in an unprecedented fashion, and whose headline pretty much urges people to vote UKIP.
Now, please listen to the extract from my article which was broadcast, and ask yourselves if this is in any way an accurate reflection of what I wrote or (in the context of the other extracts from other newspapers broadcast alongside it) a proper exercise of the BBC’s absolute duty of impartiality (specifically required by the Royal Charter which establishes the BBC and allows it to levy the licence fee) in matters of current controversy, and especially in party political matters, and even more especially party political matters during the weeks immediately before an election.
Tedious technical problems have prevented me from posting news of an extraordinary development in my latest tussle with the BBC.
They have, promptly and apparently without reservations, apologised for misrepresenting me in ‘News Briefing’ on Radio 4 on Sunday morning.
The apology runs thus :‘ We acknowledge that the quote used in the paper review did not accurately reflect the full nature of your article. We apologise, and would like to assure you that your concerns were raised with the relevant editorial staff at BBC News.’
Obviously, this can only be the start. The clear and swift admission of fault by the BBC only strengthens my desire to pursue the matter, since the action has much wider significance than my annoyance at being misrepresented.
How did this happen? How was it a) done and b) approved for transmission?
What about the context? Why were the articles selected for the press review all hostile to UKIP (except mine, which was made to seem so)?
And what about the breach of due impartiality, enjoined on the BBC in its Charter and especially important in the days immediately before an election?
I have submitted a further complaint, pointing out that these matters have not been dealt with. I will let readers know what happens.
With the election just 4 days away at the time of the broadcast the BBC was clearly playing politics in this little broadcast.
The Springwatch co-host and outspoken naturalist, Chris Packham, declared that economic growth is a ‘recipe for disaster’ and blamed Christianity for allowing humans to think that they can exploit the planet’s resources.
So pretty much the normal BBC view of the world then.
The Submarine Service is often called the ‘Silent Service’ but perhaps that could be as well applied to the BBC whose silence on matters Miliband is remarkable and where all his inglorious episodes sink without trace having made hardly a ripple in the BBC news at all….despite the most recent inglorious escapade having actually happened in a local BBC radio station interview.
Two stories came out today that shed an unflattering light on the real Miliband who doesn’t know who the leader of Swindon’s Labour Party is despite going to campaign there on his behalf, nor the cost of a week’s shopping despite campaigning on that very subject:
Ed Miliband endured a nightmare day on the campaign trail today after following up a blundering TV interview with a car crash local radio appearance.
The Labour leader was this morning accused of being ‘out of touch with reality’ after appearing not to have any idea how much he spends on a weekly shop.
He was then left embarrassed on the BBC’s Radio Wiltshire when forced to admit he did not know the local Labour leader – even though he was supposed to be campaigning for him.
Mr Miliband was speaking to Swindon’s local radio ahead of the council elections on Thursday.
He was asked by radio host Ben Prater what he made of Jim Grant, the leader of Swindon’s Labour party.
Mr Miliband responded: ‘I beg your pardon?’
The radio presenter said: ‘Grant, do you think he has done a good job?’
The Labour leader replied: ‘I think that lots of Labour representatives are doing a good job right across the country.’
Mr Prater then asked whether he knew who Jim Grant was, but all Mr Miliband could say was: ‘You will enlighten me I am sure.’
The radio host then said: ‘Swindon Labour leader.’
A flustered Mr Miliband then claimed: ‘Yeah I think he is doing a good job.’
But Mr Prater asked how the Labour chief in Swindon could possibly feel supported if his national leader did not ‘even know his name’.
Mr Miliband replied: ‘Well he is doing a good job as leader of the council, Jim is, and I think that is the case.’
He added: ‘I know that Jim is doing a good job for Swindon and I think he is doing a good job as leader of the council.’
But the presenter was forced to intervene again to point out that Mr Grant is not the leader of the council – because it is a Conservative led council.
Mr Miliband said: ‘I think he is doing a good job for Labour on the council.’
To be fair of course everybody thinks ed Miliband is called David Miliband…wishful thinking perhaps from many.
Ah look…the BBC has reported Miliband’s little trouble, or at least one part of it….
Can you see the story? It’s not on the Frontpage, nor the UK page, not even on the England page….you have to go to the West & South West page, then click on Wiltshire and you get this
You will note that clicking on this takes you back to the Politics page…and you will think hang on I’ve checked that page and nothing….except you’d be wrong because hidden in plain sight is this:
See it yet? No…well look at the ‘Watch/Listen’ box…still nothing? Then click on the scroll button and finally you will find the story.
Not as if the BBC want to make it as difficult as possible to find a story that makes Miliband look a complete prat is it?
You can guarantee if Cameron had such an interview it would be headline news and the subject of ribald commentary from BBC presenters and comedians for days if not weeks after.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/england/
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
LoobylooNov 16, 22:27 Weekend 16th November 2024 The Telegraph is odd – almost like it wants to wind up its readers – has done hit job articles…
StewGreenNov 16, 22:19 Weekend 16th November 2024 Yes I woke up this morning to The Art Of Law channel saying “Oh Guardian screwed up it’s a different…
StewGreenNov 16, 21:44 Weekend 16th November 2024 The word “Breaking” is misleading, since the video is from October 2023. If the word BREAKING in capital letters appears…
ZephirNov 16, 21:14 Weekend 16th November 2024 [img]https://i.postimg.cc/4NpLmy5f/449929311-793342316325729-1201513957841364840-n.jpg[/img]
ZephirNov 16, 21:13 Weekend 16th November 2024 [img]https://i.postimg.cc/VsrHPD0b/66d6cadb23da0.jpg[/img]
ZephirNov 16, 21:08 Weekend 16th November 2024 And the bbc [img]https://i.postimg.cc/G29YnT4c/il-300×300-6297044344-buya.avif[/img]
StewGreenNov 16, 21:02 Weekend 16th November 2024 as tweeted by the BBC cut PR woman Laura .. https://x.com/LauraPh222/status/1637094267792367616
StewGreenNov 16, 20:58 Weekend 16th November 2024 your facts are probably different from “BBC facts” [img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GcgS64zXUAAPYbv?format=jpg&name=small[/img]
MarkyMarkNov 16, 20:55 Weekend 16th November 2024 Thinking of hate is a crime worthy of the police – the act they are not interested in!
